Lawmaker aims to limit access to abortions

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • Anon
    Jan. 22, 2008 3:59 p.m.

    Do lawmakers and other in Utah really think that laws like these will keep young women from having abortions? All it will do is make dangerous back-alley abortions the ONLY option available to young women who want abortions, and will encourage teen girls to run to other states where abortion is available without parental consent.

  • Eileen
    Dec. 18, 2007 3:43 p.m.

    If Rep Sandstrom is so interested in the sanctity of human life, I want to see him out in front of the Federal Building on Thursday nights protesting the war in Iraq, and its horrendous impact on human life, military and civilian, American and Iraqi.

  • don
    Dec. 15, 2007 8:18 a.m.

    This argument is a RELIGIOUS/MORAL argument. Some will find this comment very offensive, but so be it.

    Abortion is a legal medical procedure. One need not like it. I abhor it. I also am a male and don't get pregnant. I found few comments that advocate a truthful and valid course in reproductive education.

    If you want to reduce the frequency of abortion, you must teach all methods of birth control. From the CONDOM to the various MEDICAL FORMS OF CONTRACEPTION. Abstaining from sex is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy. I am sure we can all agree to that statement.

    Knowledge is power, I ask all to look at this little fact. The crusades of yesteryear and the rift between the Shia and Sunni Muslims. No one should allow their religion to violate their neighbors right to practice their religion or lack of a religion.

    It is time to acknowledge more and better reproductive education is neccessary including all methods including surgical methods up to and including sterilization.

  • Janet
    Dec. 13, 2007 7:20 p.m.

    Personally they should just introduce a trigger law and bide their time until something happens because it looks like other states are going to be leading the way to challenge Roe. Although I hope they can clump both the consent laws and the trigger law together because abortion should only be allowed in cases of Rape, Incest or if the Life of the Mother is at stake or will cause her serious injury

  • k
    Dec. 10, 2007 1:04 p.m.

    Are these girls getting themselves pregnant? The blame placed on girls in the comments above only underscore the need for the ability of a minor to go before a judge who can determine if the situation is so dire that it requires some avenue for intervention (a traumatic experience for most, even for something infinitely less emotional than an unwanted pregnancy). Clearly this option is not being abused based on the number of girls who both request (8) and can have an abortion without parental consent (2). If your religion believes this is a sacriledge, that is your right. It does not entitle you to impose your beliefs on others. I for one do not believe the perpetuation of abuse is a parental right.

  • Sandpiper
    Dec. 10, 2007 12:33 p.m.

    First there waren's LIB women's Lib, now its Childrens LIB. Then came seapration of Church and State (not constitutional by the way) then its a Woman's/young girls right to decide what they do with their bodies. Consider the tiny helpless female fetus being aborted, where is here right to choose? Huh, huh! Such Liberal/secular progressive /left wing garbage. State is supposed to be father, mother sister and brother and thes people don't mind at all. They howl at such a thing , but don't mind Tazing the population into oblivion in order to pay for all these welfare/touchy feely programs.

    Even without abortion, there are plenty of youngsters who are abused or neglected. Seems hardly a day goes by without some mention mentiopn of helpless child ether being neglected, severely beaten and or killed by a live in boyfriend or selfish single Mom. Can married cuoples do the same? You bet!
    Selfishness, self centered, obsessed whith greed? Think about!
    Uh, religious people are tax payers too, consider that the next time you think about public funding for abortio A La State/federal government.

  • To: BD
    Dec. 10, 2007 3:30 a.m.

    If a woman values her right to manage her life and her body how does she end up pregnant in the first place? The numbers of pregnancies that are caused by coercion are exceedingly small compared to those caused by a woman's poor "management".

    The reason young girls get pregnant is because their bodies have been preparing for childbearing since they were twelve while they have been living in a society that is obsessed with alienated sex, i.e. sex that is completely disengaged from its reproductive moorings. There certainly is no lack of information about where babies come from. The romantic fantasies of adolescent girls have simply morphed into sexual intercourse because both boys and girls have been taught to expect it with the ubiquitous "Contraception training, birth control education, and availability of birth dontrol services and products". Better training for young women would be fetal development beginning with fertilization and natural childbirth classes. Such education might give them more respect for their bodies, and a much needed respect for new life.

  • BD
    Dec. 9, 2007 9:44 p.m.

    I find it sad that a state that is so bent upon legislating and imposing a certain code or value upon a women concerning her right to manage her life and her body does so little to help prevent the pregnancy to begin with. Contraception training, birth control education, and availability of birth control services and products for minor women is essentially unavailable - heck, it's barely there for adult women. But, judgement is in plentiful supply. Couple the legislation with a real effort to educate in the schools, churches, and at home and our society will be better served. This proposed legislation is just another example of imposing the will of some people upon young women who are in true need of help. In Utah, we talk the talk of "free agency," but we really don't walk the walk at all. To this man, the plight of women just doesn't seem fair. It does, however, help me understand what women in the Middle East must face on a daily basis.

