http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortion/index.html So today the anti-abortion governor of South Dakota signed the "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act" for his state. What it does is, "An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefor, and to provide for the implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances." but those circumstances are only if the baby is already dead and killing the mother, can an abortion be performed. No abortions will be performed under any other circumstances including in cases of incest and rape. Adding insult to injury to a raped woman, under South Dakota law, men who rape women have an unalienable right to any children their female victim might bear and are allowed both visitation and/or custody in some cases. So SD likes to repeatedly victimize their women. How quaint. This of course, is South Dakota's way of directly challenging Roe vs. Wade now that the male Christian Right can have it's way with women again under law via laws changed by the Supreme Court. Wonderful. First Hilary Clinton sets us back 20 years by allowing her husband to cheat on her repeatedly and just taking it like the good little wife for her own career gains, and now Bush and his team of religious assholes get to decide to put us back on our barefeet, pregnant. This is a ban on all abortions, unless the fetus is already dead. Don't they mean the "Women's Suffering and Human Life Protection Act"?
This is a despicaple Act, which will surely be challenged. It is a pity you had to add this: Your assumptions about Hillary Clinton are just that - assumptions. Why she chose to stay with Bill is a private matter, and you have no idea of the reasons, other than what she said at the time. Your assumptions in that matter weaken the main point of your post. Secondly, you do a disservice to Bush. You do not know if he had any part in this. My guess is that he did not. But perhaps you have additional information?
Bush has made several statements on Roe vs. Wade, including it being his primary target to be overturned. He has attempted several times to pass bills that limit or ban abortions, only to have the Supreme Court (with Sandra Day O'Connor) overturn them for being unconstitutional. Why do you think he front loaded the Supreme Court with the people that he did? As for Hilary Clinton, I don't care what her intentions were. I am speaking of the impact it had on women as a whole. That women should just be complacent about their meandering husbands because they are lucky to have them in the first place. It's an archaic and self-defeating way of saying, "I'm not worthy of being loved." and it underminds the power of the secure female role-model who has both self-esteem and self-respect. Hilary at the time, appeared to have neither, and was in a position for it to effect millions of women who have to deal with the same thing.
I have no doubt that Bush would be anti-choice, but I don't think it would be one of his primary concerns. Stacking the Supreme Court with right-wingers would benefit him and his government in many ways, only one of which is the abortion issue. But it is drawing a long bow to assume he had any direct role in the recent South Dakota legislation. As I recall it, Hillary Clinton was rather put out at the time, and not at all "complacent". I am quite certain her decision to stay was a complex one, taking into account many aspects of her life. This kind of thing is personal. Anybody in a position where infidelity has occurred must make a personal decision - man or woman. You can't expect everyone to adopt some kind of "one size fits all" solution, like "All women should always leave their husbands if they cheat on them." Life is more complicated than that.
It is more complicated than that, but this was the third time that he had cheated on her. What is it that they say, "Cheat on me once, shame on you. Cheat on me twice, shame on me.". Infidelity is one thing, serial infidelity is another. Not all women should leave their husbands if they cheat, I do believe in an amount of forgiveness. But when the pattern shows over time, that it is something that cannot be changed... one should make an intelligent decision based on not only love for the other, but love and respect for yourself. I've spoken to a great number of women about this very subject (I'm a nurse, we jabber a lot.) and they all feel the same way. And if you recall, Bush pushed through and signed a partial-birth abortion ban. And he has stated, in public speeches that he intends to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
