Comments about ‘Bill to increase waiting period for abortion in Utah advances to House’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 24 2012 9:40 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Perhaps the bill should require a 72 hr jail sentence for the father of the baby, while the woman is " thinking" about it.
Already, in Utah a woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility. The abortion rate in Utah is 6.7 per 1000 women, 1/3 the rate of the U.S. rate.

Now Utah is going to teach abstinence only in schools. Abstinence should be taught as part of sex education, but in older students, it should include contraceptives, how to prevent STDs and pregnancy.

This whole war against women's rights over their own health is going to backfire against the Republicans.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Its a good start, now if we can just extend the waiting period out to 9 months.

Conservatives you have been duped by one of the people you idolize. Ronald Reagan had the often spoke about the evils of abortion. What did he do about it? Nothing it wasn't a priority for him. Lowering taxes on the wealthy was. When he had the chance to do something about it he put Sandra O'Connor on the supreme court. Had her vote on a case having to do with abortion gone the other way, the supreme court at the time would have nullified its Roe v Wade decison.

After he got out of office, after votes no longer mattered to her, Nancy Reagan came out ad admitted that she was for a woman's 'right' to have an abortion.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

This is ridiculous. Why can't you separate religion from your state? If you're state's 90% on religion .. let that 90% follow their beliefs. Let the 10% of the other religion follow theirs. Why in the world does the government have to tell you what to do?

homebrew
South Jordan, UT

I thought republicans wanted the government out of our lives. Hypocrites. Abstinance only education about sex?? Worked for Bristol Palin didnt it. This states legislature has NO clue.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

"Opponents argued that the bill was bad public policy because its true intent is to punish women who make the decision to have an abortion."

In all fairness, shouldn't murder be punished? Sorry if my religious beliefs about the immorality of murder get in the way, but life is something we should respect.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Truthseeker,

"This whole war against women's rights"

For some people, it's a war to protect an infant's rights.

Restrictions on abortion can in no way be construed to infringe a woman's freedom. People should be free to make their own choices. When a woman chooses to get pregnant, a choice is made. Certain activities have natural consequences. We all know this as it clearly isn't rocket science. When you force an escape from those consequences, you have not preserved free choice but have created a third moral function altogether- this is not dissimilar to relativism, in which all actions are moral according to one's desires. The problem is that if the morality of an action is determined according to one's desire to commit such an act, then no law or justice can exist. This is philosophy 101 and is one of the most basic principles that is self evident. This is why philosophers almost universally reject relativism, why religions do, why governments must, and so on. If a woman can get pregnant and escape the consequence, why I can't I do it for all of my actions. If I can't also, then justice is robbed from me. Furthermore, how can you be so fast to consign men to the responsibility of 'getting a woman' pregnant, but reject any responsibility on the woman's part.

The truth is something we all know and cannot escape. Some people try to find happiness by escaping responsibility for their actions. Good people try to own the responsibility of their actions and deal justly in all their dealings. I have never sought to "take away" anything from women. And as far as "backfiring", it is only obvious that the only thing that can backfire is trying to escape consequence. Whereas justice is an eternal principle, as the Book of Alma in the Book of Mormon so well illustrates for us. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

I accept your apology, Riverton Cougar.

isrred
Logan, UT

I thought Republicans were opposed to government inserting itself into medical decisions. Weren't they the ones screaming Obama wanted to put government between you and your doctor? Republicans are truly the party of big, intrusive government.

They want in your wombs, in your bedrooms, and in your cupboards to control your alcohol and other legal products.

Anon 64
Oahu, HI

It is Vital to pass a bill delaying Abortion, as delay is the first step to stopping or banning Abortion. A Ban can be done in many ways, such as noth accepting Health Care Plans that cover abortion. Not going to health facilities that perform Abortions, and of Course not going to Drs. or Other medical professionals who perform or take part in Abortions.

Now with Christmas and news Years over and March and April approaching the errors of the end of last year might be beginning to show, and for some the easy way out or so it would appear would be an Abortion. However there is enough problems from committing the error, mostly if he told what you two did or a person did the confess thing. Please do not ad to the problem, an Abortion which is pretty much 1st degree murder. Adoption would be the option and protection of the Childs right to live, and the Male Childs Priesthood Rights.

Anything the State can do to delay or prevent Abortion is a good thing.

