Abortion-law glitch puts Roy duo in bind

ROY — When Glen and Suzie Combe discovered the child she was carrying would not live beyond birth, they prayed and cried.

Then they sought medical help with trusted physicians, only to be told if Suzie Combe wanted to terminate the pregnancy, she'd be forced to go elsewhere for treatment.

She did that Wednesday, venturing to a clinic to be treated by professionals she'd never met in an atmosphere that made the couple feel like they were doing something wrong, her husband said.

For five days while they debated the decision in the critical timeline of when the procedure would be less complicated, it was a time of frustration and fear for the couple, who already have two daughters and were joyfully anticipating a third child.

"This is an experience I would not wish upon anybody," said Glen Combe. "It is five days of things as a father and husband that you never think you have to go down. It has been trying in every sense of what you are."

What has been trying is that the Combes discovered their unborn child had fetal deformities — organs growing outside its body that would mean survival was not possible outside the womb.

The tough decision to abort the pregnancy — rather than carry the child another four months only to end in despair — was complicated by the passage of a law this last legislation session that prohibits abortions under such circumstances.

If the mother is raped, the victim of incest, or her health is in substantial jeopardy, hospitals can perform the procedure without threat of losing possible government funding. But the law, sponsored by Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Orem, does not allow termination of a pregnancy in the case of extreme fetal defects, as was the Combes' situation.

Bramble's SB69 prohibits abortion in those circumstances at facilities or by health care providers who receive public funds; otherwise, doctors can face criminal penalties and institutions risk losing state money.

The law has forced hospitals and other providers to act cautiously until the Utah Health Department possibly adopts a rule to clarify the intent of the law or legislators address the issue in a subsequent bill.

It is clear Bramble did not want taxpayer money to support elective abortions. What is less clear is the law's impact on other situations faced by doctors and hospitals who, not wanting to run afoul of the law, are sending patients elsewhere.