Posted on 04/05/2006 9:33:51 PM PDT by Coleus
PHILADELPHIA -- Republicans in Washington are always willing to weigh in on the issues that are important to their conservative base -- Iraq, immigration, taxes, federal spending, the Medicare drug plan, the Dubai ports deal, you name it.
But, lately, hardly anybody in the GOP camp seems eager to address the historic event that transpired this month out on the high plains and now threatens to roll eastward, to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is, of course, abortion. For the party of the elephant, the new South Dakota law -- which prohibits the procedure for every woman in the state, unless she is dying -- is truly the elephant in the room.
It puts Republican politicians, especially those seeking the 2008 presidential nomination, squarely on the spot. If they side with conservatives -- who tend to vote heavily in the primaries, and who generally hope that the South Dakota law will be a weapon to overturn Roe v. Wade -- they risk alienating the independent voters who often swing November elections and generally desire that the right to legal abortion be preserved.
That explains why not a single Republican with White House aspirations has declared that the South Dakota law should be the model for an ultimate ban on abortions nationwide. It's a crossroads moment in the 33-year-old debate. Grass-roots conservatives are clearly forcing the issue, hoping this law might ultimately find a receptive audience in Washington on a high court now staffed with two Bush appointees.
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds calls the law "a direct frontal assault" on the landmark 1973 ruling. Yet, even ardent foes of abortion acknowledge that the issue is dicey especially for Republicans, who appear to have the most to lose. Jack Pitney, a former national Republican official and Capitol Hill staffer who closely tracks GOP politics, called the abortion law "a delicate situation for the Republicans."
He said, "It makes a lot of them nervous. It's one thing to just talk about banning abortion -- and they do that all the time, because it's a great way to fire up the base and raise money. But it's another thing to actually ban abortion nationwide. "Because that would raise all kinds of uncomfortable questions that could hurt the party politically -- such as, if this is truly a crime, whom do you jail? Very few Republican candidates want to answer that question."
It puts Republican politicians, especially those seeking the 2008 presidential nomination, squarely on the spot.
Jackson, MS (LifeNews.com) -- Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, says he will sign a measure that bans virtually all abortions in the state should it make its way through the legislature and reach his desk. A state House committee approved the ban on a wide margin.
The measure would prohibit all abortions except in very rare cases when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. It does not allow exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest -- something Barbour says he favors.
"It hasn't gotten to my desk yet. When one gets there, we'll find out, and I suspect I'll sign it," Barbour told the Associated Press.
"But I would certainly rather it come to my desk with an exception for rape and incest. I think that's consistent with the opinion of the vast majority of Mississippians and Americans," he added.
The issue should be the means by which the number of abortions is reducted.
One way this can be done is to give poor and desperate women an alternative to abortion, such as refuge from their boyfriends and well-meaning parents who want no inconvenient babies.
Yep. That's what church groups used to do isn't it?
Nobody in the GOP leadership is willing to talk about anything that matters due to the fear of alienating some voters. When you only win by about 3%, I guess you can get that way.
They ARE willing to talk about some really "critical" stuff though, like steroids in pro baseball, whether to commend the capitol police for not doing McKinney like the first step in chitlin preparation....
Meanwhile, the IRS still breathes, the tax cuts are still temporary, the southern border is wide open and spending is running out of control.
I hope the RINOs in charge of the GOP will be happy with picking up a few new voters while about half of the base stays home the next election out of pure disgust. It's not going to be pretty.
It needs to be done in a major way.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
You mean they can't make up their minds about this?
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_2.html
I hate to point out the obvious; but the South Dakota law would ban abortion only in South Dakota--we still have some vestige of a federal system.
No way this law gets upheld. The supreme court still has five pro-abortion members, even assuming that Alito and Roberts would vote to reverse Roe. Count 'em.
i'm pro-life but believe rape and incest and the life of the mother should be allowed. If your daughter was raped by a teacher would you make her give birth or would you allow for an abortion?
even if she was 12 or 13?
I would and could never allow for an abortion.
why should the unborn baby be executed because of the crime of the rapist father ? The right thing to do would give birth then adoption would be a good option.
ABORTION AND THE “HARD CASES”: rape, incest, and life of the mother.
What About Rape? http://www.prolife.org.uk/about/keyabortion.htm
Abortion is often recommended in cases of rape. But abortion does not undo the rape; instead it compounds violence with violence. It is an indefensible response to a complex situation. Putting aside the injustice of an innocent child being killed for her father's crime, there is evidence that abortion only deepens the trauma of the rape victim as well as taking the innocent life of her child. A rape victim requires special emotional care regardless of whether or not she obtains an abortion. By recommending abortion as a quick and easy way to “lessen the impact”, a disservice is done to raped women.
