Planned Parenthood sues Utah over new law banning abortion after 18 weeks

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.


  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    April 19, 2019 1:16 p.m.

    RedShirtnotCalTech -

    “If you believe prayer is welcomed and allowed anytime in this setting you would be grossly inaccurate." which means that you believe that the government can infringe..”

    Deep yawn. Tee-time awaits! The fact yourself and “ilk” claim separation of church/state is nonexistent because “it’s not in the constitution” only further solidifies a gross disconnect from factual information and settled law. I’m certain yourself and the armchair lawyer faction would defend Muslim prayers in the identical situation. Correct? If you truly believe you have the “right” to force your religious beliefs by displaying prayer in a public setting, I suggest any elementary con-law class. Obtain a passing grade, then feel free to repost.

    “If my religion says I should be allowed to pray at any time in any place and you prohibit be from doing so at a school or public property then you are infringing.”

    You’re 100% inaccurate once again, regardless of the empty rhetoric. Obviously you’re unaware the intentions of the founding fathers regarding “religious liberties”, assure you Red it doesn’t exist in order for you to force certain beliefs onto others. You’re welcome.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 17, 2019 3:19 p.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah " you said "If you believe prayer is welcomed and allowed anytime in this setting you would be grossly inaccurate." which means that you believe that the government can infringe on the right to practice religion freely. If my religion says I should be allowed to pray at any time in any place and you prohibit be from doing so at a school or public property then you are infringing on my right.

    That comes from your words. If you disagree, then you will have to provide something showing that you actually believe in freedom of religion.

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    April 17, 2019 7:51 a.m.

    Utes Fan-

    “Pray all you desire at any private school. Nice try. Prayer is a practice of religion, and it is also speech. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees these two rights - freedom of speech and freedom of religion - they are guaranteed on public property. Only allowing these in private schools is a violation of freedom. Some of the worst regimes in history followed that practice. Also, "Separation of church/state" is not in the Constitution.”

    Apparently I missed the citing of case law along with concurring opinions as requested. Also. A “public school” would be considered “public property” regardless of the false narrative and empty rhetoric. If you believe prayer is welcomed and allowed anytime in this setting you would be grossly inaccurate. Lastly. Never claimed “Separation of church/state” was in the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be. SCOTUS has already given their opinion regarding this topic and many that were not worded in the Constitution. Therefore. “Nice try” yourself. You’re welcome.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2019 11:33 a.m.

    @Lib on Planet Zion

    “I have been forbidden to openly pray.”

    Correct. This would called “Separation of church/state. Pray all you desire at any private school. Nice try.
    ___________

    Prayer is a practice of religion, and it is also speech. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees these two rights - freedom of speech and freedom of religion - they are guaranteed on public property. Only allowing these in private schools is a violation of freedom. Some of the worst regimes in history followed that practice. Also, "Separation of church/state" is not in the Constitution.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 15, 2019 2:08 p.m.

    To "quackquack " fewer have died in religious wars than have died at the hand of Communists who have no religion.

    What about the baby? Don't babies have rights too? Why should a mother be able to kill her child for no more reason than not wanting to care for it?

    How about this. If it is ok to kill a child before it is born, why is it wrong to kill it a day after it is born?

  • quackquack Park City, UT
    April 15, 2019 9:16 a.m.

    Antiquated religious beliefs, religion is the most hypocritical nonsense known to man. How many people died in the Holy wars ? War caused by "my religion is superior" sound familiar.

    your belief and a women body are two different things a women has the right to say what happens to her body. Thats like me telling you you don't have the right to carry a gun cause you might murder someone with it.

  • Uncle Rico Provo, UT
    April 13, 2019 12:38 p.m.

    Rather than trust opinions of random people on the internet - I choose to trust what the Prophet of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints says on the matter.

    Or you can trust a heart specialist - the first Doctor to ever perform heart surgery in the state. (he is able to provide great insight on the status of someone's life).

    Both of these would be Russell Nelson. He stated:

    "This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice.

    "This matters greatly to us because the Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: 'Thou shalt not kill.' Then He added, 'Nor do anything like unto it.' Even before the fulness of the gospel was restored, enlightened individuals understood the sanctity of human life. John Calvin, a sixteenth-century reformer, wrote, 'If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, … it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fœtus in the womb before it has come to light.' "

  • Lib on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 1:45 p.m.