  • to: Ordinary mother
    Dec. 9, 2007 9:04 p.m.

    thats right, YOUR daughters could never become pregnant out of wedlock! get real

  • to:ananymous at 423
    Dec. 9, 2007 8:45 p.m.

    How are you making the world a better place by forcing unwanted children to be born, just so you can teach the mother a lesson or punish her for her decision?

  • Ordinary mother
    Dec. 9, 2007 8:00 p.m.

    Mike: In regard to abusive parents - what could be more abusive than killing one's offspring? Does the fact that the child needs to develop further before leaving the womb make the abuse less heinous?

    Child abuse is rare compared to the millions of parents who love, protect and nurture their children throughout childhood only to be told that the law has co-opted their rights in regard to their adolescent. The fact that a young girl gets pregnant out of wedlock is a clear indication that she has bad judgment and is in need of parental counsel and discipline. Unless the parents deliberately choose to forfeit their responsibilites they should be allowed to continue in their roles as parents.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 9, 2007 7:46 p.m.

    Concerning the rape/incest issue in regard to parental consent for a minor's abortion: Most states have laws requiring the reporting of actions. The authorities can then step in and prevent further sexual assaults. However, if a judge grants permission without parental consent and nothing is done to prosecute the perpetrator and protect the minor, the prepetrator is free to continual his insidious and illegal activity.
    Abortion of a pregnancy due to rape/incest is a very small percentage of total abortions. I'm willing to bet that there are more judicial bypasses granted to minors than there are minors' abortions due to rape/incest.

  • Chad
    Dec. 9, 2007 7:14 p.m.

    Less abortions is admirable, but lets make them unnecessary. Teach contraception along with abstinence. Something so important needs a plan B and a plan C before being faced with abortion.

  • Mike
    Dec. 9, 2007 5:15 p.m.

    I am opposed to abortion. One of several problems with the proposed parental consent law is if the parent is abusive in some form or another. Abusive parents should have no power to make decisions for their children.

    Abuse of one kind or another is more widespread than would be believed by most readers of this paper. In many cases, a judge will actually have the child's best interest at heart more than the parents. Parents only have "rights" over their children, a gift from the creator who sent parents those children, as long as they do not abuse their authority. There are certainly going to be cases, as has already been mentioned above, where the father of the child seeking an abortion, is also the one who sexually abused his daughter and is the father of the unborn child.

    The above bill, while seemingly based on good premises, goes too far in not recognizing the inability of many parents to act in the best interest of their parents. Better to follow the example of the LDS church in leaving open rare exceptions to their general solid opposition to abortion.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 9, 2007 4:23 p.m.

    Brilliant:

    "These kids" doom themselves to a bad life by making poor decisions. Allowing them to continue to live recklessly without paying the consequences for their actions only encourages irresponsiblity. Without good parenting, irresponsible children grow into irresponsible adults. Does that make the world a better place?

  • brilliant
    Dec. 9, 2007 3:13 p.m.

    If the woman (or girl) doesnt want the baby, then it's best she not have it. Someone is forced to have a baby they don't want is not likely to be the best parent, and if they're considering abortion then they probably aren't in the best situation anyways. You want to doom these kids to a bad life. Oh yeah, there's adoption- but you forget that there is already a surplus of parentless kids needing adoption, and this would only add to that. Again, dooming kids to a bad life just so you can feel like you made the world a better place

  • Artes Liberalis
    Dec. 9, 2007 2:27 p.m.

    Though I appose abortion on moral grounds, in defense of an infant that did no wrong, I will address practical issues here.

    There are real health issues involved here. When a medical procedure of any kind is performed, there are risks and possibility of complications. Schools cannot even handout aspirin without parental consent.

    Abortion has risks, and it is not like having a hair cut. Some of those risks include infection, hemorrhage, uterine perforation, blood clots, that can lead to maternal death. These complications are not as rare as we are led to believe. A child hiding they had an abortion, may not be forthright when notifying parents of complications.If a parent does not know a child has had an abortion, they may not realize that the child is having complications, and this may endanger the life and future health of the child.

    A minor child cannot sign a form of consent for any other medical procedure.

    I feel the legislation is wise and shows sound thinking.

  • L
    Dec. 9, 2007 2:07 p.m.

