Home > Issues & Alerts > Legislative Alerts > Infanticide Alert (3/4/03)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Our Site Only
  
Entire Web

 

Site Index

 

 

 

Infanticide Alert

(3/4/03)


 

This general report was provided by Daniel B. Newby on 3/4/03:

Note: This write-up is intended for your personal use and to disseminate—either in email or hard copy—to your friends, colleagues, fellow citizens, media, and elected officials. The bill discussed has been selected because it either promotes freedom or it poses a significant risk to freedom.

We have only two days left and House Bill 123, Substitute 6, by Rep. Morgan Philpot, is not progressing in the Senate! This bill would end taxpayer funding of abortions except in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. In order to maintain any Medicaid funding for the State of Utah, the bill has been amended to include cases of reported incest and rape.

In the house committee hearing on this bill, I learned that last year over 3,000 babies were murdered under the category of "therapeutic abortions." We are talking about real lives here! Act now!

Topics:

1. TAKE ACTION!

2. Current State Statute is Trumped by Federal Courts

3. What HB 123 S6 Will Do

4. HB 123 S6 Modeled After Colorado's Successful Initiative

 

1. TAKE ACTION!

1. This bill is not progressing in the senate! Call (and, if possible, fax) your senator at the capitol and tell him to work to move HB 123 along and to publicly and vehemently stand in support of unborn children. (You can also call and fax other senators.)

Senate main number: (801) 538-1035

Senate main fax: (801) 538-1414

See our Elected Official Contact Information page.
Note: Make sure you identify yourself and your contact information, the legislator you want to reach, and keep the message succinct and relatively short. Because of the volume of email messages that senators and representatives receive, your email message may never be considered in time.

2. Forward this message to your family, friends, and any activists you know. Tell them now is the time to act and to rid our hands of the blood of innocent children.

Topics

2. Current State Statute is Trumped by Federal Courts

Currently, Utah State Statute 76-7-302 attempts to restrict abortion on demand. Unfortunately, federal court decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton have made most of this state statute entirely meaningless and unenforceable. (Utah does successfully require abortions to be performed by a licensed physician, and, if the pregnancy is 90 days or more, in a licensed state hospital.)

Hence, though Planned Parenthood does not perform abortions in Utah, licensed hospitals—on a regular basisdo perform abortions on demand. Doctors prescribe the abortion and the hospital carries out the sentence.

In the house committee hearing on this bill, I learned that last year over 3,000 babies were murdered under the category of "therapeutic abortions."

Topics

3. What HB 123 S6 Will Do

House Bill 123, Substitute 6, is short and sweet:

76-7-326. Public funding of abortion forbidden.
(1) Public funds of the state, its institutions, or its political subdivisions may not be used to pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency, or facility for the performance of any induced abortion service, unless:
(a) in the professional judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician, the abortion is necessary to save the pregnant woman's life;
(b) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest reported to law enforcement agencies, unless the woman was unable to report the crime for physical reasons or fear of retaliation; or
(c) in the professional judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician, the abortion is necessary to prevent permanent, irreparable, and grave damage to a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. This provision shall not be construed to allow direct or indirect funds to be used for conditions of mental, psychological, or emotional harm, illness, or distress.

(2) If a state agency violates Subsection (1), the Legislature may eliminate any or all of the public funds provided to the state agency.

(3) Any person who knowingly authorizes the use of the funds prohibited by this section may be criminally charged. If the offender is an officer or employee of the state, he may be dismissed from his office or position and his employment may be terminated.

In other words, Utah will no longer force taxpayers to directly or indirectly pay for abortion procedures performed for any reason other than to save the life of the mother, incest, rape, or permanent, irreparable, and grave damage to a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

Note: This last exception does include "mental, psychological, or emotional harm, illness, or distress." If this last exception is in any way manipulated by doctors or hospitals, they will face potential criminal and other court challenges and the loss of all direct and indirect state subsidies. In addition, we will have all ammunition to be back next year and further tighten the language.

Hospitals and other organizations that wish to perform abortions for any other reasons must do so without any direct or indirect taxpayer support to their organization. The moral case is clear: It is not right to expect public funding for a procedure that many taxpayers find reprehensible. Abortions in all other cases should remain a private, privately-funded matter.

Topics

4. HB 123 S6 Modeled After Colorado's Successful Initiative

House Bill 123, Substitute 6, is modeled after Colorado's successful 1984 statewide initiative, where voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment to eliminate any direct or indirect funding for abortion on demand. Read the Colorado initiative language.

Section 50. Public funding of abortion forbidden.
No public funds shall be used by the State of Colorado, its agencies or political subdivisions to pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency or facility for the performance of any induced abortion, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the General Assembly, by specific bill, may authorize and appropriate funds to be used for those medical services necessary to prevent the death of either a pregnant woman or her unborn child under circumstances where every reasonable effort is made to preserve the life of each.
Adopted by the People November 6, 1984 Effective upon proclamation of the Governor, January 14, 1985. (For the text of the initiated measure and the votes cast thereon, see L. 85, p. 1792.)

Colorado Governor Bill Owens has made certain through comprehensive audits and investigations that this initiative is enforced. I discovered that, contrary to my last message, Colorado's constitutional amendment was challenged in the early 1990's. In the case of Hern v. Beye, 57 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 1995), Colorado's abortion funding restriction was found to violate federal Medicaid law because it denies funding to Medicaid-eligible women seeking abortions to end pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that as long as Colorado continues to participate in Medicaid, the state is enjoined from denying Medicaid funding for abortions to qualified women whose pregnancies are the result of incest or rape. The case of Hern v. Beye, therefore, qualifies Colorado's constitutional provision in order that the state may maintain its standing as a participate in the medicaid program.

In summary, the HB 123 S6 does less than Colorado's constitutional amendment and therefore should easily stand on the same solid ground.

Daniel B. Newby

P.S. The preceeding message was my personal opinion. To receive an alert on this subject directly, email me at daniel.newby@velocitus.net.

 


If you have comments or suggestions, please email us at info@accountabilityutah.org.

 

Home | Issues & Alerts | Mission | AU Team | Reports | Citizen Library | Other Resources

Address: P.O. Box 141, West Jordan, Utah 84084
E-mail:
info@accountabilityutah.org  |  Website: www.accountabilityutah.org

Copyright © 2003 Accountability Utah