By promoting abortion specifically in the case of rape one implicitly argues that the means of conception determines the value of a human life. This line of reasoning fails to acknowledge that, biologically speaking, there is no difference between a human being conceived by a loving couple and a human being conceived by rape. Are we to deem born children conceived by rape as having no right to life?
It is also worth noting that statistically speaking, violent rape is extraordinarily unlikely to result in pregnancy; moreover, women tend to love their babies even if they hate the father.
Priests for Life Q&A on Abortion
http://priestsforlife.org/questions.html
A key study on this topic is the book Victims and Victors: Speaking out about their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, By David C. Reardon. In this book, read the testimonies of 192 women who reveal that most pregnant sexual assault victims don't want abortion, and those who do abort only suffer more. This is the most comprehensive study published on this theme. www.afterabortion.org
Dr. Theresa Burke also addresses this topic in her book Forbidden Grief, www.forbiddengrief.com. One example from that book is this testimony: "The rape was bad, but I could have gotten over it. The abortion is something I will never get over. No one realizes how much that event damaged my life. I hate my rapist, but I hate the abortionist too. I can’t believe I paid to be raped again. This will affect the rest of my life."
Please also see the following testimony from Jenni Speltz, who was conceived in rape: http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jennispeltz.htm.
In many cases the best choice is adoption. It is important to note that there are hundreds of thousands of couples that want to adopt but have been unable to because so many children are never allowed to be born.
What about the life of the mother? (by Fr. Frank Pavone) http://priestsforlife.org/questions.html
Answer: There are two questions at issue here. One is medical (Is there ever need for an abortion to save the mother's life?) and the other is moral (Would an abortion in that case be justified?) The answer to both questions is no. There is no medical situation whose only solution is a direct abortion, as many doctors have testified. Morally speaking, furthermore, it is never right to directly kill an innocent person, even if good results are foreseen. We do not say that a baby's life is more important than the mother's. We do say that they are equal. You may never directly kill either one of them. If, in spite of the best medical efforts, one or both of them die, nothing morally wrong has been done, because an effort has been made to save life, but has failed. That is far different from killing.
What about abortion in cases of rape or incest?
Abortion Q & A -- BY JOHN CARDINAL O'CONNOR, ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK
July 1990 http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/cardocqanda.html#qa13
Some evils are what we call intrinsic evils, that is evil in themselves, so that no circumstances can justify them. Direct abortion is such an evil. It simply can not be morally justified. This principle holds even in regard to rape or incest. An unborn baby is an innocent human being who has committed no crime, regardless of how conception came about. It is never morally right to destroy an innocent human being.
See also: Rape and Incest… Is Abortion Ever Okay? By Georgia Right to Life
http://www.grtl.org/docs/rapeandincest.pdf
See also these articles by Fr. Frank Pavone:
”Persuading People that Rape Does Not Justify Abortion” http://priestsforlife.org/columns/column8-17rape.html
What moral/ethical/good things are ever done in back alleys anyway?! “Safe, then Legal” http://priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2003/03-10-06safethenlegal.htm
Three expert physicians’ testimonies stating that there is no “medical reason” for having an abortion. http://priestsforlife.org/articles/dropinion.html
Making a 12 year old carry and give birth to a child that was the result of a rape if she doesn't want to in my book is like double jeopardy. She got raped and now she(the girl) is being punished to carry the child.
That's a tough one. I can see both sides. I gotta come down on the side of the baby though. If my father committed murder and I was totally innocent, I wouldn't want him to get off scott free and for me to get the death penalty. Speaking as an adopted child, there is no law saying that you have to keep the child.
I have a feeling that, despite your chivalry towards them, that most women are not coerced into abortion. On the contrary, many who abort do so simply out of selfish, cold-hearted, and shallow convenience.
This sounds more like a paternalistic desire to "do something," "to fix it." But, whatever is done to the rape victim must be done in the best interests of the child, not the family or society.
If her life is not in danger, it's really better to support her and not subject her to the pain and horror of an intentional, elective abortion. As you can imagine, there are similarities to being in those stirrups for the abortion and the rape.
Besides, some day she will realise that the baby is her's, as well as the rapist's child.
She will most likely grieve the innocence she lost, the chance to have her first pregnancy be a joyful one of anticipation and longing for her child. But the grief can only be increased by knowing that the child is dead with her cooperation.
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.