    Redshirt-

    “ok, my church believes in plural marriage. The government is infringing on my right to have more than one spouse.”

    Quite comical. Polygamy is illegal Red. How specifically is the government infringing upon you and your plural marriage? Include case law and concurring opinions.

    “I have been forbidden to openly pray.”

    Correct. This would called “Separation of church/state. Pray all you desire at any private school. Nice try. The examples given aren’t in the realm of accuracy.

    “You see, that tired argument is settled by both grammar rules and by SCOTUS rulings.”

    WRONG! Cite case law and concurring opinions.

    “Look at SCOTUS rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller. Their ruling included "1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service.”

    Interesting. So you admit the Constitution can be changed at any time based upon SCOTUS rulings. For example. A pending “abortion” case.

    “until around 1900 individuals could own cannons.”

    However. Obtaining a cannonball (ammunition) is a completely different matter. Are you claiming anyone could purchase cannonballs in 1899? Let’s hope not. You’re welcome once again Red.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 12, 2019 12:08 p.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah " ok, my church believes in plural marriage. The government is infringing on my right to have more than one spouse.

    I also believe that I should be able to pray vocally whenever I so desire. After a football game with my high school team I have been forbidden to openly pray.

    As for a militia, that is a separate clause. You see, that tired argument is settled by both grammar rules and by SCOTUS rulings.

    Look at SCOTUS rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller. Their ruling included "1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. "

    So, I assume you now agree that the Constitution does include guns. FYI, until around 1900 individuals could own cannons.

    However, I am still waiting to hear from your ilk about where it says abortion.

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    April 12, 2019 10:28 a.m.

    RedShirt -
    Libs think!

    religious liberties are contained in the phrase in the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

    Deep yawn...You’re not the only one that can play semantics. Doesn’t use that explicit verbiage whatsoever. Furthermore. Cite a specific example in your life where your “religious liberties” were infringed upon.

    “As for guns you have the 2nd Amendment that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Really? That’s an interesting take considering the time the constitution was written. Are you claiming a “firearm” couldn’t mean a cannon? It also states, “A well regulated militia.” What “well regulated militia” are you a member of
    currently?

    There you go. Empty rhetoric once again. So, where does it say "abortion" in the Constitution considering it was written in roughly 1787. Lastly. Where in the Constitution does it prohibit any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives? You’re welcome.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 12, 2019 8:23 a.m.

    To "Utefan60" don't twist my words. I said 90% of pregnant women, not all patients.

    Lets look at the numbers for women who are currently pregnant and the services they receive at Planned Parenthood. From statistics available at Planned parenthood we see these are the numbers for abortion procedures 327,653, prenatal services 18,684, and adoption referrals 1,880. That gives us a total of 348,217 procedures for pregnant women. So 327,653 divided by 348,217 gives us 94%. That means 94% of pregnant women who go into Planned Parenthood come up pregnant.

    To "Frozen Fractals " don't you find it ironic that a non-profit organization that claims to all about reproductive health it the leading organization to prevent reproduction or kill babies?

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    April 12, 2019 5:08 a.m.

    They are going to be spending a lot of money filing lawsuits in pretty much every republican state because all of these states are passing laws limiting abortion

    Which poses an interesting question... are the lawsuits altruistic because planned Parenthood really cares about women’s health or do they see a threat to their near monopoly of the abortion industry?

    You be the judge

  • Utefan60 , 00
    April 11, 2019 5:24 p.m.

    Redshirt said that 90% of patients who go to Planned Parenthood end up getting an abortion.

    That is a complete falsehood, and so far from the truth that it is unbelievable that comment was put in this paper.

    Planned Parenthood is a Health organization that provides medical care, prenatal planning and family planning to over 98% of it's patients. Not abortions.

    In Colorado where Planned Parenthood is fully understood, their abortion rate dropped dramitically with the help of Planned Parenthood, and their education programs.

    False comments, and those who do no research have no idea how many pregnancies don't happen due to educational efforts of Planned Parenthood.

    Get educated. Blatantly untrue comments allow us to stray from the needed conversations about health care, and family planning that are desperately needed.

    Planned Parenthood is one of the few health care organizations that poor and uninsured people can use.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2019 4:57 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    "The photos show a sign saying, “trust women”. How much trust can you give anyone, male or female, who is sexually irresponsible?"