Are you aware that in a Number of States that Abortion Banning Laws are written and ready to go, with the verbal committment to call a special session for such a purpose the moment Roe v Wade is Overturned or a New president Declares that Abortion or at least the Federal Funding there of is Flat Over In America. Answer: Several let Utah be one of those States.

awsomeron1
Oahu, HI

Truthseeker: I agree with you, except it is not just the Repubs that are against killing unborn childern. It is not a Repub or Dem thing it is a Human thing.

Life begins at the moment of conception, Choice ends at the moment life begins.

I think the issues of Birth Control ( I am in favor of almost anything that will prevent a conception) However the conception having taken place I am 100% against the murder of an unborn child.

Accidents do happen but you should never tell your child that they are/where an accident, bad on the self image. Also you should never Kill your child.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

issred

"They want in your wombs, in your bedrooms, and in your cupboards to control your alcohol and other legal products."

Surely you understand that those who would disagree with such a bold claim would expect reasonable grounds to support it. Yet no such support was provided. My argument proves that there are reasons to support abortion restrictions that are not motivated by controlling others actions. And as regards to alcohol, I don't promote removing alcohol but preventing the abuse of alcohol. Other states are far more restrictive, yet our state is the most effective in DUI-related death prevention (with or without the LDS population taken into account). By all means, I have provided reason to support my only concern being freedom and I have provided reason to support my claims as being functional. Your claim has only been that an entire people, a membership of a political party- one that shares some of my beliefs- that those persons are motivated by wrongdoing and infringing freedom.

By all means, a more appropriate and a more accurate statement, even one supported by some small basis of reason could have been made. I'm not asking for agreement, but asking for such a statement equates to asking for at least the bare minimum of respect in public discourse. If you can't respect other people's opinions as being based in reason instead of the sole desire to destroy freedom, then again such comments are not conducive to peaceable public discourse.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

2nd try
The rate of abortion doesn't correspond with whether it is legal or not. Some of the lowest rates are in Western Europe where abortioin is legal, while So. America where abortion is illegal has a high rate of abortion.

Liberals and conservatives can agree that we want to reduce the incidence of abortion and unplanned pregnancy. However, conservatives tipped their hand that they really are less concerned about the abortion rate than they are about imposing their idealogical standards. While teaching abstinence has been shown to delay sex in early puberty, it does not work for older teens and young adults. Abstinence should be a part of any sex ed program, but it shouldn't be the only thing taught. The use of contraceptives, including emergency contraceptives can substanially decrease the rate of unplanned pregnancy.

When men devise some serious consequences for the choices they make to have sex, then perhaps, women will listen to what they have to say on the topic of abortion. Men have NO IDEA the emotional and physical costs of being pregnant, giving birth, or giving up a baby for adoption.

homebrew
South Jordan, UT

Cougar:: contraception is not murder. The morning after pill is not murder. It mearly prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus. We all have our religious beliefs, but superstition and paronoia, should not be included. Educate yourself and join the 21st century. You call yourself cougar. That could be misconstrude as a sexual term. Is that what you intended? Or am i just paranoid. Women for the last 40 years have been in contoll of their own bodies, and that is as it should be. Now the GOP wants to take us back 50 years. They are always clamouring that the government should stay out of our lives. Well then why dont they.???

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Truthseeker,

"imposing their idealogical standards"

First, how in this democracy could I possibly impose my standards on someone else? Maybe liberals have forgotten or intentionally neglected the meaning of democracy, but for the rest of us it means equal control/ownership of our government. We govern ourselves. Just because liberals don't like the outcome of our voice, doesn't mean it's imposing. When liberals convinced the court to cancel our votes (our rights) based on a "right to privacy" that isn't even in our constitution, then maybe you should reconsider who you start accusing of imposing ideological standards on others. Read Rehnquist's dissent on Roe V. Wade and then show me where in the constitution such rights are protected.

"When men devise some serious consequences for the choices they make to have sex, then perhaps, women will listen to what they have to say on the topic of abortion."

So I suppose child support isn't considered a consequence to you? If not, then what is? Yes, SOME men do bad things... but such acts have absolutely nothing to do with whether restrictions on abortion should be in place. The logic of your argument is: 'because he escaped consequence, I should be able to". This a reverse use of the deductive argument I made, and a logical fallacy. If one person is exempt from justice, then you are robbing others of justice who you hold accountable. This means that 'because men escape consequence, you have robbed women by placing the full responsibility on them'. It doesn't mean that 'they should escape it to'. Otherwise, ALL law must cease, all morality must cease, and I am entitled to commit any crime I desire.

