>>>Except that the first two make the last one a meaningless platitude.
>
>Current US law allows Kevin's scenarios (rape, mother's health) as justification for federal funding of abortion. Catholic Church also recognizes mother's health in danger as justifying abortion. Just saying. Yes, this is different from the belligerent posturing that it should be on demand. I note that Trump currently has moved to require separate facilities for providers doing both abortion and federally funded healthcare which particularly affects Planned Parenthood that makes most of its income from planned non-parenthood.

JR, it should be noted that HRC and the DNC intended to expand federal funding to cover some elective abortions - something that most Americans oppose.

As for the Catholic Church and what they recognize (re: mother's health), to best of my awareness, their position is not clear. In different writings, they talk about permitting morally neutral medical procedures to save a mother's life that may have unintended side-effects for the fetus/child in the womb. If can point to a direct defense from the Church of abortion to save life of the mother, I'll gladly stand corrected.

I actually agree with the idea of separate facilities. PP has been anything but transparent in disclosing revenue associated with abortions, and their lie about it being 3% of their business has even been exposed by pro-choice people. PP has a long and ugly history of trying to bamboozle people whom they believe are intellectually inferior, and they've also tried to make excuses for doctors who perform late term elective abortions (which are illegal in many states).

Again (and I always feel it necessary to add this line every time)...I don't like the idea of abortions. I didn't like them before I became a father and I sure don't like them now. But I'd rather keep them legal in the first 20 weeks.