    "How much trust does someone deserve who wants to abort a perfectly forming child just because they are “inconvenient”"

    Apparently a lot since you think they should have the kid from the unplanned pregnancy.

    @RedShirtHarvard
    "If PP isn't so intent on pushing abortions, why is it that 90% or more of pregnant women that go there end up getting an abortion?"

    Because the people who go there for things like birth control are probably not getting pregnant, and there's plenty of facilities that provide regular pregnancy services.

  • Nathan Andelin West Jordan, UT
    April 11, 2019 3:59 p.m.

    I think of the eternal and unlimited potential of the life that is carried in a woman's womb. I think of its innocence. I think of the savage way that life is taken. I think of the dark and empty place that a person might be in, who would do that. I think of the joy I feel with my children and grandchildren.

    I sometimes participate in public debates. But when I think about what we as a society are doing to these unborn children, my body shakes. I sob with streaming tears. And I plead God help us.

  • bemorefair , 00
    April 11, 2019 3:52 p.m.

    @pragmatistferlife -

    "...until a fetus reaches the stage of development that it can in fact live outside the womb and has in fact developed human functioning it's the woman's choice... This group has the benefit of reality on their side."

    I don't see anything more realistic about that argument than any other. If you take a baby at two days old and set it free to fend for itself to figure out how to forage for food, get a job and survive on its own, would you expect it to live or die? Of course it would die. It's no more "viable" shortly after birth than it is prior to birth. So, isn't is safe to say the only thing that really matters is that "clump of cells" is a real person waiting to be born, regardless of whether it can feel pain, think about sucking its thumb, and even breathe? Left to itself, it will grow (outside birth defects of course) and become a living, breathing person.

    I see it as our duty and solemn obligation to protect that future person's right to life. I not only have reality on my side, but I am 100% right, and no one can argue otherwise. Roe v. Wade is fundamentally flaw & needs to be modified to fit what is truly in harmony with our wonderful constitution.

  • libs think what??? Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2019 3:47 p.m.

    lib on planet
    2nd and 1st amendments, respectively. It’s almost absurd that one would not know where to find them.

    For your edification, "guns" are a subset of the "arms" written into the 2nd amendment, the common vernacular includes "religious liberties" within the scope of "Congress shall pass no laws concerning the establishment of religion".

    Abortion, reproductive rights, etc., are by some twisted logic included in the rights to privacy, which themselves are not specifically spelled out in the constitution, only by extension from the rights of expression, right not to have to house soldiers, freedom from unreasonable searches, freedom from self-incrimination, and somehow from the 14th requiring equal protection.

    You’re welcome.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 11, 2019 3:39 p.m.

    To "Lib on Planet Zion" religious liberties are contained in the phrase in the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I think that is quite clear.

    As for guns you have the 2nd Amendment that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since you will now ask what are Arms, so lets look at the Dictionary which defines it as " a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense especially : FIREARM".

    A firearm is a synonym for a gun.

    There you go. So, where does it say "abortion" in the Constitution.

  • Lib on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2019 2:25 p.m.

    RedShirt -

    “tell us where in the Constitution it says "abortion".

    How absurd. Tell us where in the Constitution it says “guns” and or “religious liberties”.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 11, 2019 1:40 p.m.

    To "Pelukas" tell us where in the Constitution it says "abortion".

  • Eponymous Eggplant Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2019 11:47 a.m.

    "do not use your own morals to judge others."

    It's so interesting to see leftists use the exact opposite argument to judge Donald Trump as being unfit to be president because they don't think he meets their standards of personal morality.

    Contradiction duly noted.

  • Weston Jurney West Jordan, UT
    April 11, 2019 11:41 a.m.

    "I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth."

    --Sister Joan Chittister

  • Pelukas Bingham, UT
    April 11, 2019 11:27 a.m.

    Abortion is a constitutional right established 4 decades ago. If you don't like it don't do it, but do not use your own morals to judge others. You just sound like vegans when talking to everybody else. Of course, abortion is different than being vegan, but both are legal regarless if you like them or not.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2019 11:18 a.m.

    lost in DC says "Those are legal bills I’m glad my taxes go to pay."

    If these lawsuits had a decent chance of succeeding, your willingness to pay for them would make sense. My point is that our money is better spent on prevention and education instead of these loser lawsuits that don't help anybody.

  • Eponymous Eggplant Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2019 11:14 a.m.

