Quantcast
Utah

Utah Legislature: Abortion ultrasound measure passes House

Comments

Return To Article
  • john
    Feb. 12, 2010 3:17 p.m.

    so if a person is "guilty" then its ok to murder them??!
    "This is just another pathetic attempt to justify abortion/murder."
    aren't you justifying murder by saying that
    "less than .05 % of the people who are executed end up being found innocent"?
    and therefore capital punishment is ok? try thinking logically before you start typing next time.

  • RE: Vincent 8:53 p.m.
    Feb. 8, 2010 4:01 p.m.

    Ok, first of all your explanation is flawed. Second, the difference between someone convicted of a serious crime and an innocent unborn child is that less than .05 % of the people who are executed end up being found innocent. On the other hand, the millions of abortions that take place any given year, the unborn children is 100% innocent. BIG DIFFERENCE The second flaw in your argument is that there are many couples and families on waiting list to adopt children. There is so much red tape to get through in order to adopt a child. Women should not have the right to murder an unborn HUMAN BEING! If women have the sense to do the deed to create a child, then they have the sense to take care of the child. Its ideas and opinions like yours that murder millions of unborn children every year, Thanks for that one. You can thank the future doctors, scientists, and many more people that could have made a difference but won’t be able to because of women who can’t take responsibility for their actions. This is just another pathetic attempt to justify abortion/murder.

  • Vincent
    Feb. 6, 2010 8:53 p.m.

    I just love how those that claim abortion is murder, even if the woman was raped, etc have no qualms whatsoever over the death penalty. Innocent people have been killed from the death penalty, just like they have from abortion.

    So how come one is justified and not the other? Contridiction, conservatives?

    Then conservatives say that abortion should be illegal and all these kids will be adopted. Really? By whom? It seems to me there are already enough kids without homes. And then the government has to pay for these kids. Romania tried this and it crippled their government.

    It's unfortunate that children aren't wanted in our country in the first place. But if life is so precious, then why even bother with the pill in the first place? Shouldn't we have as many babies as possible? I know few people who would agree with me on that one, but you are technically denying a possible life. How is that ok?

    These are not easy questions indeed.

  • KM
    Feb. 6, 2010 6:32 p.m.

    Are the same people that are writing about this being a waste of taxpayer money concerned at all about taxes when we fund even international abortions? Probably not.
    The debate goes on and on until the creator comes and settles the matter once and for all. Until then, I think this is a good thing. A woman should have as much information as possible before she decides to kill the innocent unborn.

  • JR
    Feb. 6, 2010 6:31 p.m.

    Then maybe the men need to step up to the plate and be held accountable then again maybe the woman doesn't want to be tied to the species that impregnated her either. Utah wants little government but here is a prime example of too much government. Until you walk in the shoes of th woman having to make that decision none of you can understand. We can continue to have babies so we can send them off to war and thats okay, Thats not murder either. People allow others to make their choices and let them live with them. How many of you will take and raise the child?

  • kristen
    Feb. 6, 2010 3:40 p.m.

    "The woman has to "choose" to view the ultrasound images.... She is not forced to do so."

    For how Long??? You don't this will become a requirement soon??? Pro-Lifers are already seeing this as a, "maybe she'll come to her senses" scenario... You don't think it will soon become required???

    Remember Pro-lifers... If the Government has the right to tell you *can't* have an abortion... it has the right to tell you that you *have* to have one. STOP THE CONTROL!!!

  • Liberal
    Feb. 6, 2010 2:58 p.m.

    If we make abortion legal, all these unwanted children will be born into neglected and abusive homes; thus becoming an even bigger drain on our tax dollars when they are on welfare or constantly in trouble with the legal system because the parents who never wanted their children in the first place, don't do anything to care for them at all! Maybe we should take our tax dollars to educate people on contraception!

  • Brad in the Pitt
    Feb. 6, 2010 2:44 p.m.

    This "measure" is no better than a trite little resolution.

    It is meaningless.

    The woman has to "choose" to view the ultrasound images.

    She is not forced to do so.

    This is just Conservative/radical attempt to stick their camel's nose under the tent in hopes that they can get their entire, stinky, awkward fascist bodies into the tent down the road!

  • Choice?
    Feb. 6, 2010 2:22 p.m.

