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.
Ditto's. Bush is correct.
I don't agree with the President on this (I only support abortion in the event that the life of the mother is in jeopardy), but I can't bash him for his personal beliefs. He has been, largely, pro-life and he has kept his promise to us on the courts. He delivered with Roberts and Alito, and it took a man to admit his mistake with Miers and come back with Alito afterwards.
Ultimately, the best that we can hope for is leaders like the President who recognize that the Constitution does NOT guarantee a right to an abortion, and that, regardless of whether he agrees with the law, South Dakota is perfectly entitled to enact a law that bans all abortions other than those where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Also, kudos to the President for recognizing the "health" exception trap that the liberals like to use. "Health" is so broad and vague as to be meaningless.
In the Old Testament, this is exactly what would have happened. The rapist would have been stoned and the child and his/her mother would have lived.
Today we murder the innocent and protect the guilty in way too many cases.
Amamzing how some people can be played like a violin by a misleading headline in the liberal media.
You have been ignoring the child's side this thread. I guess killing a child is not obscene in your book.
To quote someone from earlier in the thread:
"FReeper, please."
Hon, go away. You couldn't even articulate the difference between a headline and the president's consistent message.
Anecdotal evidence of this type is worthless.
He should have just said, "It is up to the States to set abortion law, not the Supreme Court."
States have to obey the Constitution.
Not really. The woman will have to live the rest of her life knowing not only that she was raped, but that she killed her baby. The first act is easier to bear psychologically, since it was not her choice.
And of course, the baby is wholly innocent, and should not be put to death for the crime of another.
Baby? Don't you know this is about the woman's feelings to the exclusion of everything else?
Whoa whoa whoa! Hold on, let's not get all crazy now!
Remeber, this is all about the woman? The men/husbands are just supposed to shut up if their child is killed or provide cash if it is not.
From the first line of the story:
US President George W. Bush signalled his opposition to a South Dakota abortion ban....
Hmm, I guess I'm not the one with a reading comprehension problem.
I will weigh in on this debate, but only to this extent: President Bush is not inconsistent just b/c he believes abortion is the taking of a human life while he agrees with legal exceptions for rape and incest.
On the former he is taking the correct scientific and moral position as to what constitutes human life.
I disagree with those who say it is not taking human life if it is a first trimester abortion. Or a morning after pill...whatever. But with all things you have to look at the possible, which is what Bush is doing. Most abortions are not because of rape and incest. Outlawing most abortions would be a tremendous advance. Nobody else has come close to getting this done since Roe.
Bush knows that outlawing all abortions except for life of the mother would be a poison pill and doom chances everywhere of drastically limiting abortions. If he disagrees with the SD bill, that is why. It is not b/c he thinks every rape and incest case should end in abortion. He just is not willing to propose a LAW OF THE LAND at this point to outlaw abortion even in such cases. For very real and valid pragmatic reasons.
Again, it is not that he favors abortion in such cases. There is a huge difference, whether some of you people want to admit it or not.
You're right. Sorry.
Some freepers were expounding last night that the president has turned on his base, and he's always held out that exceptions should be made.
My going away will not change the fact that you have consistently ignored that there is an innocent child involved in all of this.
But, that child must be sacrificed at the altar of a woman's feelings.
You'll not change my mind about this and I have no desire to change yours.
If you have a problem with it, take it up with the president. I'm proud to stand with him and agree with his comments about exceptions.
Care to comment?
.....
You know what Peach? I'm sorry too. I apologize for my combativeness toward you. This is an issue that gets a person's blood up and things get said in a way they normally wouldn't say them.
So I'm sorry for posting to you in a jerky manner.
I still disagree with you, but I think I can express it better than I have the last couple of posts.
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.