From Deseret News archives:

Utah targets Roe v. Wade

Published: Thursday, Feb. 1, 2007 12:17 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
An abortion ban headed for debate on the House floor has the backing of GOP leaders in the Senate, who said Wednesday money should be set aside to fight the legal battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

HB235, sponsored by Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, would ban abortions except in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity for the mother. It is intended to pose a challenge to Roe v. Wade, in which the court in 1973 recognized a woman's right to have an abortion.

"We definitely will have to fund the defense of the bill because, on its face, it's unconstitutional," Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, said. "But there are a lot of issues that are ripe for a decision by the Supreme Court."

Those issues, Valentine said, include whether states have the ability to impose restrictions on abortion or if it is still a national issue. The courts also may be ready to consider, he said, whether there can be a ban with exceptions as detailed in HB235.

"It goes to the straightforward issue of state's rights to be able to define health issues and safety issues for its own citizens," Valentine said, as well as whether abortion can be permitted only if the health of the mother is in jeopardy or in cases of rape or incest.

Story continues below
HB235 was originally drafted as a "trigger bill," which would have enacted a state ban on abortion only if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, introduced the more aggressive substitute Tuesday, which was opposed by only two members of the House Health and Human Services Committee.

At that hearing, Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, accused lawmakers of again failing to address the underlying problems behind unwanted pregnancies, such as access to contraceptive measures and responsible sex education in the schools. It is "silly," Litvack said, to waste time and money on such a clear message bill.

"It's irresponsible to spend tax dollars in a blatantly unconstitutional effort," he said.

The issue has not come up yet in the Senate GOP caucus, but Valentine and other members of Senate leadership said Wednesday that they were ready to back the bill — assuming the money is there to defend it.

"I will not support it if we're just going to throw it out there and hope the litigation won't happen," Valentine said, "because the litigation will happen."

The Senate president said the allocation for the bill's defense would require a one-time expenditure rather than be an ongoing expense to taxpayers. HB235 also creates a "litigation trust account," which would allow private citizens to help fund the defense.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

Glad that he's finally going to be scouting how to beat TCU. Seems to...

Too anyone who whines about people who EARN high salaries; when was the last...

12 Utes return to Texas

Don't know bout all that "Texas" stuff, but I'm here to tell you people, that...

Gorbachev was a brilliant leader and single most important individual in...

It buys votes from every irresponsible, lazy American in order to keep the...

My fear is the damage to the economy adding trillions of dollars to the...

I don't know, Ak can be horrible too, there are those times when he only...

Utah 24, TCU 21

You are so right about the BS of these 3 radio clowns!

And some of you out there could care less if we give up our freedoms as long...

Advertisements
Advertisement