    Wow, I came here to make a principled argument against abortion, expecting I would have to carefully craft it to avoid censorship. I didn't think it would be possible to mention the pro-life movies heretofore shunned by this publication. Imagine my surprise at finding a vibrant assortment of similar sentiments made by my fellow commenters.

    Something has changed at the DesNews, and definitely for the better. To whomever is responsible: thank you!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 11, 2019 9:39 a.m.

    The photos show a sign saying, “trust women”. How much trust can you give anyone, male or female, who is sexually irresponsible?

    How much trust does someone deserve who wants to abort a perfectly forming child just because they are “inconvenient” or of the wrong gender?

    SAS
    Abstinence has worked in every incident in human history with one possible exception, and the scriptures don’t give the graphic details on how Mary conceived.

    Shamrock
    Those are legal bills I’m glad my taxes go to pay.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    April 11, 2019 9:25 a.m.

    Check out what is happening in Texas with view to this issue. I think the bill in Texas is much too extreme, but it does help us see that what Utah proposes is reasonable and logical.

    In addition to the movie, Unplanned, there is the movie Gosnell, The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer, both portraying the harsh realities of abortion. More are in production, such as Roe V Wade, which has as its executive producer a niece of Martin Luther King. Two more in are planning. Perhaps these productions are indicative of an awakening.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 11, 2019 8:56 a.m.

    The Great Helmsman, let me quote two things to you that you may or may not have read:
    1-" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
    2- "WE hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

    Quotes from the two most sacred documents our country has. The Constitution promotes the general Welfare and secures the blessings of Liberty. Aborted babies get neither.

    The Declaration of Independence, while not the law of the land, does outline everyone's Unalienable Rights. These babies that are aborted do have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those rights are taken away from them when they are aborted.

    There are very few reasons that an abortion should be done, and consulting with a doctor would be an important part of that process. Birth control is not one of them.

  • Flipphone , 00
    April 11, 2019 8:47 a.m.

    Planned Parenthood is a baby abortion organization.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2019 8:36 a.m.

    One of the ironies of laws like this one is that they're always challenged and struck down as unconstitutional, thereby strengthing the legal bulwark against similar efforts to restrict a woman's right to control her own physical destiny.

    Unfortunately, we taxpayers get to foot the big legal bills, regardless of which side of the abortion issue we're on. Seems like it would make more sense to spend the money on sex education and family planning clinics.

  • pragmatistferlife Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2019 8:29 a.m.

    This whole argument is simple. One side says abortion of a fetus at any point or stage is immoral and they have two arguments to support that point of view. One is the obvious it's immoral and we're going to define your morality for you by outlawing it. Two is a whole bunch of really dumb scientific claims about heart beat, pain, etc. trying to prove the humanity of the fetus at early stages. Most often you get a hodgepodge of both.

    Secondly is the side that says until a fetus reaches the stage of development that it can in fact live outside the womb and has in fact developed human functioning it's the woman's choice as to whether she continues with the pregnancy or not. This group has the benefit of reality on their side.

    Reality; There is no science that allows a fetus to live outside the womb until viability, and viability in Roe v Wade is normal human viability, not troubling.

    At what point does the child growing inside you have a say in his/her life?

    Viability is a problematic argument, since viability is always conditional

    More and more science is defining life within the womb - heart beat, reaction to pain, consciousness

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    April 11, 2019 8:25 a.m.

    To "Impartial7" what are you talking about. This wasn't a message bill. It limits when an abortion may take place.

    If PP isn't so intent on pushing abortions, why is it that 90% or more of pregnant women that go there end up getting an abortion?

    To "SAS" you do realize that if everybody practiced abstinence that you nearly eliminate the desire for abortions.

    If women need abortions to maintain control over their bodies, are you saying that they didn't have control over their bodies when they became pregnant? Or are you saying that women don't understand what it is that causes pregnancies?

    Actually it doesn't time time or money to arrange for abortions. There are places that you can arrange for one with little notice and no money.

    You last two points can be solved simply by abstaining until you are married.

    What about the body of the child? Why can a mother and doctor murder a child at will? If you say it is just a clump of cells, how is that clump any different than a 1 week old baby or you?

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    April 11, 2019 7:32 a.m.

    The Left wants to keep "mere beliefs" out of the abortion debate.
    So, OK...let's go purely by science.

