Posted on 02/28/2006 6:36:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
US President George W. Bush signalled his opposition to a South Dakota abortion ban that forbids the procedure even in cases of rape or incest, saying he favors such exceptions.
But Bush declined to predict the outcome of any legal challenges to the legislation, which would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy except in rare cases when it may be necessary to save the life of the mother.
"That, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: Rape, incest, and the life of the mother," the US president told ABC news in an interview.
Asked whether he would include "health" of the mother, Bush replied: "I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office."
The bill, which recently gained final approval from South Dakota's House of Representatives, directly contradicts the precedent set in 1973 when the US Supreme Court ruled that bans on abortion violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy.
The bill grants no allowances for women who have been raped or are victims of incest. Doctors who perform abortion would be charged with a crime. It also prohibits the sale of emergency contraception and asserts that life begins at fertilization.
The governor of South Dakota has indicated he is likely to sign the bill.
A leading pro-choice advocacy group has already vowed to challenge the ban in federal court. But that seems to be exactly what many promoters of the legislation seek.
Advocates of the ban do not deny they aim much higher than South Dakota, a rural and socially conservative state, which even today has only one abortion clinic.
Instead, they are hoping the bill will offer a full frontal assault on legal abortions now that the balance of power in the Supreme Court appears to have shifted with the confirmation of conservative jurists John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom are seen as pro-life.
Well you must have mistaken me for some one who gives a shi*.
No one said we were forcing her to carry the baby - she just could not live in South Dakota and abort that baby, that's all.
According to the last stats I saw (and it's very tough to get any sort of accurate number), the rape and incest argument is bogus as less than 5% of those sorts of pregnancies are rape or incest caused.
The feminazis raised it to emotionalize the issue. In order to keep their bed-hopping "Sex and the City" lifestyle safe, they must preserve that final, after-the-fact method of disposing of an unwanted "cell mass" called abortion.
Must work: Bush fell for it.
In the article you reference, maternal causes of death include "complications of unsafe abortion". Perhaps that is also the reason for the rise in pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. in the past 5 years, hmm?
You have a low opinion of men.
Bush. The new squishy 2006 model. All he needs now is an adequate supply of white flags.
I did not change subjects.
I asked you if killing children because of the crimes of someone else is right.
You replied that it is legal.
I replied that slavery and segregation were legal too. Meaning that just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
That is NOT changing the subject.
I've noticed many of these women don't really want to talk to me about this! LOL!
they find it much easier to attack men....
I (finally) agree with you - I think it is clear Scalia would not impose a federal ban on all abortions - I doubt Chief Justice Roberts would either.
Amazing isn't it? Rather than killing their kids some mother sell them.
By abolishing abortion your forcing her to.
ain't THAT the truth...
I don't agree with the president's statements on this, but don't find them totally unreasonable either.
I can see where a woman may not want to carry a child who is the result of rape or incest.
There would be a SPECIAL place in heaven to the woman that gives life to a child after being raped.....the same place in heaven where mothers that die in childbirth......total selflessness.........SAINTHOOD.
The child did nothing wrong - do I need to explain "justifiable homicide" again to you?
I replied that slavery and segregation wasn't federal law, but state rights. Roe v. Wade is federal law and not state rights. I believe states should decide, not the federal government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.