No suprise to anyone that Bush was going to sign this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-05-bush-abortion_x.htm

But we all know this is really just another salvo at Roe vs Wade. What I don't understand is if the Republicans were so sure of themselves here, and knew this legislation was going to be a slam-dunk, why not include the provision "except to protect the health of the mother" or if the fetus in question has serious aliments? It's not like this kind of abortion is common, it happens to be very rare, performed only 0.5% of the time.

http://www.crlp.org/pr_98_1210abstats.html

Anything to appease the Christian Coalition, right? I wonder how many millions will be spent on defending/appealing this law? I personally don't feel that abortion should be used as a means of birth control, but if birth control was accepted by more people (i.e Catholic Church), wouldn't the number of abortions drop? Isn't better to stop life from starting rather than to kill it midstream?

All I can say is if you were sick of hearing about this subject before, just you wait, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
_________________________
Ned Flanders: "Some people say being a cave man is old fashioned, then I guess I'm just a cave man...if they existed....which they didn't."

My Former 2001 Xterra SE 4x4 With Modifications

My Ex-Xterra Web Site