    Science says that there is no real qualitative difference between 18 weeks, 22 weeks, 26 weeks, or 39.5 weeks. It is a gradual development. Identifying any particular development in time would be just based on statistics or opinion. A "compromise".

    But there actually is one well-defined point at which a *human being* is created and begins to grow: the point of conception.
    It is clearly defined by science and in involves no compromise, no statistics, no mere opinions, and no mere religious beliefs. It is the obvious scientific and logical choice.

    The Left rejects this because it would be "inconvenient" and require some people to exercise "personal responsibility".

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    April 11, 2019 7:24 a.m.

    The US Government subsidizes Planned Parenthood.

    Then, they use their funds to sue the State of Utah ?!?!? Obviously in conflict with the will of the people of Utah ?!?!?

    Remember this in 2020. How can anyone vote for a Democrat ?!?

  • jskains Orem, UT
    April 11, 2019 6:17 a.m.

    I love how people keep throwing around the word “unconstitutional”. There is no right to abortion even mentioned in the constitution. In reality, abortion falls under the 10th amendment and becomes a state issue. So there is literally nothing unconstitutional about banning abortion.

  • PCBOB Park City, UT
    April 11, 2019 1:57 a.m.

    Utah SHOULD be proud of itself! It would be a lot easier to let some other state take the lead when much of the country looks to Utah to see if actions speak louder than words. See the movie "unplanned" and find out what abortion REALLY is; i.e. murder. No wonder so called "pro-choice" advocates don't want laws requiring waiting and/or seeing a sonogram of the child.

  • Bob Tanner Price, UT
    April 10, 2019 11:41 p.m.

    Planned Parenthood goes against the will of the Lord in his plan for the creation of new life on earth. According to all recent articles I ave read, they place little if any regard to living beings waiting to be born. Unfortunately the unborn ave no voice. Hopefully there will always be enough charitable people to defend the innocent ones. And for those that say religion shouldn't be allowed to speak out on this issue, I say religion is the basis from which this issue springs and rightfully so.

  • UtahBruin Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 10, 2019 10:13 p.m.

    @SAS

    Please tell me you are joking when you say “they don’t know about condoms or the pill,” please tell me this is an attempt at sarcasm. To blame this on schools not talking about it in a sex ed class is so laughable and absurd.

    Let me help you. Kids know about condoms and the pill. Even the most naive ones do. I guess they don’t know about underwear either since they don’t talk about it in school.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    April 10, 2019 9:50 p.m.

    I seem to become less and less sympathetic to the cries of women demanding rights to do what ever they want to with their bodies. More and more science is defining life within the womb - heart beat, reaction to pain, consciousness and so forth. And in spite of all the evidence, the ultra sound images and testimonials, we continue to hear how everyone's rights are being violated, except for the innocent and defenseless victims.

    Other generations and movements have given great speeches and declared philosophical arguments as to why this group or that group of human beings was expendable for the convenience or prosperity of those who are holding positions of societal leadership. When ever rights must be preserved at the cost of the life of others, we need to seriously reconsider our argument.

  • Sanefan Wellsville, UT
    April 10, 2019 9:35 p.m.

    For those claiming it's "unconstitutional," we we shall see and you might be surprised by the outcome. I won't be.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    April 10, 2019 9:09 p.m.

    I predict this law will be declared unconstitutional.

  • blackattack Orem, UT
    April 10, 2019 8:41 p.m.

    “Every person deserves the right to control their body, life and future,"

    That person definitely has a choice regarding creating life—it’s the choice just before conception. Choices have consequences and almost everyone understands that pregnancy is one outcome of sex. By limiting abortion, it doesn’t take away the choice that woman made knowing the consequence to begin with. That right is not taken away.

    This of course doesn’t apply to rape, incest, or mental disability where choice is compromised.

    All human life deserves rights, even those who can’t speak for themselves yet.

  • Valhalla Alpine, UT
    April 10, 2019 6:54 p.m.

    Am I missing something? This bill still allows for abortion up to 18 weeks - it does not make abortion illegal.

  • Thomas Paine South Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2019 5:23 p.m.

    Life is beautiful.
    Pregnancy is beautiful.
    Motherhood is beautiful.

    But somehow, somethings so incredibly beautiful have now been twisted.
    Life is no longer beautiful unless it’s planned and wanted - this is wrong.
    Life is still and aways be beautiful.

    A fetus is beautiful.

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 10, 2019 4:58 p.m.

