Nominally, at least; I respect the view only the lives of babies and pregnant women (not manner of conception) matter. However, it is logically as well as morally offensive when people—especially legislators and/or DOCTORS (much less those who are both)—state rape prevents pregnancy, solely to rationalize abortion bans without rape exceptions. Any physician claiming that should sue his alma mater for recovery of tuition, because they were manifestly defrauded. People who believe fetuses or even zygotes are people at every stage should have the moral courage to make that case and let it and their careers stand or fall on merit, not knowingly fabricate false justifications. Lying to prove positions that should stand on merit strongly implies awareness they CANNOT, doubly invalidating them.

Claiming mental stress medically justifies abortion any time before delivery disgusts me just as much—but it is important to recall Doe v. Bolton, not Roe v. Wade, did that. Roes ruling merely said (in essence) "Fetuses cannot be proven people nor survive beyond the womb in the first trimester; talk with your doctor, then use your best judgement." I do not share but do respect objections to that, but it did not give abortion carte blanche at all times with practically NO reason: Doe did.

Seriously, Doe defines "medical" causes (particularly mental ones) so broadly the girl who dropped her newborn in a dumpster and went back inside to prom a few years ago could have "justified" abortion via Doe: Missing prom would have saddened, angered and frustrated her, which is mental stress; medical cause. The only effective difference between that and what she actually did is one is perfectly legal since Doe. The worst part is the SCOTUS was so desperate to end the legal abortion debate permanently it concurrently issued both rulings on the same day in the same document, so they are inseparable (guaranteeing just what concurrence was meant to forever end: Endless passionate abortion debates.)

So we are stuck with a uniquely all-or-nothing choice. As noted in response to Issac, even liberal posterchild Norway forbids abortion after week 12 unless pregnancy is a serious PHYSICAL threat to mother and/or fetus. We, on the other hand, continue fiercely debating whether to impose such restrictions at 24 weeks or "only" 20. Abortions for all or abortions for none; we have not yet advanced to President Kangs level of sophistication.

Few things would please me more than being rid of Doe (by itself, that would bring back no coathangers, but would forever obviate concerns about people exercising "retroactive birth control" right up until delivery.) Yet doctor-legislators claiming rape prevents pregnancy makes their sincerity rather suspect. Trust is critical, because neither side will even consider negotiations while the other proceeds in bad faith, not when one of the few points of agreement is that many peoples lives are at stake. Brazenly clumsily lying to people yet expecting them to depend on unwritten promises is not only unreasonable, but insulting.