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.
I've got to call 'BS' on this one. You can still get DNA evidence from an aborted fetus/baby. So no evidence is being destroyed.
I can see a rape victim not wanting to carry the baby to term, as it would be a constant reminder of the episode of rape.
I've heard, and somewhat agree with the sentiment of "why punish the baby for the rapist's crime?" But I still would have to side with the rape victim should she choose to abort.
Perhaps a system (not to trivialize rape or abortion) similar to a car insurance claim? If the victim reports the rape to the police within a certain time frame, then abortion is an option.
I haven't thought this option through thoroughly, so don't slam me too quickly.
Are you a man? I suspect so. That's so easy for you to say.
"Rape, incest, and the life of the mother,"
Kill the rapist. Spare the child.
Why kill the baby when it is completely innocent but the mother will die then?
The abortion issue should be simple. Do you believe a fetus is a human or not. If so then you should be against it in all cases, if not, then you should be pro choice.
In the orginal post it said it would ban emergency contraceptive, is that true? Because the morning after pill is NOT abortion, it acts like(and is the same chemical as )regular birth control bills, by preventing the release of an egg,
Sigh. It has nothing to do with how I feel. Killing innocent children is wrong. Period. I don't care if the other side thinks that I am looney for pointing this out to them. As long as children are being dismembered we must speak out against it.
As I said, I can view it objectively.
Did you even vote for Bush?
Yes, especially since abortion adds to the trama and psychological damage of the rape. The idea that committing murder is somehow going to help a rape victim has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
No how about you answer my question: Why do you want to punish the child for the sins of the Father?
Some here would be very surprised, I think, at the number of non-conservative young people who find abortion repulsive. If they see it gradually restricted--as opposed to one fell swoop--I think they can be brought along.
Did I ever say it was OK with me.
I'm just defending the bill.
And while I do not defend the morning after pill, I do think it would be a less gruesome choice than stopping a beating heart (heart beats start at 21 days)
Your stay here won't last long.
A South Dakota FReeper (sorry I don't recall their screen name) said the other day this bill would NOT end abortions, that it was so badly worded and rushed through the legislature, that probably even the legislators have no clue what the bill entails.
BTTT
It's so easy to talk about someone's wife, sister, or daughter being raped when you're sitting in front of a keyboard, you mean -- that is extremely rude at the very least, bring up that kind of fun hypothetical to someone's face you might not like the consequences.
But the anger one should feel when someone they love is raped is properly directed toward the rapist, not toward killing the innocent baby.
the extreme position would be to ban abortion in every case." Life" of the mother is a bigger loophole than you seem to concede. It would cover all medical emergencies. Rape, incest, and certain "health" are all pure judgement calls.
We will see who is lying come November. By then everyone running for office will be running away from South Dakota's ban on Abortion.
Because the child is innocent and does not deserve to be murdered for the sins of his or her father.
They have always been the political fringes and merely look for the next excuse to whine about Bush. They like to pretend to be the base but in reality the daily whiners have never been on our side. When all they do is whine about everything, no one has any need to pay any attention to them. If it was not this, it would be something else they would be whining about. The fact is all this chest thumbing by self proclaimed "members of the base" is demonstrated to be fraud by their 100% opposition to Bush NO MATTER what the topic. This "oh you are alienating the base" is just more nonsense from the 100%ers. If not this, it would be somethingelse they would whine on.
Who said we shouldn't?
If you feel good talking in such a way that perpetuates abortion, while a calmer approach would lead to STOPPING abortions, then you're sacrificing justice for personal vanity.
No thanks--I'd rather end abortion than beat my chest and tell everyone how moral I was.
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.