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.
And cases of people impregnated by rape are rare to, but it's an issue that must be addressed, don't you agree?
I have a friend who is the result of her Mother being raped. Would you tell her to her face that she doesn't deserve to live?
It is so easy to say it when typing on a keyboard!
I think this test case is not going to end well.
OH WOW. I really wish I has thought to say that. I am still laughing about this line. Going to chuckle for days remembering this one.
This is the tough one. But, if one really believes what you have is life as soon as a child is conceived, isn't it murder to kill that child?
Maybe some kind of morning-after pill exception with proper and immediate reporting of the crime to authorities, and parents if the girl is under age 18. But it would have to be strictly enforced and not become a loophole.
One can't help but wonder if there would be less cases of rape if abortion weren't an option.
See #56 a rape victim (or anyone else for that matter) could get emergency contraception under this bill.
Ever hear of adoption?
So, a woman who has been brutally violated now must totally change her life for nine months, not to mention the physical challenges and hardships ... we won't even get into family relationships...what if she's married? Other children? What about THEIR lives?
Nope. Bush has been doing the right thing. IF the Whine All The Time Choir is offended by the right thing, tough crap to the losers. If it was not this, it would be something else they would be whining about. The point is the onese screaming the loudest about the Base were never on our side to start with.
Get a hold of your "feelings" personally and don't be so dependent upon others to form them you "conservative" you...
Nice try, it works wonders at the DU but not at FR.
If you can't, then at least insist that your "johns" wear a condom.
What does W not understand about the 10th amendment and federalism? I was rather dismayed by the administration's amicus brief before the Supreme Court with regards to the lawsuit filed by Anna Nicole Smith. For once the Ninth Circus had a stopped clock moment and correctly ruled that the federal bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction. I feel sorry for Anna that she had to declare bankruptcy, but whether or not she is entitled to such a large portion of her late husband's estate is a matter for state law not federal law.
President Bush is consistent in in view. I'm surprised so many have a problem with consistency.
this test case will be tossed by lower courts based on precedent, and the SCOTUS will decline to hear it.
Roberts is not stupid. he knows he is one vote short, and doesn't want to alienate Kennedy, who would be willing to go along with restrictions on late term and parental consent laws, but not toss Roe with respect to adult women in the first 10 weeks.
So, the morning after pill is ok by you? So as long as you don't know about the baby, right? Interesting.
Yes, as is, the Supreme Court would defeat it 5-4, unless someone steps down. I think Stevens is something like 89 years old, and he wants to wait for a Democrat president before stepping down (he has an excellent chance of seeing one very soon).
Looking at it objectively, there can be no case for abortion in the case of rape.
Three people are involved: mother, 'father' and child. The man is the guilty party. No-one else should be punished, much less executed.
In the same way, if abortion is murder, should abortion doctors and the women who get abortions go to trial for murder? Should the sentence for abortion be any different than the sentence for murdering someone who has been born?
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.