WASHINGTON, February 28, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Scott McClellan, the principal spokesman for U.S. President George W. Bush said in a press conference yesterday that the President supports abortion in three cases - rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
A reporter asked a question regarding the South Dakota legislation which bans abortion except to save the life of the mother which is likely to be signed by the Governor (see coverage here)
"The state legislature of South Dakota has just passed a new law which allows abortion in case of threat to the mother's life, but denies it to all ages in cases of rape and incest, said the reporter. He then asked, "Does the President believe that rape and incest victims should be denied the right to an abortion?" McLellan responded saying, "the President has made very clear that he is pro-life with three exceptions." While McLellan did not state those exceptions they are widely assumed to be rape, incest and the life of the mother.
McLellan premised those remarks noting, "The President believes we ought to be working to build a culture of life in America. And we have taken practical, common-sense steps to help reduce the number of abortions in America. It is a strong record that is based on building a culture of life."
The remarks were taken to indicate that the President would oppose the South Dakota (SD) legislation, however that was never said.
Physicians have noted that the notion of abortion to save the life of the mother is unnecessary with modern medicine. Moreover, pro-life philosophers have long warned of the dangers of allowing for rape and incest exceptions to abortion since it devalues the lives of unborn children. They are no less children because of the unfortunate circumstances of their conception. Even though most pro-life activists oppose capital punishment, a thought provoking saying on the issue runs: "Why kill the innocent child and not the guilty rapist?"
Source: LifeSiteNews
Abortion will never be out-lawed until we quit making exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. All this is saying is the life that has been conceived under these circumstances has less value than that which has been conceived under optimal conditions and circumstances. When you place an exception for the health of the mother, what constitutes health; depression caused by the pregnancy? Attempted sucide because she doesn't want to be pregnant? All it is doing is creating an excuse to terminate the life of the child because the woman does not want to go through with her pregnancy. If President Bush is really pro-life as he says he is he will not make excuses for these so-called exceptions.
Seth - agreed .... McClellan's statements are certainly a sobering reality check although not at all unexpected.
I don't think that this really matters. Any pro-life law that anyone tries to pass will be struck down as 'unconstitutional' as long as Roe v. Wade stands. The only way to do away with Roe v. Wade is to appoint Originalist and/or pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court. Once Roe is gone, we can have this debate within the pro-life community.
It doesn't matter if the law is pro-life with no exceptions, pro-life one exception, pro-life with three exceptions, or pro-life with a hundred exceptions -- it WILL be struck down while Roe stands.
JWL is absolutely right. Until Roe falls, this debate is totally moot. Moreover, if we manage to alienate enough of the squishy "moderates", we'll kill our own cause....
Please, please, please ... let's keep our eyes on the goal. Incremental measures are not the same as collaboration. When slavery was ended in this country, it wasn't ended in one bold move, but rather in small increments. Abortion will be ended in the same way. Take the gains that are available today, and press for more tomorrow.
Most pro-life people who state these exceptions do not include the health of the mother. It's usually the life of the mother, rape, and incest.
Where did the title of this post come from? I haven't figured out how supporting the legality of abortion in these three cases constitutes supporting abortion in these cases. Thinking someone has a right to it doesn't amount to thinking it's good, which is what it means to support something. The president clearly does not advocate recommending to people to have abortions in these cases. He just isn't willing to prevent people from having them in those situations (if he had the power to prevent it to begin with, which he doesn't).
I don't think it's true that most pro-lifers are opposed to the death penalty. It may be that most Catholic pro-lifers are against it, but it's certainly not true among evangelicals, who are as far as I can tell the main bulk of the pro-life voting bloc in the red states. It's certainly standard the GOP view to be opposed to abortion but in favor of capital punishment.
It isn't necessarily inconsistent to favor legal abortion and illegal capital punishment, though. The reverse position is consistent if it's ok to kill the guilty who deserve it but wrong to kill an innocent child who is yet unborn. But the position many liberals hold is also consistent if it's wrong to kill persons of any sort even if guilty but perfectly ok to kill non-persons. I don't for a minute believe a fetus to be a non-person, but I can see how the view is consistent.
It's worth raising these questions to get people to think about whether they agree with what's necessary to make the view consistent, but that doesn't mean everyone holding that combination of views is being inconsistent in doing so.
His own words:
"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.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/010306_b_abortion.htm