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."
My views fall where president Bush views this issue. I'm against abortion except in the instances of rape and incest and the health of the mother.
Relly? Just exactly what has she said to have you make that silly statement?
BUMP.
IMO no pro-abortion candidate, Hillary or any other who takes big bucks from NARAL and Emily's List can ever be elected to National office in the US.
That's why Hillary will never be president because she can't honest with herself and the American people. She's got to reinvent herself and try to moderate herself just to get a few extra votes.
Q: Which one more closely resembles your view on abortion
A: Abortion should NEVER be done in any instance.
B: Abortion should NEVER be done except for when the mothers life is threatened
C: Abortion should NEVER be done, except for when the mothers life is threatened and cases involving rape and incest.
Oh don't get me wrong I think abortion is murder, but i have to say i would allow it in these extreme instances.
It's murder if you deliberately chop the baby into little bits to kill it. If you take an action to save the mother, that may, perhaps even very likely will, result in the death of the baby, that's not murder, it's just the best way to handle a bad medical situation. There is no need to chop up a baby and suck the parts out of the mother. Sometimes, unfortunately, there is a need to take an action which will prevent a condition which would likely result in the death if mother and baby, but will likely result in the death of the baby anyway.
If your twelve or thirteen year old daughter was pregnant, and you could prevent that pregnancy by killing me, would you kill me?
what would your chouce be on post #47? A?
I agree. Parents need to protect their children and it would be abusive to force a child of that age to carry a pregnancy to term.
In such a horrible situation, the best thing is to comfort the girl, help her through it, and pray for the baby.
That being said--people will argue about the hard hypothetical cases, like this one.
But I would daresay that most people are not comfortable with most abortions, which (I think) are done by mature women, for convenience.
I wouldn't, but I would hand her the pistol and close my eyes. :D LOL
I agree.Someone like Hillary voting against any abortion limitation (and BTW voting for banning weapons, actually sponsering the Bill)cannot win. The important issue is being on the record on voting but also those who takes big bucks from NARAL and Emily's List.
Rudy is a strange one. He is actually not on the record about any of this, and he doesn't take that kind of money. Rudy has changed greatly since 911. Who knows?
LOL!
See what happens when I have insomnia? I clean the house a bit, decide to visit FR, then stumble on to a very peaceful, sleep-inducing thread. :)
Of course I only know of Rudy's stances from other FReepers. I'd have to hear it from Rudy himself before I make a definitive conclusion on Rudy.
better yet, would you be willing to go quail hunting with her?
:D
i have insomnia really bad. :(
trust me, there are some people who would see that as a win-win situation.
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.