    I am baffled. If you are Pro-choice, then how does this not provide choice? The bill only requires the info be provided IF the mother ASKS for it. It is HER Choice. The Pro-Choice movement doesn't sound very pro on allowing choice. A better classification would be Pro-Zero Population Growth, or Pro-Death, or Pro-No Choice, or maybe even Pro-Uniformed and Ignorant. Abortion has always been a part of our world. If people couldn't kill the fetus, then they committed infanticide or burnt their infants to death in the arms of Molech. Whether Abortion is legal or not, the social attitude that pregnancy, birth, and new life is a mistake and should be fixed by stopping life is at the root and core of the problems we face as a society. Selfishness vs. sacrifice for another. Personal desires vs. duty and responsibility. Life is precious and so is the freedom to choose. Allowing the choice to be informed in the hope of showing that life is precious IS the most important thing this legislature can do.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 6, 2010 1:43 p.m.

    I have just witnessed a young mans life ruined because his (ex) girlfriend wants an abortion. It is heartbreaking for him. He has begged her to put it up for adoption, and has no control other than knowing it is his too. She found a place in Nevada that will do one at five months. Seems to have no feeling???? The dads should count but....

  • Think about it
    Feb. 6, 2010 1:03 p.m.

    Offering pregnant females the opportunity to watch the ultrasound of an unborn fetus moving about inside her body just might scare the mother into going through with the abortion. Hasn't anybody watched the movie, "Alien"? Where is Sigourney Weaver when we need her?

  • Moved to Maryland
    Feb. 6, 2010 12:32 p.m.

    to I. I wonder if your mother would have had you aborted that she would have said the same thing. VERY FEW people are ever glad that they had an abortion. Even those who are in favor of abortion will admit that its is a serious and somber decision that they made. Never do people use the word glad when discussing abortion. You will never know what that child could have meant to your life or the life of another family had you chosen live over death.

  • Monsieur le prof
    Feb. 6, 2010 12:21 p.m.

    "...and am glad I did it." How callous and selfish.

    That aborted child would have been 24 this year, with a full life in front of him or her.

  • I
    Feb. 6, 2010 11:55 a.m.

    had an abortion back in 1986, and am glad I did it.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 6, 2010 10:00 a.m.

    "Did any female's have any input in the formulation of this "law"? "

    Not in this state... they know where they belong.

  • FEMALE
    Feb. 6, 2010 9:26 a.m.

    Did any female's have any input in the formulation of this "law"?

  • @RWB
    Feb. 6, 2010 9:19 a.m.

    It isn't your choice anymore than the government. The government should keep its hands out of this.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 6, 2010 9:15 a.m.

    Abortion destroys the lives of women as well as the lives of children. I know this from personal experience. I have no doubt that MANY women would change their minds if they viewed the ultrasound. As it is, those who get abortions never recover from it. A last ditch effort to change their minds would save the life of a child as well as the life of the mother.

  • Sutton
    Feb. 6, 2010 8:57 a.m.

    What is there to see at this early stage??? About the time when a woman decides to have an abortion anyways, the Baby is still developing and would look less than human, and so small you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway, ...

    It's not like they are gonna be havin' these ultra-sounds during the ninth month.

    What a waste of money, and Government inference...

  • RedWhiteandBlue
    Feb. 6, 2010 8:35 a.m.

    Kinda makes you sick to your stomach, to think we can now kill children if so desired. I would not want my daughter to kill her child if she was the victim of rape no more than I would want any of my other grandchildren killed. A life is a life for pete's sake. Killing at will is unexcusable maybe not in this life, but the taking of an innocent life, God doesn't look favorably on.

  • Ever Notice
    Feb. 6, 2010 1:10 a.m.

    that anyone who supports abortion has already been born?

  • JanSan
    Feb. 5, 2010 8:41 p.m.

    If this "dumb" law saves the life of one unborn child then this law is worth it in my eyes...

    Abortion may be legal... but it is still murder!

  • Dumb law
    Feb. 5, 2010 7:13 p.m.

    The medical doctors tell the legislators that current ultrasounds aren't sophisticated enough to even show the mother that the embryo is viable. But does that deter the legislators from spending taxpayers' money on useless ultrasounds? Nooooooo.

    These guys are just dumb beyond belief. And wasteful with my money, to boot.

  • G
    Feb. 5, 2010 6:11 p.m.

    This is silly. What's the point of passing laws to try to prevent people from doing what is legal?

  • Government waste
    Feb. 5, 2010 6:02 p.m.

    Another example of government waste.

  • Pam
    Feb. 5, 2010 5:45 p.m.

