Friday, October 03, 2008

Abortion Rears It's Ugly Head

I was writing a post about how Republicans will never do anything about abortion because it's too golden a campaign issue for them. It wins them votes when they are desperate.

Well, desperation must be setting in, because with five weeks to go, a press conference was staged.

There is way too much good stuff in this article NOT to run with it:

Conservative Utah legislators said Tuesday they plan to sponsor legislation banning abortions in Utah in nearly all cases, sparking a legal fight they vowed to fight to the Supreme Court.
"We're tired of it. This group of legislators has had enough of the slaughter of innocents and we're going to step up and we're going to do something about it," said Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman.

Innocent people over the age of one minute die all the time by things that Carl Wimmer doesn't want to take on.

Behind him, about 60 abortion opponents, many in town for a Catholic conference, held signs calling for protection for the unborn. A roughly equal number of pro-choice advocates stood behind them holding signs of their own.

They were "in town?" In other words, he had to import protesters?

"We are here to stand up for the unborn, to stand up against the dogs of hate who defend abortion on demand," Wimmer said.

In my experience, people who are pro-choice are far from the type of people who could be classified as dogs of hate.

However, I know many anti-choicers who are full of hate. Like Rep. Wimmer.

The key bill in the package backed by the legislators would ban all abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or if the life or a bodily function of the mother is threatened. Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-American Fork, said his bill will be nearly identical to one that failed in the 2007 session.
"The crucial thing is: Is this Legislature doing what the people want it to do? Do the people of Utah believe this is the way to prevent abortion from happening in Utah?" asked Missy Bird, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Committee.

To answer the first question: Do they ever?

She said it would cost between $2 million and $10 million fighting to the Supreme Court.
Rep. Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake City, who was among those holding signs supporting abortion rights, called the announcement a "political stunt" by lawmakers trying to get re-elected, and warned that taxpayers were going to get stuck with the legal tab.
"This is going to waste a lot of time. It's going to waste taxpayer dollars and it doesn't need to be our state that tries to overturn Roe v. Wade," she said.
She says the money could be better spent on things like comprehensive sex education and birth control that would reduce the number of abortions performed.
"I have a duty to defend life," said Sandstrom. "I think it's reprehensible to suggest that defending life is a political gimmick."

First, we'll talk later about defend ALL life, not just the life of the unborn.

Second, holding a press conference 5 weeks before election day *IS* a gimmick.

South Dakota has a similar ban on the ballot this November. They rejected a ban two years ago that had no exceptions.
There were about 3,516 abortions performed in Utah last year, according to the Utah Department of Health.
The supporters said the cost of the fight will not be an issue. Wimmer said that a group based out of Washington, D.C., which he would not identify, has committed to doing all of the legal work defending the bill for the state.

So, all of this is going to be paid for by people outside of Utah?

Sounds like the voucher fight all over again.

Oh, and we've heard this before.

In 1991, the state passed a ban on abortion and spent years litigating it in the courts. Supporters of the ban assured legislators that private donors were lined up to support the assured legal fight and a fund was created, but very little was contributed.
Sandstrom says this time will be different, because groups and foundations have already committed to backing the state.

You know, like investors that were going to put up funds for a soccer stadium, including naming rights, which didn't come though until right before the thing opened.

No comments: