Planned Parenthood helps with contraceptives, health information, counseling

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 6, 2012 10:59 a.m.

    If people would get off their high horses and care about people instead of judging them, maybe this world would be a better place. I don't agree with abortion myself, but it isn't my body or my choice. I find it interesting how people scream about abortion, yet have no problem throwing a human being in the garbage when they become an adult. Being gay, I have heard so many LDS people , among others, who say that a person is better off dead rather than being gay! I have even had my life threatened! So, what is the difference? You have taken it upon yourselves to decide so much about another human being. To me, it is the same as if you would have had me aborted as an infant. Oh, that is different, isn't it. You judgemental people should take a good long look in the mirror, because I am sure many of you have thought that about gays. Who gave you the right to abort or terminate,even if it is only in your thoughts. How many of these ritcheous people would actualy terminate me, if they could?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 6, 2012 5:16 a.m.

    Good golly.... this went down the usual rat hole.

    Here is my perspective on this. The Red Cross gets much of its funding from donations and the sort, plus line item reimbursement from local, state and federal government grants for specific projects.

    I would expect a reasonable arrangement could be had with planned parenthood, where localities helped fund project to keep under aged youth from getting themselves into situations they are not mature enough to understand the full implications, all the while not funding the irresponsible actions of adults who will no or choose not to take responsibility for their own life style choices.

    I firmly believe in people's right to choose, even choose poorly... but I don't support the notion that others should have to deal with the cost of those bad decisions.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Nov. 5, 2012 12:14 a.m.

    In essence the LDS Church stance is in fact Pro-Choice! Think about it, if the stance is "LDS doctrine also teaches that, with prayerful consideration and consultation with local Church leaders, abortion is allowable in cases of rape, incest, serious jeopardy to the life or health of the mother, or a fatal fetal defect." then make no mistake about it, a CHOICE is being made here! And does the Church doctrine state than an Elder be placed at the door of the Doctors office with the questionnaire? Was it rape, incest or the is the life of the Mother in question? I don't think so! The LDS Church is not anti-abortion, they are in fact pro-choice! And if my daughter or wife isn't a member of the LDS Church, then of course she would have no need to consult with a "local Church leader" right? I submit, if you are so-called "pro-life" in the harshest sense, government should ban abortions, and you are LDS, then you are going against the position of your own Church!

  • Lowell Steele Farmington, UT
    Nov. 3, 2012 12:15 p.m.

    @ Fury--The top researchers have been unable to determine when human life begins, and yet you can, without equivocation, tell us that it does not begin until birth? Amazing!

    Anyone who has born a child knows that babies in the womb respond to light, heat, cold, familiar voices, music. Convince a mother that there is no life in there! It is evident that life begins prior to birth, we just don't know exactly at what point. And since no one can fix that event with any confidence, would it not behoove us, out of a fear of taking a human life, to avoid abortion at all costs? This insistence on ignoring common sense to deny the existence of life in the womb seems quite strange to me. Equally strange is the insistence that abortion has to do with the rights of the expectant mother, with absolutely no consideration for the rights of the unborn child, who has absolutely no choice in the matter. Law and society are obligated to protect the rights of the weaker party in this and all situations, which obligation we have reneged in the case of unborn children.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 3, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    The religious crowd can make a lot more racket than any sane argument.

  • Dudicus Ogden, UT
    Nov. 3, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    To Wonder 11:42 p.m. Nov. 2, 2012

    @L White -- Um....if a mother "gives her life so her unborn child can live," then guess what? The unborn child won't live either. If mother dies, fetus dies. Unless the unborn child is old enough to be delivered, and if that's the case, then why wouldn't the doctors just deliver the baby so the mother won't die? What you're saying makes no sense.


    I am Furry1993's husband. Debbie was my cousin.

    That's what happed with Debbie, leaving her husband a widower and her already-living chidren half-orphans. The fetus (not yet a child or a baby) was not of an age to be delivered and gain a spirit at the time Debbie died. Debbie and her family would have been much better off had she terminated the pregnancy and lived to raise (with her husband) her already-existing and already-living children. Sadly she did not, and her famiy suffered as a result. Furry and I don't support abortion except for the direst of circumstances -- this is one time it should have been done.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:42 p.m.

    @L White -- Um....if a mother "gives her life so her unborn child can live," then guess what? The unborn child won't live either. If mother dies, fetus dies. Unless the unborn child is old enough to be delivered, and if that's the case, then why wouldn't the doctors just deliver the baby so the mother won't die? What you're saying makes no sense.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:06 p.m.

    L White,

    If you're willing to die for your unborn baby, that's your choice. Forcing a pregnant woman whose life is in danger to die for hers is just immoral. That decision needs to be between herself, her doctor, her conscience, and her God. It's absolutely none of your business.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 7:15 p.m.

    It doesn't matter does it? It doesn't matter that Christ gave his life so that we could live. He asked us to do the same. It doesn't matter that MANY women have given their lives so that their unborn children could to live.

    That understanding of sacrifice is foreign to the selfishness that is part of our society. Today the only question that matters is, "What's in it for me?"

    That is what the pro-Planned Parenthood posters are telling us. They're telling us that no unborn child has worth. They're telling us that the purpose of life is to get all that you can even at the expense of the life of the innocent.

    May God forgive us for becoming unfeeling.

    Each woman, who knows that when the decision is between herself and her unborn child, has to ask herself whose life is more important. Throughout the ages, the answer to that question was to let the child live regardless of the consequences to the mother.

    How many of us would let a born child die so that we could live? Few would put self above the need to protect the innocent.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 5:07 p.m.

    Redshirt, if you can get pregnant you're entitled to an opinion.

    If Viagra is covered so should birth control. Neither are medical necessities.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 4:47 p.m.

    Thank you Redshirt!

    Consider this Furry:

    If the government gave a church any small amount of money to help fund its charitable services, there would be such an outcry about separation of church and state, even though the church wasn't actually keeping any of the money for itself. You would probably be one of those up in arms.

    Government funding of PP is the same thing. Every dollar they get allows them to use their other funds to perform anti religious activities, ie abortion and contraception. Think of it as a secularist (or anti religious) charity. Government should get out. Let the private sector secularists, who believe in PP, support it. There seems to be plenty of support around for it to get the job done without religious folks' money. We prefer our money go to children's causes.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 4:08 p.m.

    @Blue says “...makes no sense to claim that a fertilized egg is a person because so many fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted”

    Then it must make no sense to you that ANYONE is a person because so many of us die of natural causes. You can marginalize the humanity of a fetus all you want - calling them mere blastocysts or fertilized eggs - but the rest of us do not choose to be blind to what it really being slaughtered in those facilities.

    Very few people are so ridiculously extreme as to be worried about people who have miscarriages, so you can stash that straw man argument away.

    The issues of rape, incest, and threats to the mother are argued about even among pro-lifers. Almost all would agree that a mother should not have to die to save a fetus. And many would agree that the guilt for abortion due to rape or incest is on the head of the rapist rather than the mother.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 2, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    To "Furry1993" the government is funding abortions, they have just found a way to do it indirectly.

    Look at it this way. The government is funding a significant portion of their overhead administrative costs, thus making more of their fees and donated money available to pay for abortions. By saving PP money for one line item, they are able to spend more money for another item.

    It is only through accounting that they can say that no funding pays for abortions. The fact is PP receives money, and they perform hundreds of thousands of abortions each year.

    To "Makid" unfortunately there is currently a 2 year waiting list for parents to adopt newborns. Adoptions will take care of nearly all the children that would be born to those mothers.

  • jjjdsd CENTERVILLE, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 3:09 p.m.

    Tolstoy No I am not comparing the use of contraception to the holocaust. I am stating that the beginning purposes and policies of Planned Parenthood as articulated by Margaret Sanger was to decrease the population of blacks through the use of contraception, abortion, and forced sterilization. As editor of her magazine she advocated the creation of concentration camps for those in poverty. She advocated only the top 13% of whites should be allowed to have children. Abortion policies are such that the black population is at one half of what it could have been. Does this not sound like a racial policy similar to the holocaust? I don't propose doing away with contraception and sex education however as the underlying premise of this thread, I don't think the government should be funding Planned Parenthood. And alt, not funding Planned Parenthood with government dollars is not telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies.

  • Kass SLC, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 3:08 p.m.

    @ jsf: When has the LDS Church ever said it opposes Planned Parenthood? Why would the LDS Church oppose an organization that offers services that the LDS Church finds acceptable for its members?

    Contrary to popular belief, not all Mormons are wealthy or have private insurance. Are you suggesting the LDS Church opposes opportunities for their less well off members to have reproductive health services and cancer screenings?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 2:30 p.m.

    Are you seriously comparing the use of contraception to the holocaust?

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 2:18 p.m.

    The ultimate question for this discussion comes down to birth control to prevent abortions.

    Now some state they don't want their tax dollars paying for someones birth control. I appreciate that opinion.

    But, would you rather spend $0.50 to prevent a pregnancy or would you rather pay $4,000+ per year to educate that child that was unwanted?

    I know that I would rather spend the money to provide contraception to those that don't want the children. Why should I want to force someone else to bear and care for a child which they don't want. Why should I have to be forced to pay for the schooling of the child that was not wanted by its parents?

    Sure, I do feel that abortion is wrong unless there are potential threats to the mother, the unborn child or it was conceived from rape or incest.

    For those against abortion at any cost; what would you do if you had say part of your body that was crushed in an accident, no fault of yours, and if you don't amputate the limb you would die in 6 months to a year. What would you do? This is a mothers choice.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 2:09 p.m.

    To Christian 24-7 1:52 p.m. Nov. 2, 2012

    Contrary to what you allege, the government does not fund abortion. It is specifically prohibited from doing so by the Hyde Amendment.

    Contrary to what you allege, the government does not fund contraception or force Catholics to fund it. Insurance companies fund it -- something totally different.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 1:52 p.m.

    @ Henderson

    I will remind you the 1st amendment grants freedom of religion. Whether you agree with religion or not, this country grants the right to freely practice religion, except when it comes to abortion. Then the religious are forced to participate in something against their religion, by funding it.

    To compare it to just not agreeing with policy because you don't like it is really narrow minded. No constitutional rights issues there. Just vote for those most like your views.

    Until the 1st amendment is repealed, government funding for abortion violates the constitutional rights of many religious citizens. For my Catholic friends, same goes for contraception.

    I have no problem with people donating funds to cover contraception in Planned Parenthood or any other programs, just don't force Catholics to fund it.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 2, 2012 1:17 p.m.

    Here is the reason why Planned Parenthood should lose all federal funding, despite the free contraceptives.

    According to Planned Parenthood's own numbers, they performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, incomparison to the 977 referrals to adoption agencies and 7,021 pre-natal care appointments. While these numbers are not totally accurate, they are representative

    That means that if a woman goes into a Planned Parenthood clinic, there is a 75% to 98% chance that she will have an abortion.

    Does that sound like a place that should be getting government funding?

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    "The progressive's last argument. You do realize this was the whole purpose of rounding up 6 million Jews, and 4 million other undesirables."

    Ah yes. When all else fails, just pull out the Nazi card.

    Man Godwin's Law is in full effect today.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    "because it saves us all in terms of money and harm to society." The progressive's last argument. You do realize this was the whole purpose of rounding up 6 million Jews, and 4 million other undesirables. The same argument of forced sterilization. The same argument of the One child enforced rule in China. The same argument being used for euthinsia of the elderly in Europe. The same argument used by Margaret Zanger when she created Planned Parenthood to eliminate blacks, and other minorities.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    spring street You left the comment with out reading, the comment was all the top states with stds, teenage abortions, were red, in a generalized statement. I said blue states were well represented. Don't just cherry pick each item in a list of many.

    Keven Drum in Mother Jones reports “If liberal social policies really led inexorably to fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, you would expect "blue" regions of the country to have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions per capita than demographically similar "red" regions.

    But that isn't what the data show. Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states…. "Safe, legal and rare" is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don't always seem to deliver the "rare" part.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:38 a.m.

    See thats the thing about bottom lines on these stories they are really still just opinions. My bottom line says if you are going to have intercourse outside a long term committed relationship then use protection and we should make sure that that protection is easy and free to access because it saves us all in terms of money and harm to society.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:31 a.m.

    Please, what’s the difference between “contribution” and “donation”?

    And you left 6% of their funding unaccounted for. They do charge fees when they can; surely it’s more than 6% of their total revenue.

    But aside from the source of their funding, abortion is their most lucrative procedure. They have also been known to tell pimps how to take of unwanted pregnancies for their underage sex slaves/prostitutes.

    You would really have us accept a great evil because of an ancillary side-benefit? Yeah, well Mussolini got the trains to run on time and Hitler built the autoban.

    Roland, Emajor, Blue, etc
    If all they did was provide contraceptives, information, and counseling I’d have no problem with them, but they are abortionists, first and foremost.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    Bottom line, our taxes shouldn't pay for anyone's contraceptives. Either abstain, or buy your own. I don't want to pay for yours.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    To L White 8:00 a.m. Nov. 2, 2012

    For a "mother" to put her own life above the life within her, especially for "convenience" says more than we need to know that that "mother".


    You need to talk to my husband's cousin Debbie about that. Oh, wait, you can't. She's dead. She should have terminated her pregancy, but didn't. The pregnancy killed her.

    As to the rest of your comment: There are two parts to our mortal existence -- our physical body, which is transitory and for the mortal life only, and our spirit, which existed prior to mortal life, continues during mortality, and will continue after we leave mortality. It is the spirit, and NOT the physical body, which makes us live. You speak of the creation of the physical body, but don't address the fact that we become living beings when our spirit enters the body. According to the LDS Church's requirements for vicarious ordinances (sealing to parents) the eligibility commences when there is a birth and the breath of life is drawn. Prior to that, sealing ordinances cannot be performed because the miscarriage or stillbirth indicates that the person had not lived.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    RAB, MikeR, etc.,

    As has been pointed out previously, but ignored by you folks so far, it makes no sense to claim that a fertilized egg is a person because so many fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted. It's a simple biological fact.

    Moreover, when a woman miscarries, do you intend to perform an autopsy? Will you investigate the mother for possible criminal prosecution?

    What of terminating pregnancies caused by rape, incest, or threaten the life of the mother?

    Exactly _how_ do you intend to enforce this bizarre belief about according a blastocyst the same rights as an individual citizen? Do you seriously believe that if you make abortion illegal you'll stop it from happening?

    Again - if you want to dramatically lower the abortion rate then that's something we already know how to do: Teach reality-based sex education in the public schools and make sure that the public has access to contraception.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:14 a.m.

    It seems like the real agenda of some people is that they don't want anyone else to have sex. Having read a lot of history, I can tell you that you will sorely disappointed in trying to enforce this agenda.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    All of you people telling women what to do with their bodies... you know what I'd like right now? A sample size of how many of you all are men vs how many of you are women.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:54 a.m.

    God is our Creator. He sent us here to

    I'm sorry, were we trying to have a conversation on the role Planned Parenthood has in avoiding unwanted pregnancies in our multicultural & diverse society? Or is this simply a venue for unsolicited Sunday School lessons from a single religious viewpoint that bores the pants off of those of us who are more interested in actual solutions to real world problems?

    Throwing religious mores out into the ether does nothing to prevent people from having premarital sex. However, organizations like Planned Parenthood DO prevent unwanted pregnancies, which works toward a solution I think most of us would like: fewer abortions.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:47 a.m.

    Since when does the LDS church support funding of Planned Parenthood? Steve? Kass?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    Once again the statical facts seem to conflict with your assertions. According to the CDC the top five states for Gonorrhea are Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Alabama and for Syphilis the top five are Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas and Illinois. they do not provide data by state of an overall STD rate but the above data clearly shows which states have the worst problem and sorry but all but one are red states and those states that do the least education on the subject. As far as overall rates the national data shows that the rate over the past ten years is the lowest they have ever been since they stared collecting data.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    "People of such beliefs are having their right of choice trampled. They are forced by their government to pay for, through their taxes, for abortions and contraception (not to mention the lobbying efforts). "

    So? How many of us are against the belief of nation building? How many of us don't believe in giving away our hard earned taxpayer money to Israel and Libya? How many of us are disgusted that our taxes are going and will continue to go for the rebuilding of immoral wars in the ME?

    Sometimes, things we don't agree with, we must finance. Why? Because we live in a society.

    If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.
    If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it.

    However, keep in mind, that sooner or later, we will eliminate these child deductions. Eventually, you folks with 8-10 kids who refuse to use birth control will have to pay for your children. I grow tired of subsidizing your choices and paying for your lack of responsibility.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    A fetus is not a person? Convenient. The old "they're not really human" argument is great for justifying any little inhuman act against another being.

    Fact is, it doesn't matter what you choose to call a fetus. We all were once a fetus. Golden rule applies.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    The fanatic anti-abortion position of the Republican platform reminds me a lot of the fanaticism of the Saducees, who felt Jesus wasn't as righteous as they were because he disobeyed some of their wacky rules.

    The God of the Bible very clearly allows--even commands--the termination of unborn life. In Numbers 5:11-31 we read that God authorizes the use of "bitter water" to abort a fetus. At other times, prophets order the putting to death of adulteress women, some of whom would have been pregnant. Prophets also order the slaying of pregnant women in Ssmaria and elsewhere.

    The LDS Church has a responsible position of abortion, allowing it in four different circumstances, and on contraception, leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    "The states with the highest teen pregnancy rates, STDs, and abortions are red states." Best check again. Blue states are well represented in top ten states for teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions. In fact the top ten states with teenage abortions are all blue states.
    New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Nevada, California, Hawaii, Florida, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois. How is that preventive education going.

    African Americans make up about 12% of the US population but account for 30% of abortions. Since 1973, over 15 million black children have been lost to abortion. Over 1,400 black children are killed every day through abortion. Second to blacks is the numbers of Hispanic.

    Margret Sanger is cheering loudly in the under world. This is what planned parenthood was conceived for.

    Margaret Sanger said that only about 13% of whites should be allowed to reproduce. All for the sake of eliminating poverty in the world and to create the great race.

    Support for Planned Parenthood is one of the greatest underhanded bigoted racist progressive policies ever accepted.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    Planned Parenthood has been involved in lobbying efforts to strip away parental consent and even notification laws for minors seeking abortions. Many of us believe in the importance of parental rights.

    About half the population sees abortion as Mike Richards does, as murder, and consequently as totally wrong. In addition, there are religions, including Catholicism, that believe using contraception in immoral. People of such beliefs are having their right of choice trampled. They are forced by their government to pay for, through their taxes, for abortions and contraception (not to mention the lobbying efforts).

    If Planned Parenthood is only 30% funded through the federal government, then they are able to get 70% of their funds through private sources. They should do one of two things:

    1. Lose all government funding and replace it with additional private funds (30% shouldn't be too hard)
    2. Drop the anti-religious practices they currently engage in so they uphold the first amendment and can be allowed to keep their government (taxpayer provided) funding.

    It is so hypocritical to call the abortion movement 'pro choice', when they trample of the right of choice for the religious citizens.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 9:56 a.m.

    "The "elephant in the room" is people having sex outside of marriage."

    Yep, and look at how many "red states" are doing this.

    If you look at the blue states, this kind of garbage isn't happening. Look at the stats Mikey. Children outside of marriage, broken families, abortion, teen pregnancy, and STDs are highest among the red "Evangelical" states.

    Nov. 2, 2012 9:54 a.m.

    @mike richards
    I don't know what "those" think, I think common sense and science clearly shows that your old prophecies are leading to and will continue to led to the destruction of our worlds resources. We no longer live in an agrarian world where such prophecies made sense. Just as we no longer hold onto the belief the world is flat or that the universe revolves around the earth it is time to let go of old myths that not only no longer make sense but are destructive.

  • Kass SLC, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 9:45 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards, L White, and J Thompson: For some reason I thought you were all LDS and believed in a living Prophet who receives direct revelation from God. I apologize for my misconception.

    The doctrine of the LDS Church is established through revelation from God to the Prophet of the LDS Church. LDS doctrine teaches that physical intimacy is not only for the purpose of procreation but is also an important part of the emotional and spiritual relationship between a husband and wife. It further teaches that decisions about the use of birth control and the size of a family and the spacing of the children are best left to the parents and should be reached through thought and prayer. Families should not have children for whom they cannot care and provide.

    LDS doctrine also teaches that, with prayerful consideration and consultation with local Church leaders, abortion is allowable in cases of rape, incest, serious jeopardy to the life or health of the mother, or a fatal fetal defect.

    Again, I apologize for thinking you believed in a living Prophet and in LDS doctrine. If you would like more information on LDS beliefs, it is available on their website.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 2, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    The "elephant in the room" is people having sex outside of marriage. Those who blame lack of education ignore the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. They think that their philosophies are more profound than the commandments of God. They think that they can play with fire without getting burned.

    There is only one solution and that solution is only to have sex within marriage and only when the man and the woman are willing to accept the consequences of sex.

    Those who tell us that there should be no consequences to sex are the same kind of people who tell us to eat at the banquet of life and then to purge ourselves so that we can go back to the table and stuff our faces some more.

    Life is more than sex. When two married people care for each other, neither demands sexual gratification at the expense of the other.

    Caring people care about the consequences of their actions. Caring people don't kill the unborn so that they can gorge themselves at the banquet of life.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 9:19 a.m.

    Abortion is a tragic thing. But the anti-abortionists never articulate the consequences of their stance. As with alcohol, a law prohbiting abortion would not prevent all abortions, but would promote a potentially dangerous underground market for the practice. How would they identify which pregnant women are contemplating abortion? Is any woman going to admit to authorities that she is thinking about having an abortion? And even if they could identify such women, would they force a woman contemplating an abortion to carry a pregnancy to term, and if so, how? By locking the woman up? And if the woman succeeds in having an abortion, would they then prosecute the woman for murder, and impose the death penalty or a long prison term, possibly leaving her other children motherless?

    As to Planned Parenthood, it seems that those who would cut off funding to an organization, only 3% of whose activites involve abortion, are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:50 a.m.

    Why are we ignoring the elephant in the room?

    The states with the highest teen pregnancy rates, STDs, and abortions are red states who routinely trash Planned Parenthood and refuse to mandate comprehensive Sex Ed to be taught in their public schools.

    It's pretty obvious what the problem is and what needs to be done. Unfortunately, I don't think the radical right is humble enough to accept that they've been wrong and the left has been right on this one.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    Roland Kayser has it spot on. If you have any qualms about abortion and any desire to lower the rate of abortions in this country, you need Planned Parenthood for the reasons Roland lays out above. Those who want to cut all government funding for Planned Parenthood should probably explain to us how they plan on preventing the increase in abortions that will certainly occur from those who could no longer obtain contraceptives. Despite Senator John Kyl's (R-AZ) lie, abortions are not 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:24 a.m.

    Great letter. Couldn't agree more.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    Look how many are telling us that "man" has the right to destroy the life within a mother and that unless we teach people how to have sex without pregnancy that we are failing as a society.

    Society has already failed when it demanded that there be no consequence to sex. Sex is the way that God intended for us to us to multiply and replenish the earth. It is not a "parlor game"; it is the act of procreation. For anyone to tell us to change the act of procreation to an act of "recreation" or an act of self-gratification or an act of lust diminishes all of society.

    God is our Creator. He sent us here to live on earth with instructions. One of the instructions is that sex is only to be had between a married man and a married woman. No premarital sex. No extramarital sex. No other sex of any kind - for any reason.

    Instead of listening to our Creator, too many are listening to the abortion clinics who tell us to kill unborn babies.

    At least 50,000,000 times, women in America chose Planned Parenthood over God.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    Thank you, Furry, for making that important point about the irrationality of believing that a fertilized is a person.

    If you truly are against abortion then you should be willing to adopt public policies that have been proven, again and again, to dramatically lower the rates of unwanted pregnancy. Those policies involve public sex education and the availability of contraceptives.

    Efforts to lower abortion rates by criminalizing abortion simply don't work. How can they? What exactly do you think you're accomplishing by jailing a woman who's had an abortion, or her doctor?

    Here in the US, states that do the best jobs at educating their young people about the realities of sex and providing them with safe, simple access to contraceptives have far lower rates of teen pregnancy and abortion that states that follow an ignorance-is-bliss approach to sex education.

    If you really want to lower abortion rates then you've got to embrace comprehensive, realistic sex education.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:00 a.m.

    I think that it is the height of arrogance that anyone would tell us that a "fetus" is not a human being and in the same post tell us about spirits waiting for a body. Life's journey starts for each human being when one cell becomes two. That human being in on his way towards birth. After birth, that human being is not capable of sustaining life without the protection of others. It depends 100% on the care and love of a parent.

    For a "mother" to put her own life above the life within her, especially for "convenience" says more than we need to know that that "mother".

    For the living to condemn to death the unborn because someone at Planned Parenthood thought that the world was too full and that there is no more room at the inn, tells us all that we need to know about Planned Parenthood.

    Life is precious. This world was created by our God to provide a place for each of us to live. He NEVER gave us permission to kill the unborn babies that we welcomed into our lives because of our actions - and he never will.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Nov. 2, 2012 7:58 a.m.


    1) So I assume that you're pro-contraception, then?
    2) Did a rape victim make that "choice"? Did a woman who's life is being jeopardized by her pregnancy make that "choice"?
    3) Have you seen the Church's policy on abortion? It appears to be more liberal than yours...

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 7:47 a.m.

    To Mike Richards 7:16 a.m. Nov. 2, 2012

    One further issue -- I don't know if you are aware of it, but between a third and a half of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus and, consequenetly, never establish a pregnancy. Between a quarter and a third of established pregnancies spontaneously abort (the medical term for a miscarriage) in the first trimester and even more spontaneously abort thereafter including some who undergo a birth process but are stillborn. If, as it appears, you believe the spirit attaches to the body at conception or the onset of pregnancy, what do you think happens to the spirits attached to the bodies that do not establish pregnancies, or are miscarried or stillborn? They cannot be sealed to their biological parents, so they are not part of an ancestral family group through the eternities. So what happens to them? Where do they go and/or do? I'd be curious to know your thought on that.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 7:41 a.m.

    To Mike Richards 7:16 a.m. Nov. 2, 2012

    Agreed -- let's not mince words about abortion. A fetus is not a person, much less "an unborn innocent baby". It is a parasitic life form that is being used to create the body into which a spirit will enter at birth and first breath, and then will BECOME an innocent baby and a human being. The termination of a pregnancy does NOT destroy the life of another human being; it keeps the fetus from becoming a living human being.

    I agree that this is a very selfish thing to do, and is NEVER the right thing to do except in the direst of conditions -- to preserve the life/health of the pregnant woman, if the pregnancy started as the result of rape or incest, or if there is a fatal fetal deformity. Otherwise the pregnant woman is breaching, without just cause, the covenant she made with spirits waiting for a body so they could enter mortality; that she would provide bodies for those spritits to use.

    Breaking the covenant with the waiting spirits is unconscionable, except in the direst of conditions, but it is not taking a human life.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 2, 2012 7:16 a.m.

    Let's not mince words about "abortion". It is the destruction of an unborn innocent baby who had NO CHOICE about being put to death. It is irreversible. In almost every case, that life started with the consent of the mother and of the father. In almost every case, that baby's life was directly the result of a woman and a man having made a choice.

    When does anyone have the right to unilaterally destroy the life of another human being?

    We have courts of law that NEVER sentence anyone to death without a trial. No one has been executed in Utah in decades without having had his case reviewed MANY times. But a woman can go to Planned Parenthood and declare that she wants to destroy the life within her - and that is all it takes. She decides to destroy that life. No trial. No appeal. Just death to that unborn child.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 12:32 a.m.

    A recent study found that providing women with no-cost contraceptives reduced their abortion rates by two-thirds. Abortion rates have already fallen by roughly a third over the past three decades, a further two-thirds reduction would bring about a total reduction of 82% in abortion rates compared to 1980. I would definitely see that as an unequivocally good development.

    It seems to me that being simultaneously anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive is an untenable position, yet there seem to be those that do hold both of those positions.