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 ... 861-880881-900901-920 ... 1,061-1,073 next last
To: AppyPappy

How can he not consent? When he has sex, there is always a possibility of conception.


881 posted on 03/01/2006 6:55:04 AM PST by lesser_satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Who is sending Bush his talking points these days?

You have to wonder, as this thread is approaching 900 posts and has become a secular vs. religious food fight. The last thing the President needs to do is further fracture his (and the GOP's) support base, much of which is opposed to having a Dubai based firm managing several ports and displeased with over five years of inaction over border control.

882 posted on 03/01/2006 6:59:28 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 864 | View Replies]

To: Walkin Man
I don't justify abortion in any case. You're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm a complete and strong pro-lifer.

And as such, I want abortion to END. But I also know that many pro-life people want the exception of rape and murder in any legislation, and that without those exceptions, the legislation WILL NOT PASS.

President Bush has done more to turn the tide against abortion than any President, and we are the cusp of making major progress, largely because of him.

Wake up. Do you want major progress or NO progress? Because if you refuse to allow any exceptions in legislation, we will go nowhere.

We are on the edge of ending this evil, and it is disgusting to see people supposedly on the side of LIFE, getting in the way of making real progress.

883 posted on 03/01/2006 7:05:02 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 880 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
I'm a complete and strong pro-lifer.

You just think its ok to abort innocent babies in the womb in case of rape or incest though, right?

Doesn't sound to complete to me but whatever.

Whats to stop a person from aborting a baby for convenience then if the taking of innocent human life can be justified because of rape or incest?

884 posted on 03/01/2006 7:17:38 AM PST by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 883 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

"I could be wrong, but President Bush seems to be going out of his way to antagonize his base this past week or so..."

Or fire up the base. As a coach I used to do that to my team. I would align them against me and they tended to come together better and play better. Herb Brooks used to do that also.

Good motivational tool in a team environment.


885 posted on 03/01/2006 7:20:34 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walkin Man
You just think its ok to abort innocent babies in the womb in case of rape or incest though, right?

No. I don't. I am against abortion in all cases. I do not think that the child should be punished for the sin of the father, and I think that the guilt a woman deals with following the murder of her child is far greater than the inconvenience of carrying that child to term.

I am a complete and strong pro-lifer, as I said.

Now please go back and read what I said about President Bush's pro-life stance with that in mind.

886 posted on 03/01/2006 7:22:59 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 884 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
However, I understand that there are many who are pro-life who disagree with that, and I also understand that a pro-life bill with no exceptions would fail. FAIL.

This bill is designed to go to the Supreme Court on purpose. There is a similar bill brewing in the Ohio legislature.

In both cases, the bills are crafted to have certain strengths and certain weaknesses. They are designed to have points that will cause them to be challenged. Designed. The intent is to use one of these two if not others as a challenge to Roe.

But there is a method to the madness of the South Dakota and the pending Ohio bills.

887 posted on 03/01/2006 7:24:34 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 871 | View Replies]

To: CWW
I jsut hope she isn't the baby that God designed to cure cancer. Out of all the arguments against abortion, that's the dumbest.
888 posted on 03/01/2006 7:27:46 AM PST by Hildy (The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
And the one in Mississippi that just passed, with the exceptions?

Are they going to converge at some point and a consensus made? Is the one in Mississippi designed to get to the SC as well?

Is that the plan, as you see it (or know it ;)?

889 posted on 03/01/2006 7:37:02 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 887 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Clarification. The one in Mississippi just passed the house committee.

Sorry about that. Too much in a hurry.

890 posted on 03/01/2006 7:46:17 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 887 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
I can only go by what I heard the sponsor of the Ohio bill say on a Christian talk radio show. If you can pick up WRFD-AM in Columbus between 3 & 6 pm where you are ( the station has a strong signal everywhere with the exception of the extreme northeastern, eastern and southeastern part of the state and spill over into portions of Indiana, Michigan and Kentucky in the Cincy area), the sponsor of the Ohio bill is on periodically and it's talked about frequently

I think there are a number of states that have pending or have begun to draft laws that are designed to be challenged. How many will make it to a Governor for signature is unknown, or for that matter how many will ever be signed.

