You must be kidding me. With all the problems in this state the GOP is trying
to bring this subject up again. This is another lawsuit in the making. Which
means more waste of taxpayer money.
The GOP claims it is not waging a War On Women yet we continue to see proof of
"A Utah lawmaker wants the state to prevent women from getting abortions
based on the gender or race of the baby."Too funny! All she has
to do is aver that the abortion is based on something else like... I don't
wanna baby to clutter my life right now. I have places to go and things to do.
@UTAH Bill:"The GOP claims it is not waging a War On Women yet we
continue to see proof of it."The war the GOP is waging is not
against women. It's FOR the unborn. And both the unborn and the GOP are
This is a war on women? Seems like it is a battle to save female baby's
lives. Every woman that wants an abortion should see a video that can be made
explaining the dangers to the woman such as enhanced likelihood of breast
cancer, cervical cancer, depression, etc. It is not a harmless procedure.
Moreover if the baby is 3 months or more an ultrasound should be viewed by the
mother. In addition those wishing to adopt should have fewer regulations to
overcome. I also think they could give the mother $5,000 to help her after the
@What in Tucket?:"Seems like it is a battle to save female baby's
lives."Good point. The war could easily be classified as a war
for 'future' women."Moreover, if the baby is 3 months
or more an ultrasound should be viewed by the mother."True, and
the mother may well see her unborn sucking its thumb or yawning. Could change
the mother's attitude.
@ What in Tucket: "...enhanced likelihood of breast cancer, cervical
cancer, depression, etc."There is no scientific proof for any of
those claims.If you cannot make a point without lying, your point is
probably not worth making.
Because there is a problem with this in Utah? Sounds like someone wants their
name in the paper for passing another unnecessary regulation. Oh, it's
from the Republican party? I thought they hated unnecessary statutes!
Yet again, not one post placing any responsibility on the male partner who
contributed to the conception in the first place!
If Planned Parenthood does not want to abort based upon race or gender - then
they should have no problem having laws against doing so.Perhaps they
oppose such laws because they are not being honest. After all: Margaret Sanger
created Planned Parenthood, in part, to promote her eugenetic dream of
eliminating "undesirable populations". PP still disproportionally
aborts more minority children than white children. PP has also been caught on
video tape allowing gender specific abortion. Countries that aggressively
promote abortion, such as China, generally find a gender imbalance as a result.
Which is not to imply that minorities abort based upon their own race or that
the US is China, but merely that it is incredibly naive to think that such
concerns are merely a "right-wing" scare tactic, as opposed to
"left-wing" denial.If Planned Parenthood doesn't want
to abort based upon race or gender - this law wont affect them. Therefore it
is easy to conclude from their opposition and track record - that they actually
DO support selective abortion (and when the mythical gay gene is isolated -
perhaps they will advocate aborting them too)