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.
Legally, it could be possible to do so. That would be up for debate. Realistically, it would not happen. Many conservatives do advocate for the overturn on RvW on the very grounds I mentioned--non-federal/state's rights. it would be hypocritical to then turn around and try and federalize another part of it.
IMHO, it's a state's issue, period.
I'm pretty sure Slavery and Segregation were pretty established law in some form...for a while at least.
Slavery in some form for several centuries, Segregation in some form from Post-Reconstruction until the Civil Rights movement.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on campus.
But anyhow, if we're going to have a proper blood-feud, screaming match on FreeRepublic, lets keep it on abortion.
(Man I almost miss the great AHNULD-McClintock hate fest....)
Maybe you aren't a part of his base. I don't feel bashed. I want spending reduced more than he has and I'd like much tighter borders. If you feel bashed, maybe it's because you aren't a part of the base.
But it was a horrible thing that was widely accepted and practiced throughout the country. A difference here, and I'm sure I'll get flamed, is that slavery and segregation did not have death as the objective, whereas abortion does.
In one State. In a country with the most advanced transportation system and freedoms to move States the world has ever known. So, no, we are not "forcing" her in the sense where she is locked up for 9 months, strapped to a gurney and fed through an IV until she gives birth.
LOL!
Well it is a nice break from the Dubai debate....
LOL!
Right. I hate it when threads divert into other areas of discussion.
I guess that means I shouldn't bring up dancing coconuts....
Of course not, that's exaggerating the point.
I don't know - I'm neither a doctor nor a statistician - what I do know without being either one of those is that an embryo implanted in a mother's Fallopian tube is going to result in either 1 or 2 deaths.
Start a thread in chat, if I'm interested, I'll mosey on over there. ;)
I agree 100%. And to anyone who wants to flame me, go ahead.
LOL!!!
Your post is excellent. We are almost there and the strident among us should not blow this in the eleventh hour by sounding so harsh and unmoved by a possible victim of rape,incest or a serious disease. I would never want to force a woman that was raped to bear that child, that is her decision alone. Incest is the same. I want ever single baby to have a chance to live,but what I want and what is reality are two different things. Rapists are many times mental cases ,loaded with disease, and it is cruel to make a woman go through 9 months of remembering every day how she got that way and in many cases hating the child, fearing the sickness in his head that drove him to this unspeakable crime will be passed to his spawn. It is her call, because we are not God. This is an answer to a question that was asked of the President and he gave his Standard answer. I have been pro-life my entire life, and I believe that the life does begin at conception, having said that, there is no way any human being should force another to go through this without their consent.
Make no mistake, I do not believe in abortion.
A child is supposed to be the end result of love between a man and woman - the married type.
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.
A woman gets raped, and she is commited to carrying the pregenancy through - ?
And BTW, the rapist is called a "RAPIST", not "the childs father".
IMHO - Yes, abortion is fully acceptable in cases of health concerns for the mother and......
RAPE.
You want to condem the mother TO ACCEPT what an asshole did to her ?
You have a big bustle in your hedgerow, get it straightened out - ASAP.
yup...
but NOTHING wrong with her killing an innocent child, eh?
I guess your defintion of "Sainthood" is a woman who has been raped.....
interesting...
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.