Steve Videtich said:
Daviewolf83 said:
Steve Videtich said:
If I had to guess, I think they stay similar for a while. Utah is very conservative traditionally. But, recent elections have been a lot closer than tradition.
Utah is known for being a young state because the local religion has tons of kids. So, abortion is not really a thought. I believe it actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country.
It'll be interesting to see how much it's brought up in the campaigning for midterms here.
Thank you for taking the time to provide this insight for your state.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/planned-parenthood-aclu-sue-over-utahs-abortion-trigger-law
Looks like there's a fight! Interesting, because isn't Planned Parenthood funded by the government? This quote right here:
"In each of these cases, and countless others, Utahns who have relied on safe, legal access to abortionaccess that has existed for at least five decadeswill lose the right to determine the composition of their families and whether and when to become parents; their entitlement to be free from discriminatory state laws that perpetuate stereotypes about women and their proper societal role; the right to bodily autonomy and to be free from involuntary servitude; and the right to make private health care decisions and to keep those health care decisions free from public scrutiny."
This entire comment goes back to personal responsibility. We are not free from the consequences of our stupid decisions we make in life. There is no abortion when someone stupidly decides to drive drunk. There is no abortion when we flunk out of college for partying to much. These are all stupid decisions we make and differ our consequences.
If we keep giving people the easy way out, they'll keep making bad decisions.
Based on the wording of the quote, it appears they may approach the legal action from a discrimination claim. If so, they may have a problem, since anti-discrimination rulings by the courts have had as a basis, the Interstate Commerce Act. This is how the federal government has been able to prevail over state's rights when it comes to federal enforced measures.
My political views tend to be more Libertarian than Conservative. As such, I do understand the argument for body autonomy when it comes to medical decisions. This is why I have opposed vaccine mandates by governments and it is a source for my inner conflict on abortion. In a perfect world, I would fully support a woman's right to an abortion and it is why I tend to settle on abortion being allowed up to 15-20 weeks.
Pregnancy is unlike anything else in medicine, due to the symbiotic relationship between a woman and an unborn child. When I was an undergrad at State, I took a class titled "Science and Religion." It was a combination of religion and philosophy and it concerned a topic I have always been interested in. Having majored in engineering and having been interested in science from an early age (got my first chemistry set when I was 10 and an electronics kit when I was 11) and also having a firm belief in God, it was a class that appealed to me.
During one of the lessons, we were discussing abortion and one of the things the professor said (Dr. Stalnaker) was this - at the point of conception, the combination of cells is unlike any other set of cells in the body. In his words, nothing else compares. Many people who are pro-abortion like to call a fetus just a clump of cells or equate a fetus to cancer cells, but they do this to diminish the impact on life. From the time of conception, the unborn child (the clump of cells) is fully dependent on the mother for its survival. If everything goes right, in the end, a human being enters the world after 9 months. No other medical process I am aware of can create life.
I do recognize that up until a certain point, the unborn child can not survive outside of the mother. Where I come down scientifically is to look at the point where survival is medically possible and if the child is born before 9 months, can it survive and be relatively healthy. Current medical science says this is possible at approximately 22 weeks.
So, my Libertarian view of abortion is this - a mother has body autonomy over her personal medical decisions up to 22 weeks. After this point in time, her medical decisions with respect to body autonomy affect more than her own personal health, it affects another human being that could survive without her help. So, I settle on the government allowing abortion (body autonomy) up to 15-20 weeks and after this time, I take into consideration both the life of the mother and the child. If the life of the mother is threatened after the 15-20 week period and her only chance of survival is to abort her pregnancy, I can support this view - as long as effort is made to also save the life of the child. Otherwise, you are killing a child that science tells us could survive outside of the womb. As to rape and incest, I also support ending a pregnancy, but I do struggle with this decision as well. I think in most cases the pregnancy in this case could be ended prior to 15 weeks, but after 22 weeks, I have a big problem in accepting abortion of an infant that could survive outside of the womb.
I am sorry for the long-winded response, but I had to provide some background on how I arrive at my view on abortion. Morally, I consider it to be wrong, but I can, at the same time, empathize with women who must carry a child for 9 months and have to make decisions regarding their own welfare, in addition to the health of the infant.