But they are designed to have stregnths that will stand and throw away weaknesses that will invite a legal challenge. The hope is for one, and the strongest, to have a Supreme Court challenge that will ripple into the tenants of that supposedly allowed Roe v Wade, despite its strengths or flaws, to become law.

891 posted on 03/01/2006 7:54:26 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 889 | View Replies]

To: jamily

It was good that you posted that.

However, your basic instinct was correct: that is a child, no less than any other child.

And so, although it is tempting to allow an exception for rape, it's wrong. You did the right thing, and have the benefit of it. But the law should not allow the wrong thing as an option.


892 posted on 03/01/2006 7:56:02 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: buffmonster
Not that I would know what a cheap 2 bit hooker feels like.

Odd, since you sound most assuredly like a cheap 2 bit hooker.

893 posted on 03/01/2006 7:57:19 AM PST by mtntop3 ("He who must know before he believes will never come to full knowledge.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Oh........OK. That makes sense. I knew one was pending here in Ohio, but I didn't know what the 'master plan' was.

I should be able to get that Columbus station (I can get 610 clearly). What number is it on the radio?

With multiple states working on it, and millions of us praying, and with the majority of Americans opposing abortion, Lord willing, we will see an end to this holocaust in the next few years.

Thanks for the info.

894 posted on 03/01/2006 7:59:24 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: ksen

"States have to obey the Supreme Court."

"States have to obey the Constitution."

Of course they have to obey the Constitution. But in practical terms of today's jurisprudence, the States are bound by the Supreme Court's decisions...have been since Marbury. So our theoretical ranting don't matter (ie, a state can't make abortion illegal until the Supreme Court says that's okay).


895 posted on 03/01/2006 8:07:17 AM PST by RebekahT ("Our government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: RebekahT

"So our theoretical ranting don't matter (ie, a state can't make abortion illegal until the Supreme Court says that's okay)."

Unless a state goes in a new direction and, on having its law struck down by the Supreme Court, simply defies the court and enforces its law anyway. This will, needless to say, touch off a national constitutional crisis, but it's not clear how that would play out. It would depend on the issue.

If the issue were one in which the Supreme Court took an extremely unpopular decision and a state defied the federal courts and did its own thing, it is by no means a slam-dunk that, in an election year, an incumbent party would automatically muster any sort of force, political or federal marshalls, to go out and try and enforce an unpopular Supreme Court order against that party's own electoral base.

Instead, the President might IGNORE the violation of the federal law. This happens all the time, on lesser issues. But if it were a great towering issue, that the public focused on, nullification would be seen to have WORKED, and the whole balance of power in the land would shift.


896 posted on 03/01/2006 8:17:41 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: TruthSetsUFree
"In the Old Testament, this is exactly what would have happened"

They also would have stoned her if she failed to cry out (Deuteronomy 22:23). If your arguing for instituting O.T. law, expect me to fight your tooth and nail.
897 posted on 03/01/2006 8:21:01 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 843 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

they can do that now, because they know that the part of these laws affecting adult women in the first trimester, will be tossed by the courts (for now).

when it gets to the point that this becomes a states right issue, and these laws they are passing actually mean something - the legislators who have to stand for election will look seriously at this. right now, they are just pandering on this.


898 posted on 03/01/2006 8:30:19 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: The Worthless Miracle

That is what is rumoured.


899 posted on 03/01/2006 8:31:31 AM PST by auggy ( http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: The Worthless Miracle

That is what is rumoured.
Seems it is true.
http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/nicholsn.htm


900 posted on 03/01/2006 8:33:54 AM PST by auggy ( http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880881-900901-920 ... 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