Comments about ‘Texas Republicans finally pass new abortion limits’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, July 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

These abortion restriction tactics are a good road map for how we can restrict guns in this country. We don't need sweeping gun reform legislation. Just little by little, erode things away.

For example, require a gun safety course before getting a gun permit. Then require that gun safety course instructor be certified as a paramedic in case there is an accident in class. Then later require that the gun safety class be taught within 1000 yards of a surgical center, and that the surgical center have an admitting doctor certified in treating gunshot wounds. Then later require that gun safety courses be taught in a hospital, but add a restriction that no hospital can receive federal funds if they choose to sponsor gun safety courses.

Informed Voter
South Jordan, UT

This bill addresses partial birth abortion which involves a viable baby being partially born and the doctor punctures the brain and sucks out the matter to kill the baby that would otherwise be born normally. Anyone who understands this procedure and still opposes restrictions is as bad as the murderer who does it. Despicable.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Abortiom should be safe legal and rare? Abortion by definition can never be safe, by definition it is the killing of a baby.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Re Moderate

You are forgetting one thing, the right to have a gun is protected by the constitution, the right to have an abortion isn't.

Lone Star Cougar
Plano, TX

Abortion is the most extreme form of selfishness.
People are willing to sacrifice a human for their own pleasure and convenience.

not here
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO

Re cjb

Moderate said nothing about taking them a way, and yes they are protected. All he said is that all trainer need's to be a certified paramedics and all classes need to be taught with in X amount of feet from a hospital, that can treat gun shoot wounds. And are these not the same actions that is being ask for in the Texas abortion law? And if it is, why not start making it in to a law for gun control? And as you can see no one is taking your guns, and you can still keep them.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

"You are forgetting one thing, the right to have a gun is protected by the constitution, the right to have an abortion isn't."
Supreme Court disagrees with you.

But I don't think "Constitutional" matters anymore. We have to jump through hoops to perform our right to vote. We used to have an expectation of privacy. The list goes on and on.

Lone Star Cougar
Plano, TX

Hey y'all, this article is about killing defenseless people and not voting rights and gun control.

OHBU
Columbus, OH

re: cjb

You are factually incorrect. The right to an abortion is constitutionally protected. The Constitution explicitly gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the law, and when they do so, it becomes tied to the Constitution itself. When the court decided in Roe v Wade that the 14th Amendment covered a woman's right to regulate her own body in the form of an abortion, then abortion legally, and constitutionally, became a protected right under the 14th Amendment. Until the Constitution is amended, or the Supreme Court reverses itself, any law that violates Roe v Wade is a direct violation of the Constitution.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@OHBU

Courts do not make law,

congress makes law.

And congress has not made any law a concerning abortion.

The fact is, according to the 9th and 10th amendments abortion is still up to the states and the people not the federal government.

I see nothing in 14th amendments protecting abortion, quite the contrary it protects the life of the unborn.

Any one with common sense can see and read that, anyone not with a political agenda.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

the SCOTUS also said Dred Scot was property

OHBU
Columbus, OH

re: the Truth
Study Roe v Wade--the court said that the 14th Amendment's protection extended to the mother, until viability (between 20-24 weeks), reasoning that until that point they are still part of the mother's body. And in cases where the health of the mother is at risk, there is a choice between two lives, and they allow the mother to make that choice. As to your "common sense" aspect, the amendment lays out rights for those born in the US--an unborn baby is by definition, then, not covered.

re: lost in DC
I said until Congress amends the Constitution OR the Court reverses itself (like they did on Dred Scott). I never made a judgement call that it was right, I simply stated that abortion is Constitutionally protected, if indirectly.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

OHBU,
actually the SCOTUS did not reverse Dred Scott, it was either the 13th amendment, which ended slavery, or the 14th, which guaranteed equal protection. The court was wrong then, as they have been a number of times since - like when they say affirmative action quotas do not violate the 14th amendment as long as the government can present a compelling argument. The constitution does NOT have such qualifiers (like presenting a compelling argument) in its language.

OHBU
Columbus, OH

lost,
I stand corrected. However, that does not change my original argument one bit. Until Congress amends the Constitution, it is the law of the land, and what states like Texas are doing is unconstitutional, as the constitution now stands.

These types of state laws are really nothing but pandering, pure and simple. Every politician knows what has to happen to actually change the law--amend the Constitution. But knowing that they can't actually get the support to do so (like those who would like to do away with guns), they resort to petty fights and obstructionism. These types of laws have been passed time and time again, and they are always eventually ruled unconstitutional, and the state usually is responsible to pay all legal fees. It's an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars spent in a PR campaign to get re-elected.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

OHBU,
we will have to wait and see what the SCOTUS says about Texas's attempts to protect the unborn before we can decide whether the actions Texas has taken are constitutional or not.

In other threads you chastise Chris B for jumping to conclusions about rioting in the Zimmerman trial, and here you are jumping to conclusions about Texas's new law.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Milla Perry Jones sits on the board of the United Surgical Partners Corporation. They currently operate 420 surgical centers in the state. Closing 37 of the 42 clinics in Texas significantly eliminates competition and gives the company the ability to offer and perform abortion procedures at a higher cost. This means low income women will have to pay more to get an abortion and Rick Perry’s sister will profit from it.

Sounds about right.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments