Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush disagrees with South Dakota abortion ban
AFP ^ | 1 March 2006

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionban; deadbabies; freepertimewarp; incest; misleadingheadline; presidentbush; rape; readthearticle; southdakota
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 1,061-1,073 next last
To: DuckFan4ever
"A person who writes as you do is not worth worrying about."

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.

641 posted on 02/28/2006 9:04:00 PM PST by jdm (I do not allow any liberal to swim, er, ride in my car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: clawrence3

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?


642 posted on 02/28/2006 9:04:18 PM PST by Aussie Dasher (The Great Ronald Reagan & John Paul II - Heaven's Dream Team!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: LasVegasMac

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.


643 posted on 02/28/2006 9:05:43 PM PST by DameAutour (I'm uniquely one of us and one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

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.


644 posted on 02/28/2006 9:05:47 PM PST by boomop1 (there you go again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

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.


645 posted on 02/28/2006 9:06:00 PM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

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.


646 posted on 02/28/2006 9:06:35 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: HoustonCurmudgeon

Cheers


647 posted on 02/28/2006 9:06:43 PM PST by boomop1 (there you go again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I'm sorry, I know how alot of you feel, but to make a woman carry a baby conceived from rape is so incredibly wrong.

"Rape", "incest" and "health" are intangible. Therefore when they are made exceptions, everybody just claims "rape" or "incest" and a "ban" becomes meaningless. But pregnancy is only temporary. Abortion is permanent. Better that a few be temporarily inconvenienced than millions die. If you cannot accept that, then you must accept being pro-abortion. (I suspect you are completely pro-abortion anyway but are only raising the specter of rape in order to undermine other's positions.)
648 posted on 02/28/2006 9:07:01 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

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.


649 posted on 02/28/2006 9:07:04 PM PST by Will_Zurmacht
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA

Good idea.


650 posted on 02/28/2006 9:07:44 PM PST by TigersEye (Walk as if your footsteps shake the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: clawrence3

Again, BIG difference:

Traffic fatalities are accidents. There is nothing accidental about abortion, but it's just as fatal.


651 posted on 02/28/2006 9:07:45 PM PST by Aussie Dasher (The Great Ronald Reagan & John Paul II - Heaven's Dream Team!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

It's not the woman's fault either.


652 posted on 02/28/2006 9:09:21 PM PST by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

You have got to be joking ......


653 posted on 02/28/2006 9:09:34 PM PST by FRONTLINER ( Out with the RINO'S ! Defeat Mike DeWhine in the primary !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wireman

Agreed, and I'm not suggesting she be killed, either.


654 posted on 02/28/2006 9:10:20 PM PST by Aussie Dasher (The Great Ronald Reagan & John Paul II - Heaven's Dream Team!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
Once we accept the humanity of the unborn, how can we say any child can be killed?

Way to bottom line it, Bro!

655 posted on 02/28/2006 9:10:21 PM PST by TigersEye (Walk as if your footsteps shake the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

Comment #656 Removed by Moderator

To: Aussie Dasher

well to listen to some of these women you'd think you were suggesting just that....oy!


657 posted on 02/28/2006 9:11:15 PM PST by eeevil conservative (Seeking to marry a RICH MALE CHAUVANIST PIG! Cedar Dave admits to being 2 of the 4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: oolatec
But shouldn't the wishes of the would-be mother be taken into account as well? If she were forced to have a child because of a rape, that would be pretty rough. Imagine looking into the eyes of your child and reliving that moment... over and over again.

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.

658 posted on 02/28/2006 9:13:02 PM PST by LasVegasMac (High octane gas and lots of horse power.....Let's do it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FRONTLINER

It seemed like a serious statement to me.


659 posted on 02/28/2006 9:13:05 PM PST by DameAutour (I'm uniquely one of us and one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: cgk
Yes, I watch a lot of kids movies. What about it? :P

Don't make me call Acme for new rockets! ;O)

660 posted on 02/28/2006 9:13:42 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 1,061-1,073 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson