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.
Thanks for all your posts, ohio. I had to leave and take care of my mom plus paint the house outside.
Wise of me to ping you, eh? Look what a great stand in I got! Sorry for the totally dense, anti-Bush ones who claim he supports murder of the unborn when he has made more progress against that than anyone in history since Rpe.
Reminds me of the saying..."Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good".
Why don't you nit pickers give the President some slack. If it wasn't for his choice we wouldn't have Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. Did you want him to lie when asked how he feels about the South Dakota abortion ban? Bush told the truth as he always does. We may not agree with his opinion but for heavens sake give the man some room.
Saying that President Bush 'supports the murder of the unborn' is a complete, and most likely deliberate misrepresentation of the truth.
I wouldn't be at all surpised if some of the folks saying it here are avid pro-aborts who want to divide people who are truly pro-life, and turn them against the President.
It's considered forum courtesy to ping the person you're trashing.
I disagreed with Bush on the port issue, but agree with him on this.
No woman should be forced to bear the product of a rapist.
One would expect that in Islamic countries - not in the U.S.
I had one when I was 17 and have had to deal with the guilt all my life. I have repented and am pro-life (and have been for years). But think about it--if a million women have had abortions since 1973, do you really want to arrest us all--over 30 million American women? Including those who are now witnessing for the pro-life cause about the mistake of having an abortion? Millions of children suddenly without their mothers? I don't mind facing God's judgment, but no way will you or anybody else take me away from my precious daughter in this life.
I'll answer your question if you first answer mine. :)
You are right about that probability, ohio. Anyone can come on here and claim to be anything.
They could be the most pro-abort possible and come here just to bash the President for supporting murder of the innocent (in order to seperate many past supporters from their President). Which he most certainly does not.
What kind of a brainless twit does one have to be not to see the difference between getting MOST abortions outlawed and getting NO abortions outlawed?
The situation is obvious, and the President's consistent position is as well. Anyone who tries to frame this as 'alienating the base' is most likely trying to alienate the base against the President, and stop the progress toward ending abortion being made.
President Bush has increased spending and doesn't want tighter borders.
Your list assumes that people continue to follow the law as practiced. I was assuming something different. I was assuming the state does something willfully illegal, and ignores a court order and then the subsequent court orders whereby the court shrilly seeks to enforce its will.
If the authorities of the state do not obey the court, and the President declines to exercise federal power to force the state to obey the court, the court has no enforcement mechanism whereby it can enforce its orders. It can write as many writs of mandamus or vacate whatever it likes. If the authorities ignore the court, the court is toothless. That's what I was talking about. I was suggesting breaking the traditional rule of law.
You proposed that Congress could simply remove the jurisdiction over abortion from the Supreme Court. Won't work. The Supreme Court, especially in this day and age, will strike down any effort by Congress to directly eliminate constitutional review. The tradition has grown up in the US Common Law that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, and the final say in what the Constitution means. Under the current regime, Congress won't get away with passing a law that tells the Supreme Court it doesn't have the power to rule an unconstitutional law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will strike down any such law as unconstitutional.
Of course, Congress COULD pass such a law, and when the Supreme Court strikes it down, the President could direct the Justice Department to obey Congress and disregard the Supreme Court's "illegal decision". That is functionally the same thing that I was discussing in the case of the state.
There is no clear cut authority as to who overrides whom. There is just a tradition of how this is done. Strongly defying the tradition is called "Illegal", but it might establish a new tradition.
Has she slipped all the way over to the Dems?
It's considered forum courtesy to ping the person you're trashing.
Exactly. So if God's laws indicate that adulterers and rapists should be put to death, who am I to question Him? I'm on God's side, so yeah, I do agree with Him and His laws.
Just think about how many fewer adulterers and rapists we'd have if the whole community was required to turn out to stone him/her to death. Talk about a great incentive for doing what's right rather than succumbing to illicit bodily appetites. I doubt it would happen very often.
I see where you're going and it's an interesting idea.. but don't you think the Supreme Court would hold the local officials in contempt? I don't think there's any way the Justice Dept would buck the Court. Never going to happen...we should focus on some workable ideas IMO.
I don't think even those who want the woman to "rot in jail" can figure out a way to punish women for something that was legal when they did it. Illegality would not be retroactive, much as some might wish for it to be possible.
Killing the baby for his father's sin is wrong-er.
This makes me queasy. We would be no better than the Mohammedans if we sanctioned such barbaric practices as stoning.
I agree with you totally. I guess I want people who would condone a mass arrest of women for having an abortion to think about the reality of such a thing. Though I'm probably just wasting my time.
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.