    That just seems wrong. People demonstrating for the right to commit murder on a living human being with a viable heartbeat

  • bemorefair , 00
    April 10, 2019 4:33 p.m.

    @The Great Helmsman - Salt Lake City, UT

    "Why is the government interfering with decisions that are between a woman and her doctor?"

    Are you serious?! How would you like it if you had to meet tomorrow with a random death panel consisting of one random woman who could decide if you live or die? You might get a loving mother who understands your dire circumstance and chooses to let you live, or perhaps you are assigned someone far less concerned with your desire to see another day and decides your eternal doom because you are a mere inconvenience to her.

    So, the simple answer to your question is this. Life and death matters are worthy of greater consideration than just a woman and her doctor, since they are deciding the fate of another human being - there is no bigger decision in this world. Bluntly put, a mother provides nothing more than room and board for another human being for nine months until he/she comes into this world.

    "Conservatives decry big government, EXCEPT when it is enforcing their religious beliefs."

    Since when does the right to be a living, breathing human being have ANYTHING to do with religion? SMH

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2019 4:25 p.m.

    Imp7
    We DID expand Medicaid, contrary to your initial comment. You did not say “fully expanded”, which thankfully we did not do.

    It was all over the news.

  • LivinLarge Bountiful, UT
    April 10, 2019 4:11 p.m.

    Banning abortions after 18 weeks would really cut deeply into PP's revenue and profits. Can't have that...

  • Oh, please! Saint George, UT
    April 10, 2019 3:54 p.m.

    "Plan" is the key word here. Planned Parenthood exists because women (and men) fail to "plan" and fail to take personal responsibility. This not a fault of sex education or lack thereof. Play now, pay later was never more true...if you didn't "plan" to have a baby.

    If you don't "plan" to have a baby, don't engage in sex. If you don't "plan" to raise a child, "pIan" not to do what causes babies. It's just that simple.

    OF COURSE, exception is made for rape, incest, and health of the mother.

  • The Great Helmsman Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2019 3:42 p.m.

    Why is the government interfering with decisions that are between a woman and her doctor? Conservatives decry big government, EXCEPT when it is enforcing their religious beliefs.

    Need another example? Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. At least they are honest with this label: government control.

  • emb Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 10, 2019 3:01 p.m.

    As expected... Science is on the right side.

  • sashabill , CA
    April 10, 2019 2:54 p.m.

    Arkspears, I second the recommendation to see the movie "Unplanned." (I saw it yesterday)

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    April 10, 2019 2:47 p.m.

    @bemorefair:

    Yes, taking someone's words out of context is a great way to make a cheap point during an online debate.

    But I fail to see how it lines up with "being more fair".

  • sashabill , CA
    April 10, 2019 2:18 p.m.

    The question is not only when life begins, but when does love begin? And when does personal responsibility for one's behavior begin? If those factors do not begin at conception (or before), then they must begin arbitrarily at some later point in time. The question then becomes one of: When?, And on what basis?

    Viability is a problematic argument, since viability is always conditional. A human life (pre-birth) is viable given the current state of the pregnancy. As it grows and develops, is viability progresses to the point at which it can survive outside the womb. From that time onward, human viability still remains conditioned on the presence of necessities like food, water, and air; resistance to illness and disease, safety and security from accidents and natural disasters, the availability of medicine and medical technology, etc.

  • Arkpears Bella Vista, AR
    April 10, 2019 2:07 p.m.

    I would encourage everyone to see the movie "Unplanned" to complete your education on abortion.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 10, 2019 2:03 p.m.

    Frankly, we as citizens should band together and sue Planned Parenthood for using our Tax Money that is given to them for their suits.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 10, 2019 1:53 p.m.

    @Z - South Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2019 12:15 p.m.
    Really, they have to sue. Their entire reason for existence is pushing abortions on women."

    Going for the most uninformed, parroting, false post of the year award?

  • bemorefair , 00
    April 10, 2019 1:50 p.m.

    @SAS - "Because every child deserves an opportunity to grow up..."

    That is the most beautiful, pro-life argument any liberal has ever conceded. Well done, and I am in complete agreement with you. Every child deserves as chance at life.

  • T-money$$$ Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2019 1:19 p.m.

    Add this to the long list of frivolous lawsuits my taxes are helping to pay for because Utah lawmakers are too prideful and too incompetent to realize their laws are unconstitutional.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2019 1:04 p.m.

