Abortion Law – Suggestions Wanted
A sizeable majority of Utahns favor very restrictive abortion laws. Of course, people are free to argue whether that is good or bad, but the sentiment is a strong reality.
Rep. Paul Ray originally purported to run legislation that would have restricted abortions to cases of rape, incest or very serious risk to the mother’s health; those provisions would have kicked in only in the event Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. However, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom substituted a bill that would enact those provisions right away – forcing Utah into a court battle, with the apparent intent of attempting to take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe v. Wade.
As a point of information, Utah challenged Roe v. Wade in 1991, and lost.
The bill likely will be heard by the House on Friday, 2/9/07. I would like some input. Therefore, I have cross-posted this entry at Politicopia, which provides a much better format for discussion.
Though people should post what they want, I would appreciate some discussion on:
(1) whether Utah should change existing abortion law,
(2) if so, what those changes should be,
(3) if Utah enacts more restrictive provisions, should they nominally take effect right away and force the court battle,
(4) should more restrictive changes sit dormant, until Roe v. Wade is overturned, (letting other states foot the bill this time around) and/or
(5) should the money that would have been spent by the State to litigate this matter be spent on programs for children, like the birth defects network and early intervention?
Rep. Paul Ray originally purported to run legislation that would have restricted abortions to cases of rape, incest or very serious risk to the mother’s health; those provisions would have kicked in only in the event Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. However, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom substituted a bill that would enact those provisions right away – forcing Utah into a court battle, with the apparent intent of attempting to take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe v. Wade.
As a point of information, Utah challenged Roe v. Wade in 1991, and lost.
The bill likely will be heard by the House on Friday, 2/9/07. I would like some input. Therefore, I have cross-posted this entry at Politicopia, which provides a much better format for discussion.
Though people should post what they want, I would appreciate some discussion on:
(1) whether Utah should change existing abortion law,
(2) if so, what those changes should be,
(3) if Utah enacts more restrictive provisions, should they nominally take effect right away and force the court battle,
(4) should more restrictive changes sit dormant, until Roe v. Wade is overturned, (letting other states foot the bill this time around) and/or
(5) should the money that would have been spent by the State to litigate this matter be spent on programs for children, like the birth defects network and early intervention?
posted by steve u. at 2/08/2007
Subscribe
11 Comments:
On it's face, I think most Utahns would look at this bill and say, "of course I agree with that". It follows the LDS church policy when it comes to exceptions for abortions.
I think if a bill like this is going to be passed, it ought to remain a trigger bill, and the litigation fund ought to be used to improve sex education and access to health care.
Before we cut off access to abortions, we need to give women the tools and the knowledge so that they are aware of what their choices really are.
Too many people in Utah have their heads in the sand when it comes to sex education. They think if we teach our children about birth control and condoms and reproductive health, it is going to increase promiscuity.
Obviously what we're doing now is not working. Teach young people the facts, teach them about their options, teach them that abstinence until they are in a committed relationship is the best, but prepare them, especially teenage girls, so that when they grow up they know their options and don't feel like abortion is their only choice.
Also, make sure all insurance companies cover birth control pills.
Don't waste money on fighting the supreme court when we have so many problems that we could do something about if we made them priorities.
I can only hope voters will remember the names of legislators who sponsor lawsuit magnet bills. It would be helpful to post a name with the amount of taxpayers' money that has been spent on defending doomed legislation before each election.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660193810,00.html
Will this tactic be used to get the abortion bill through?
10:34 anon.,
What?
Is it true that even if this remains a trigger bill, lawsuits would be immediately filed anyway? Some have suggested as much. If we would have to defend against lawsuits anyway, why should it be simply a trigger bill?
Reach,
I don't think a case and controversy would exist if a trigger is present.
An interesting -- but mostly unstated element of this debate -- that answers your question is the fact that the language currently on our books goes against Roe v. Wade. It is not implemented, however, after the 1991 case.
With that in mind, what is Rep. Ray's motivation for challenging RvW at this point in time rather than doing a trigger clause? Does he believe that the Supreme Court has changed enough since the last time it considered a challenge to the case that RvW might be overturned?
Let another State fight abortion to the Supreme Court. Lets put our money to better use, giving health care to the poor, sex ed (where something other then abstinence is taught)and requiring all health care providers to cover birth control pills.
I agree with Allie.
Reach,
Yes, proponents of the challenge surmise that personnel changes at the Supreme Court warrant a challenge to Roe v. Wade. While that might be true, I would hope that the State that makes the challenge takes serious time and attention to craft a law that has the best chance of getting the job done -- instead of slapping together a chest-beating substitute that feels good at election time but has no thought toward the things the individual justices might be looking for.
Even judges on the Supreme Court can be impeached for immmorality such as voting to allow the killing of unborn children.
In fact, you have to start at the top because the lower judges are bound by the rulings of the higher courts.
The Supreme Court has run amok, invalidating all of the laws passed by the Legislative branch, and signed into the by the Executive branch, and all of the lower courts of the Judicial branch.
The moral changes must begin at the top, in the Supreme Court.
With pro-life, so goes morality in general.
What does the Utah delegation stand for? If not for life, then what?
Impeach immorality on the Supreme Court.
Kaydell Leavitt
Post a Comment
<< Home