"W stands for women."
It's a slogan proudly worn on T-shirts and buttons by Texas Governor George W. Bush supporters, but when it comes to Bush's stance on abortion, I have to wonder how true this sentiment rings.
He's a "compassionate conservative" when it comes to abortion, opposing it for most women (that's the "conservative" part), but supporting the option of legal abortion for victims of rape and incest and for women whose pregnancies endanger their lives (that's the "compassionate" part).
Many Americans take the same stance Bush outlines on his Web site: Abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the woman's life. It's a middle ground between being strictly pro-life or strictly pro-choice that sounds clear and logical enough. That way, a 12-year-old girl raped by her uncle will not be forced to become a mother, but a trashy welfare mom won't be allowed to use abortion as her form of birth control, right?
Well, I'm not so sure. What happens when that 12-year-old girl has consensual sex with a 12-year-old boy and becomes pregnant? Does Bush feel comfortable banning her from receiving a legal abortion?
And what happens when that trashy welfare mom is brutally raped by her boyfriend? Will the system ensure her access to legal abortion, or will she be denied because no one will believe she became pregnant by force?
For reasons like these, Bush's abortion platform leaves me with some questions about how he plans to implement it.
Could a woman simply walk into a clinic, say she was a victim of rape, and receive an abortion, no questions asked? If so, what would prevent a woman pregnant by consensual intercourse from simply lying? That would make Bush's policy null and void. Very few women lie about being raped, but what if, in the future, telling this lie is the only way a woman could receive a safe, legal abortion? Isn't it conceivable that some women would decide to lie about the circumstances of their pregnancies?
In order for Bush to truly implement his platform to deny women access to legal abortion unless they are rape or incest victims, he would need to come up with a process to determine whether or not they actually were.
Will Bush force women to have some sort of hearing before they may have a legal abortion? That would further humiliate and degrade rape and incest victims, and even with a hearing, it will still be hard to determine if the woman is truly a victim.
There is not always physical evidence of a rape because many victims don't go to the hospital immediately after the assault for an evidence collection exam because they are so traumatized.
In addition, rape and incest are rarely witnessed by anyone other than the perpetrator and victim. I doubt the perpetrator will publicly admit what he did so his victim can have an abortion, and, as I said, Bush will have problems if he relies solely on the woman's word.
Along the same lines, if Bush wants women to prove they were victims of incest before they can have a legal abortion, will a DNA test of the fetus and relative be required?
I'd imagine that would be difficult, risky to the fetus and woman, and rather expensive. Who would pay for it? My guess is many victims of incest don't have a great deal of financial resources. Will the government then pay for fetal DNA testing? If so, doesn't this go against Bush's philosophies of decreasing government spending and not using public funds to support abortion?
So many people accuse Bush of being a little slow, a little lacking in the intelligence department. They say he doesn't even understand some of his own platforms. I encourage him to show his critics they're wrong.
Please, George, let your Yale education shine through and explain exactly how you plan to implement your abortion policy.
Surely Bush has thought this through and has a bright, clear plan. After all, W stands for women.
It's time for Bush to explain, in depth, how he would implement his ideas about abortion.
And if he can't, or won't, I think that's something Americans should give some thought to on Nov. 7.