    @Mig welder
    There's no reason to compromise when the courts have been clear in settling the line at viability which isn't until a few weeks later. And it's not like the pro-life team is set on just stopping at 16 weeks as the end point. Kentucky passed one that limits it to 6 weeks. Alabama has one floating around a committee that sets it at 2 weeks. Many want to ban it entirely (or only limit it to the few exceptions listed).

  • 871256 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2019 12:53 p.m.

    “Not the right time to have kids”? “Not wanting to add to their family”?
    BIRTH CONTROL. USE IT. This is so frustrating. It’s 2019 and we have so many safe alternatives to abortion - it’s called not getting pregnant.

    (Yes, always exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. We always have to add that, but it should go without saying now.)

  • 871256 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2019 12:50 p.m.

    “Acton said while the bill shortens the legal abortion window, it still preserves a woman's right to have an elective abortion. The bill would also allow exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother and fatal fetal defects.”

    Sounds like a completely reasonable and fair compromise. PP just wants blood. Literally.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    April 10, 2019 12:41 p.m.

    And let's not forget:

    Because a government that claims the power to tell people what they're allowed to do with their own bodies ought to concern people who spend a lot of time arguing that small government and individual liberty are the cornerstones of a free society.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    April 10, 2019 12:36 p.m.

    @trekker:
    "With contraceptives like morning after pill and birth control and condoms, why is abortion needed at 22 weeks?"

    Because we have blocked our sex-ed programs from talking about anything but abstinence?

    Because there are some women who may not have known about contraception, and they deserve as much choice and agency over their bodies as anyone else?

    Because many women don't know they are pregnant until they've missed a couple of periods?

    Because it takes time and money to arrange an abortion. Especially for people who are poor, or who have limited ability to travel, or who are in abusive relationships.

    Because people's lives change--people get fired, relationships end--and an unwanted pregnancy can severely limit their options for putting their lives back together.

    Because every child deserves an opportunity to grow up in a stable, happy, and loving home, where they are chosen and wanted.

  • Z South Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2019 12:15 p.m.

    Really, they have to sue. Their entire reason for existence is pushing abortions on women.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 10, 2019 12:04 p.m.

    @Lost inDC;
    "Imp7
    I’d prefer spending money protecting life that can do absolutely nothing for itself.
    I guess you missed the stories about how we DID expand Medicaid."

    You are not Donald Trump or FOX News. Just because you state something doesn't make it true. Utah voters approved full Medicaid expansion. What Utah GOP lawmakers gave us was a limited, Utah version that covers less Utahn's and cost more money. I guess you missed that. It's true, you can look it up.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2019 11:38 a.m.

    Not surprised. They don’t like anything that threatens their most lucrative procedure.

    Imp7
    I’d prefer spending money protecting life that can do absolutely nothing for itself.

    I guess you missed the stories about how we DID expand Medicaid.

    You’d prefer the NY abortion law that allows termination AFTER delivery?

  • Ms.W South Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2019 11:25 a.m.

    "Legal abortion is one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice and is far safer than childbirth"

    Except for one problem..."abortion" and "safe" is an oxymoron, and abortion always ends a life.

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    April 10, 2019 11:16 a.m.

    With contraceptives like morning after pill and birth control and condoms, why is abortion needed at 22 weeks? Shame on Planned Parenthood.

  • Mig welder Huntington, UT
    April 10, 2019 11:13 a.m.

    " Acton said while the bill shortens the legal abortion window, it still preserves a woman's right to have an elective abortion. The bill would also allow exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother and fatal fetal defects".
    What more could one ask for? If you know you have a child growing in you for four months then surely you have had enough time to decide the life of this child. The exceptions listed above are more than fair and reasonable. At what point does the child growing inside you have a say in his/her life?
    If you don't want the child after four months of it LIVING inside of you, then can't you give this child up for adoption after birth? This bill is more than a fair compromise. If Planned Parenthood has a problem with this bill then Planned Parenthood is once again the problem!

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 10, 2019 10:59 a.m.

    Yep. We can't afford expanded Medicaid, but we can throw millions of tax dollars away on unconstitutional message bills, that, their own in-house counsel will lose in court. All Utah lawmakers that author and vote for bills that their own lawyers tell them will lose in court, should be required to post a $10,000 personal cash bond to pay for the legal defense instead of Utah taxpayers.