    Regarding Partents Are in Charge at 8:58 am

    I disagree with abortion, but you make a point about minors. I'm not exactly sure what one is as the defination as I understand it differs from state to state & country. I guess that is true on differences of legal age to marry.

    Someplaces require parents consent, some don't. Recently there was a case when parents did not approve of a daughters marriage & even took steps to prevent it. The judge sided with the daughter (but I do not know the who story)

    Some parents because of their value will give permission more readily than others (some may even tell them they have to get an abortion).

    It seems to me that the State only has what rights we extend to them (health, safety & welfare) and that one person's actions may indeed at some time infringe on others wishes or values. There are a lot of different values to consider and once a decision is made by our elected representatives, it is for us to follow or legally work to get changed.

    What's the best way to go? ...PARENTS? ...STATE? ...A COMBINATION of both?

  • Common Sense
    Dec. 9, 2007 1:39 p.m.

    Re: Parents Are in Charge? What about cases of incest/rape? What if the father raped te daugher? Do you really want him involved in this decision?

  • wahhhhhhhh
    Dec. 9, 2007 1:17 p.m.

    the reasoning behind abortion to be made illegal is because of the number of people who want to take the baby away from the young, single moms as soon as it's born.

    I would rather have my daughters (2 of them) get an abortion rather than be forced by LDS social services to give it to a couple 'more deserving' of the child then they are. I would hope that my daughters would be honest enough with me to discuss the issue rather then go behind my back and get it done.

  • To AEP:
    Dec. 9, 2007 11:13 a.m.

    Well said. One single topic has dominated, to an irrational level, has trounced serious, wide spread common public issues.

    leave abortion to a woman, her partner, her doctor and her god to decide.

    If her god is the same one of whom many of you speak, he'll take care of her judgment.

    Government should not be legislating issues that are divided by beliefs.

  • Sam Hofer
    Dec. 9, 2007 10:23 a.m.

    It's interesting that, at the same time we bathe in the giddy euphoria of Romney's 'JFK' moment, we disparage any attempt to separate the state from being beholden to 'the creator'. I don't even have to assume you mean 'creator' as defined by the majority of the local white folks, exclusive of any definition anyone outside that demographic may have.
    There are many sides to the abortion issue. Mostly what drives it these days, though, is religion. It's not a health or economic issue, or even a moral one. It's a religious issue. A perfect example of how religion, brought to the political arena, tears our society apart.

  • Re:AEP
    Dec. 9, 2007 9:56 a.m.

    Even if it is one young girl...it is one too many!

  • AEP
    Dec. 9, 2007 9:10 a.m.

    Utah isn't going to be "leading the way" on such a controversial issue because nobody takes us seriously on such issues -- it's too easy to dismiss us, and such issues, as only what you would expect from "thse people." I abhor abortion, but I am also disgusted and angered by the way this single issue dominates such a huge share of public discourse. Mr. S., exactly how many young girls are getting judge's orders for causes other than your exceptions? Hm? That's what I thought -- your bill will do exactly nothing but eat up money and time and attention, sucking those scarce resources away from issues that actually *mean* something to the people of Utah! Do your job, and stop playing games!

  • Parent's Are In Charge
    Dec. 9, 2007 8:58 a.m.

    The State has absolutely no right, either by law or by nature to undermine parental rights endowed by our Creator. A minor must not be permitted to obtain an abortion through the State without parental consent. For the State to assume this right, it is denying the existence of our Creator and establishing it as the supreme authority. This violates nature's laws and is unacceptable in our country, a nation founded under God.

  • samhill
    Dec. 9, 2007 8:24 a.m.

    One of the strangest aspect of this debate is the apparent asumption that the various options are mutually exclusive. For example, there is no problem with attempting to discourage teen pregnancy through by providing both encouragement of pre-marital abstinence and education in methods of pregnancy preventation.

    This odd disconnection in the argumentation is one indication that there is dishonesty involved. The other is the persistent denial of the one crucial but inconvenient truth of the matter. That is, whenever the "procedure" of abortion is carried out, at least one life is destroyed. After all, the termination of that life is the whole point of abortion. Where it not for the very fact that there is a developing human being involved, with all the implications that fact has for long-term responsibility and care of the human being, there would be no discussion of abortion.

  • Camille
    Dec. 9, 2007 5:14 a.m.

    I totally agree that there should be a law like this. In these times young girls think it's alright if they do adult things yet they don't want any of the responsiblilities of their actions. Kids these days feel it's alright to do whatever they want behind their parents' backs cause they feel they can get away with it, it's not right and in a case of abortion a parent is the one who has the right to know about it and consent not a child who has gone and got herself in trouble and decides she doesn't want the child and wants to kill it. A judge isn't the one to make that decision it's the parent.