    This also means that abortion clinics have an interest in NOT sharing medical information with their patients.

    I have had numerous non-pregnancy ultrasounds and thorasic x-rays. In every instance the doctor or technician asked if I wanted to watch, adjusted the screen and then described what they were looking at and for.

    This bill doesn't appear to require providers to volunteer the information, merely provide it upon request which is less open than the typical medical environment.

  • Choices
    Feb. 5, 2010 5:43 p.m.

    Everything possible should be done to help a woman change her mind about having an abortion. How can she rationalize that it's "her choice" when an innocent life is at stake. Before the act takes place that causes conception is when the woman has the right to "chose," not after the fact. Girls these days from the age of five and up know where babies come from, so... Whatever happened to self-respect and morality before marriage, and fidelity and unselfishness afterwards? Of course rape is a different consideration. There are plenty of couples longing to adopt, but thanks to abortion, babies are not that plentiful. Seems that giving a baby to someone who wants it would be a better choice than murdering it!

  • GOOD
    Feb. 5, 2010 5:43 p.m.

    I totally support this legislation. Women should see what is inside them before making a decision about life.

    We should be a nation of adoption for unwanted pregnancies, not abortion.

  • DC
    Feb. 5, 2010 4:38 p.m.

    What a complete WASTE of tax payers dollars and a HUGE WASTE of our State Legislatures time. We have so many other huge problems like our deficit and our unemployment crisis to fix. This bills only purpose is to try and make a woman change their mind as the congressman said in the article. To all Utah residents and to all the members of the Utah congress, abortion is LEGAL! Get used to it. I can't wait to cast my vote this next election against any incumbent who voted in support of this. The abortion clinics should have the choice to support and install this in their facility, not be forced to. If this passes into law I hope the ACLU will fight this and get it overturned.

  • May......
    Feb. 5, 2010 4:28 p.m.

    May God, Help us ALL!

  • @K
    Feb. 5, 2010 4:22 p.m.

    Legislature, please show some compassion to victims of sexual violence. Imagine if it was your daughter, wife or sister who was attacked. Would you still thrust this upon her?

    These women CAN'T sleep at night. That is why they make the painful choice to have an abortion. This is a bill of re-victimization. Even in the cases where the pregnancy was just unplanned, it is not the government's right to interfere with the woman or her doctor's decision.

  • Thom
    Feb. 5, 2010 3:58 p.m.

    Of course this is a "transparent attempt to reduce the number of abortions...." The article even stated such. I don't see how showing a woman an ultra-sound that she requests is the equivalent to showing graphic pictures of aborted fetuses outside a clinic. I don't think accurate information can ever be considered a bad thing when making a decision. I don't think an argument attacking the act of giving information when requested has a leg to stand on.

  • K
    Feb. 5, 2010 3:38 p.m.

    I hope this helps women come to terms with the fact that they are killing a human. But hey it's their body and therefore they should have the right to kill their children right?
    I will never understand how taking the life of another should be the mothers choice.
    How can these women sleep at night.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 5, 2010 3:28 p.m.

    Just another way to try and have the mother keep the child. Not with any help from the groups that supported this bill, mind you.

    They would tell the mother to give the child up for adoption.

    Not take the responsibility of keeping the child themselves.

  • Big Larry
    Feb. 5, 2010 3:16 p.m.

    This law is a fairly transparent attempt to reduce the number of abortions by counting on pregnant women to change their minds after seeing an ultrasound of their living fetus. Naturally there are two ways to look at this: the pro-life view is that if a woman is confronted with graphic images of the fetus she can't otherwise see, she will make an emotional decision against the abortion. The pro-choice view is that this is the equivalent of a protester standing outside the clinic with graphic photos of aborted fetuses -- in other words, intimidation. Both views have some validity, which is why abortion is such a difficult debate in the first place. How many women will "choose" to see these images, is hard to say; whether any medical providers will somehow "show" the images to a woman without being asked is also hard to predict. And so the tug of war over a highly personal issue, between two equally passionate factions, with vulnerable, pregnant women in the middle, goes on and on.

  • If a woman has chosen to have
    Feb. 5, 2010 3:13 p.m.

    an abortion, she isn't going to want to look at what is her unborn child. She will decline the offer, so this is moot. Just another waste of time and taxpayer money.

  • good
    Feb. 5, 2010 2:49 p.m.

    not a bad law at all. let's the woman make an informed decision. and let's HER make the decision, not the gov't.

    it's pro-choice, with info. very nice.