Truthseeker, I'm not just a fanatical spouting "read the Book of Mormon" without reason. If you really seek truth, I'll assume you have read the Book of Mormon. Well, throughout the "Reign of Judges" chapters these principles of justice and freedom vs moral relativism are outlined perfectly. Not only are they explained, but they are proven over and over and the infallibility of the logic of these principles is proven. Does that make me a ideological crazy person? No. That simply means I'm making a pretty bold claim. But I'm also pointing to answers for such claims. I also democratically voice those principles into a government you have equal power over. That is freedom. That is equality. That is justice.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

You cite the Book of Mormon, but the LDS church doesn't take a position on Roe v Wade. It also permits abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe deformity of the fetus/infant or life/death situations of the mother. So apparently the "infant" interests don't always supercede those of the mother.

If you believe in God, no one is going to escape judgement. If a woman has an abortion, God will judge her, knowing the circumstances, level of knowledge etc. During Jesus' ministry, he refrained from judging, while urging us to not sin. How are you going to keep women from having abortions? Will you incarcerate them, put them on trial? Will you incarcerate Drs.or healthcare workers? How does making contraception easily available and free limit your freedom?

Since the Constitution was ratified, the founding fathers and great legal minds have differed on it's limits, interpretation etc. So saying the originalists/strict constitutionalists views are the correct interpretation is just your opinion.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

As far as I know, there is no official position on Roe v Wade. However, it also doesn't "permit" abortion in any situation automatically. Rape, Incest, Severe Deformity, and Life risk situations are the only times where a member may approach the issue in good standing with the church. Members still must pray and seek counsel from their bishop. However, it isn't a matter of 'infant interests vs mothers interests'. This entire matter isn't about anyone's "interests" or desires whatsoever. This is about freedom, the freedom to live and the freedom to choose. If you read the talk "Weightier Matters" by Dallin H. Oaks, you will find adequate reason which addresses my exact argument in relation to the church's official position.

"If you believe in God, no one is going to escape judgement."

A very common point used in saying "we should let it happen". I do believe justice will ultimately not be robbed, but I believe this life is our probationary period 'away from God' to learn to make the right choices now. My belief in God doesn't excuse making laws that I believe and can rationally explain to be unjust.

I also wouldn't confuse Jesus's refrain from judging with not passing judgement. Doctrinally, Jesus Christ is the ultimate judge and will pass judgement. In Alma 42:22-30, we clearly see that judgement is passed on everyone and the balance between that judgement and Christ's forgiving statements. This address both.

Where you asked a few questions "how will..." -I think you misunderstood me a little. I'm not trying to say Women shouldn't have choice, but that 'abortion on demand is wrong, and laws attempting to prevent that act are just'. Should the state interfere where it cannot always know? No. I agree with that. But are longer waiting periods, required counseling with a religious or state counselor, or something... would these things do any harm? No, they only serve to prevent wrong acts and allow choice. This is a great functioning design to me. I would only ever prosecute doctors, etc. if they committed a crime. And I don't care if they hand out contraception to 10 year olds (accept for any health concerns). If they made their choice to do it, I'd rather they have the pill as another choice. However, I don't believe in promoting this pill as a "you can do whatever you want" option either. There is an obvious balance there that needs more attention than it currently gets.

How are you going to keep women from having abortions? Will you incarcerate them, put them on trial? Will you incarcerate Drs.or healthcare workers? How does making contraception easily available and free limit your freedom?

I'm not advocated a non-interpretive approach to the constitution. But "implied rights" that aren't clearly outlined, cannot justly be used to rule an opinion which such serious consequences. If it involves the possibility of destroying a human life, then it absolutely must be clearly defined in the document we've ordained and agree to live by together.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

"It also permits abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe deformity of the fetus/infant or life/death situations of the mother. So apparently the "infant" interests don't always supercede those of the mother."

Truthseeker,

Do you realize that those situations account for about 1% of abortions? It's not a very valid argument. Read Elder Nelson's talk on the subject in the Ensign in 2009 (earlier in the year, but a search on the website will lead you right to it; "Sanctity of Life" is what I think it's called), then you will know what the church's stance on abortion is. Go seek some truth in that article.

"Cougar:: contraception is not murder."

homebrew,

Please show me where I said contraception is murder. I thought it was clear I was talking about abortion, which is after conception (hence the reference to the decision to have an abortion).

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: homebrew 11:00 a.m. Feb. 25, 2012
"Worked for Bristol Palin didnt it."

Bristol Palin chose life for her child. My hat is off to any woman who chooses to put the interests of her unborn child ahead of her own. That's what mothers do.

to comment

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