February 28, 2006
Allen, Romney And McCain on the South Dakota Abortion Ban
WH Press Secretary Scott McClellan says Pres. Bush would not support the bill unless it contained exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Of the three potential '08 GOP candidates below, Sen. John McCain's view is closest to Bush's.
Sen. George Allen's CoS, Dick Wadhams, tells the Hotline that "Sen. Allen has consistently supported the rights of the people in their states to pass laws which reflect their views and values."
MA Gov. Mitt Romney has yet to be asked about the SD ban. Spokesperson Julie Teer: "If Governor Romney were the Governor of South Dakota he would sign it. The Governor believes that states should have the right to be pro-life if that is the will of the people."
According to a spokesperson, McCain "would have signed the legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." [MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 01:17 PM
Comments
Please explain ot me why the media continue to let "pro-life" elected officials to get away with the "I am against abortion but any law must contain exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother".
This is nonsense. If you are against abortion. You believe that it ends an innocent life. That life is still innocent even if it was conceived through violent means. So why should exceptions be built in?
It is pure political expediency to do so because they know that a striaght ban is not politically viable but the media needs to start calling BS on this stance.
Yet another example of McCain's political mendacity being allowed to pass.
Jeremy Wright | 02.28.06 02:52 PM
 |
"would have signed the legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included."
Oh, so he would have signed the legislation that provides no exceptions for rape or incest, but would take "appropriate steps" to ensure that those exceptions were included. Yup, that sounds like McCain. He'd talk big about rape and incest exceptions, then sign a bill that didn't include them. Wow, he's such a maverick.
mds | 02.28.06 03:24 PM
|
The future reality of a Republican controlled United States:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4746428.stm
storiesinamerica | 02.28.06 03:53 PM
|
I am disgusted with McCain and his shameless kissing ass to the right wing groups. I was beginning to think that he might win in 2008, but now I can see that Clinton or Bayh or Warner could rip him to shreds, especially when you add in his radical neocon views.
Anon2008 | 02.28.06 04:48 PM
|
Could you please get one of these people to respond what is said at www.religionquestioned.com where there is an offer to shut site down
Saple of what is at site
Many people believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but that is a fallacy. How can I say that. Well, no other authority then Jesus said so. When Jesus talked about divorce he said “ Moses gave that to you, that is not how it was from the beginning (Mark 10:2-9 & Matthew 19:7-8).
The fact that Jesus disagrees with Moses blows the conception of many that while the Bible may have been written by men , they only wrote what God wanted. But with Jesus saying that Moses’s decree was not God’s, that argument goes out the window.
Lets look at the following Hebrews 1 talking about
Jesus v5 For unto which of the angels said he at any
time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be
to me a Son?
As for the question in 5 above about
father and son relationship let us look into the
following which is what David was told when told that
he could not build a Temple but it applies to Solomon
and NOT Jesus as shown by:
2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy
days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy
fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which
shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish
his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name,
and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for
ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod
of men, and with the stripes of the children of men
:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took
it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
Now some take this to be the Messiah; however, since it talks
about if he commits inequity, I will chasten him, it
clearly is not talking about Jesus but about Solomon
which also is borne out in 1 KI 5:5 5
And, behold, I purpose to build an house unto the name of the LORD my
God, as the LORD spake unto David my father, saying,
Thy son, whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room,
he shall build an house unto my name.
Continuing in Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any
time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies
thy footstool? Jesus is also quoted saying this in Matthew22 41-45; Luke 21:41-44, Acts 2:30-36
The above 13 appears in Psalm 110: 1Psalm 110 Of David.
1 The LORD says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.
So, NO He may not have said it to any angel; but he sure as Hell said it to DAVID according to the believers own Bible .
As for {the Lord said to My Lord} Jesus also queried about that and Christians have interpreted that to be Jesus and that it was about Jesus. However, it is a Psalm of David about David. In that time Kings and even minor dignitaries were addressed MY Lord
In fact the Talmudists in one of their attempts to justify the killing of Uriah said he disrespected David by Not addressing him as My
Lord.
But don't take my word for it let us see what it
actually says in Psalm 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies.
3 Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from thewomb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your
youth.
4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
5. The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the
rulers of the whole earth.
You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
not God or Son of God but a priest in the order of
Melchizedek. Not Lord or Greatest should be proof for
Christians that the psalm was not about Jesus regardless of the
Claim of Jesus.
Christians point to Isaiah 53 as being a prophecy
about Jesus but overlook the last verse
12
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he
shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he
hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was
numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin
of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
So while God said he would divide the one talked about in 53 a portion with the great; it only makes him one of a group and NOT God or the LORD.
But Christians misled by their teachers are taught otherwise. I was told that I was taking the last sentence out of context, as the important part was the beginning. Since what I said blew a preconceived notion, it looks to a believer that I played with the quotation. While it is true that there is a lot between the beginning which might look like Jesus and the last sentence, the last sentence is part and parcel of the prophesy and it would be out of context to leave it out. I neither added something that wasn't there or like the believer left anything out which would take it out of context.
saul | 02.28.06 05:30 PM
|
Anon2008, maybe Bayh could defeat McCain, but not Clinton. And I say that as a (sometimes)admirer of Clinton. I just don't think she has much of a chance period, especially McCain. The good news is that I doubt that McCain would get the GOP nomination, unless the Repubs are really desperate by 2008.
jason | 02.28.06 07:19 PM
|
If you truly believe that a woman should be forced to endure a pregancy caused by violence, then I can only hope that your mother, wife, sister, and daughter are raped and impregnated. You have no idea what you are talking about on this issue until you walk a mile in a victim's shoes. So to all of the males who think you can order a woman to carry a pregnancy to term: it's not your body, it's not your choice, so please keep your mouth shut.
