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.
LOL. I know he doesn't need any "cheerleaders," but you're talking about easily the most witty, intelligent poster I've come across here. Find someone who's not only uniquely brilliant, but also as consistently hysterical as Petronski. You'll be looking for a long while.
Every abortion is more than a tragic decision.
Once we accept the humanity of the unborn, how can we say any child can be killed?
You are trying to substitute emotionalism and hyperbole for an argument. Don't waste time being "offended" by her use of analogy, don't waste time being "SHOCKED" that someone of the "female persuasion" could possibly be moral and make decisions rationally and morally, not emotionally.
Yep your right, when you think about it, he has nothing to lose, except alienating his base a bit. He may have a chance to appoint another supreme so he doesn't need any flack on the abortion issue mugging up the choice, BTW I had reply 7 removed it was dumb and uncalled for, weren't the first time I stepped in it, cheers.
The same way we "accept" MORE traffic fatalities every year - do whatever we can to reduce them, short of throwing the baby (sorry) out with the bathwater.
The real world is full of surprises. This new law is far less rigorous than the Texas law voiced by Roe v. Wade and it reflects actual practice in the state today. The message needs to be got out that this is the way it should be settled: state by state. The overthrow of Roe has never meant anything more than a return to local option. The Republican response should always be: Let the people decide, whether it be a matters of abortion or gay marriage or prayers in the schools.
Cheers
the INNOCENT humanity of the unborn...
or else guys like me will say "Well, John Wayne Gacy was human too...what gives us the right...yada, yada."
the innocence of the unborn is crucial for your argument.
Good idea.
Again, BIG difference:
Traffic fatalities are accidents. There is nothing accidental about abortion, but it's just as fatal.
It's not the woman's fault either.
You have got to be joking ......
Agreed, and I'm not suggesting she be killed, either.
Way to bottom line it, Bro!
well to listen to some of these women you'd think you were suggesting just that....oy!
There have to be exceptions... extreme cases. Abortion is not birth control, but to ban it completely is definitely not the right thing to do.
Well said.........an island of sanity in an ocean of extremism and lost souls.
It seemed like a serious statement to me.
Don't make me call Acme for new rockets! ;O)
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.