Eric Hansen | 02.28.06 09:05 PM
|
Any scum bag who feels he has some "divine right" to tell women what they can do with their bodies is UNFIT for public office. Period. No exceptions.
tombartlett | 03.01.06 12:14 AM
|
McCain has always been pro-life and always been an advocate of the "3 excpetions." This is no "***-kissing." This is his view.
Adam C | 03.01.06 01:53 AM
|
A Mississippi House Committee just followed South Dakota: no exceptions for rape or incest. Interestingly, a female lawmaker forced her colleagues to vote for an amendment that would provide education and healthcare to the child until the age of 19.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/13984932.htm
storiesinamerica | 03.01.06 11:24 AM
|
I forgot to mention, the Bush family was for family planning and choice before they were against it:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/20/INGH1FEL551.DTL
Rose | 03.01.06 11:48 AM
|
With all due sympathy to the victims of rape, is another act of violence-- the KILLING of an innocent helpless unborn CHILD -- really in any way justified becuase of how he or she was concieved? It is not the woman's body that is finally in question , it the the body of another PERSON, a person who will someday be a woman herself, as much a person as you are! It is not a MOTHER's choice to simply do away with her OWN CHILD becuase of an inconveinience of nine months. There are many couples who would adopt the child if the woman is unable to care for it. Put an end to violnce toward children!
anne | 03.02.06 12:46 AM
|
Why is the body and choices of the unborn child not as worthy of protection as that of the mother's? No pro-abortion advocate seems able to directly address that issue. Every argument for the right of the mother would also support a similar right for the unborn child. There does not appear to be any objective basis for granting value to one and no the other. The notion that such value is a matter of personal choice would eliminate all laws protecting life, and therefore is clearly not a viable position.
Tom | 03.12.06 08:34 PM
|
To Tom who believes that the rights of the unborn child should trump the rights of the mother, you create an extremely difficult position for health care providers. What happens if a mother is pregnant and her health and life are in danger, yet the baby is not viable, if the doctor has to focus all medical attention on the fetus and relegate the mother's health and life to second place then both lives would most likely be lost. A previability fetus is not going to survive w/o a mother. This balancing of who gets priority is done by families who face potentially health or life threatening pregnancies do. Ultimately it is up to each woman with her family's support to make that difficult decision. It is NOT up to an elected official to take that decision away from them and it is not up to anyone else to judge the decision they make.
Instead of wasting precious taxpayer money on passing and then having to litigate the ban in South Dakota, wouldn't it better to spend that money on improving family planning services and also, improving the conditions of the already born children who go through one of the worst child welfare systems, South Dakota, in this country?
C | 03.13.06 10:46 AM
|
Who has the right to determine what is human and what is not. Many abortion rights advocates claim the fetus isn't human. But science claims that no species can give birth to a different species. So the fetus, based on science, must be human. Abortion rights advocates say that we cannot determine whether the fetus is alive or not. But science declares that the dead cannot give birth to the living, neither can the living give birth to the dead. The dead come from the dead. The living come from the living. So the fetus must be human and must be alive.
But who has the right to make this assertion? Who has the right to declare the unborn human, as not property to women? Many people declare that the government has no right to make this declaration. If that is so, then the government had no right to declare that BLACK people are free human beings and not the property of their white owners. Nor did they have the right to pass the Civil Rights Act. For at that time, science declared that Black people weren't as developed as white people. MAINSTREAM american thought was that everything was fine the way it was. How dare those government officials legislate morality! Obviously the government was in error and this should be corrected. An absurd suggestion to the more civilized.
I applaud the South Dakota Legislature for their bravery in passing this law. Just as I applaude the Little Rock Nine for their bravery in going against the MAINSTREAM. If you don't know what I am talking about, look it up.
In short, the government DOES have the authority to declare what is life and what is not. AND it does have the authority to declare what we can and cannot do to it.
This Abortion Ban is not the last step. It is the first. Declaring that slavery was illegal was not the last step in an Extremely partisan issue, as many Black people will tell you. We should work, those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life, to make the next step. More laws are needed and a ban does not fix the solution, that much we know. So instead of hating one another and denouncing one another as bigots, let us work together to find a better way.
Anthony | 03.13.06 05:01 PM
|
A woman who puts an unborn child's life before her own should not have an abortion. A woman who puts her life before an unborn child's life should have the choice whether to continue the pregnancy.
When men are forced biologically to carry, care for (emotionally, physically, financially, and spiritually) the result of their sexual choices, just like women, then they can make their own choice. But until then, leave it to the women. To legislate women's bodies to this level, even to the point of denying birth control, is madness.
For those of you who oppose abortion: Don't have sex. It's so simple to make it the woman's responsibility. Believe me, it will all look different when your daughters, sisters, mothers, aunts, nieces, and women friends need an abortion. Then you'll be the ones to sneak off and pay for an expensive abortion. It's the poor women of the world who will pay this price.
Ending legal abortion is never going to end abortion. It will only make women go underground to get them.
Kathleen | 03.18.06 10:47 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
