Utah Governor Signs Bill Banning All Abortion Clinics

[smac97]

I hadn't heard about this: Utah Governor Signs Bill Banning All Abortion Clinics

Quote

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed a pro-life bill into law Wednesday that protects unborn babies by ending abortion facility licenses throughout the state.

Aborting unborn babies is still legal in Utah due to a court order blocking its abortion ban, but the new law effectively could ban elective abortions while that lawsuit continues.

I will be interested to see if this law blocked by court order (as I'm reasonably confident that litigation about it will happen).

Quote

This week, Cox ... signed the pro-life law, along with dozens of others, after the state legislature passed it by an overwhelming majority earlier this month.

Sponsored by state Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, House Bill 467 prohibits abortion facilities from operating in Utah starting in 2024 and prohibits state authorities from granting licenses to abortion facilities after May 2. However, it also requires abortions that are allowed under the law to be performed in hospitals, basically making current abortion facilities’ licenses meaningless.

That's a pretty good way of putting abortion-centric facilities out of business.

Quote

Lisonbee recently said her legislation “strikes the very best balance of protecting innocent life and protecting women who experience rare and dangerous circumstances.”

Currently, Utah has four abortion facilities, including the Wasatch Women’s Center in Salt Lake City and three Planned Parenthoods. It is not clear if any of them plan to file lawsuits attempting to block the law.

I find this curious.  I would have expected the sabre-rattling about filing suit to have started weeks ago.

Quote

The Utah Hospital Association told the Associated Press that Utah hospitals do not perform elective abortions, and would not say if any plan to start doing so as a result of the new law.

I'm curious about this as well.  From the above link: "The Utah Hospital Association said no hospitals provided elective abortions in the state last year. It declined to answer questions about whether plans were in place to accommodate additional patients likely to seek care if clinics close."

That hospitals have typically not provided elective abortions doesn't mean that they can't (as noted above, the current law specifically banning elective abortions is not in effect due to a court order).

Quote

Here’s more from the AP:

Jason Stevenson, lobbyist [at the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah], said Wednesday the organization would now further examine the wording, implications and whether other provisions of the bill allowed clinics to apply for a new kind of license to perform hospital-equivalent services.

The new statute exempts abortion clinics which "meet the definition of hospital under Section 76-7-301 or Section 76-7a-101."

These statutes define "hospital" as including "a clinic or other medical facility to the extent that such clinic or other medical facility is certified by the department as providing equipment and personnel sufficient in quantity and quality to provide the same degree of safety to the pregnant woman and the unborn child as would be provided for the particular medical procedures undertaken by a general hospital licensed by the department."

So Planned Parenthood may not be out of business just yet.

Quote

Based on Planned Parenthood’s interpretation, he said in an interview, clinics will no longer be able to provide abortions with their current licenses. They plan to continue, however, to provide the majority of their services such as STI testing, pregnancy testing, cancer screenings and vasectomies.

I'm not sure anyone has opposed these other services.  That would be odd.

Quote

Along with banning abortion facilities, the bill also requires doctors to provide information about perinatal hospice and palliative care to pregnant mothers whose unborn babies are diagnosed with a fatal condition.

To be a little more clear, the statute states: "If the unborn child has been diagnosed with a fetal abnormality that is incompatible with life, at the time of the diagnosis, the physician shall inform the woman, both verbally and in writing, that perinatal hospice and perinatal palliative care services are available and are an alternative to abortion."

Quote

It also prohibits abortions after 18 weeks in cases of rape and incest, and allows doctors who abort unborn babies in violation of state laws to face discipline for unprofessional conduct.

The law is here worth quoting verbatim.  Here's the "strikethrough" version:

Quote

842          Section 17. Section 76-7-302 is amended to read:
843          76-7-302. Circumstances under which abortion authorized.
844          [(1) As used in this section, "viable" means that the unborn child has reached a stage of
845     fetal development when the unborn child is potentially able to live outside the womb, as
846     determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.]
847          [(2)] (1) An abortion may be performed in this state only by a physician.
848          [(3)] (2) An abortion may be performed in this state only under the following
849     circumstances:
850          (a) the unborn child [is not viable; or] has not reached 18 weeks gestational age;
851          (b) the unborn child [is viable, if:] has reached 18 weeks gestational age, and:
852          (i) the abortion is necessary to avert:
853          (A) the death of the woman on whom the abortion is performed; or
854          (B) a serious physical risk of substantial [and irreversible] impairment of a major
855     bodily function of the woman on whom the abortion is performed; or
856          (ii) subject to Subsection (4), two physicians who practice maternal fetal medicine
857     concur, in writing, in the patient's medical record that the fetus[:] has a fetal abnormality that in
858     the physicians' reasonable medical judgment is incompatible with life; or
859          [(A) has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable and uniformly lethal; or]
860          [(B) has a severe brain abnormality that is uniformly diagnosable; or]
861          [(iii) (A)]
862          (c) the unborn child has not reached 18 weeks gestational age and:
863          (i) (A) the woman is pregnant as a result of:
864          (I) rape, as described in Section 76-5-402;
865          (II) rape of a child, as described in Section 76-5-402.1; or
866          (III) incest, as described in Subsection 76-5-406(2)(j) or Section 76-7-102; [and] or
867          (B) the pregnant child is under the age of 14; and

---

868          [(B)] (ii) before the abortion is performed, the physician who performs the abortion:
869          [(I)] (A) for an abortion authorized under Subsection (2)(c)(i)(A), verifies that the
870     incident described in Subsection [(3)(b)(iii)(A)] (2)(c)(i)(A) has been reported to law
871     enforcement; and
872          [(II)] (B) if applicable, complies with the requirements of Section 80-2-602.
873          [(4)] (3) An abortion may be performed only in [an abortion clinic or] a hospital, unless
874     it is necessary to perform the abortion in another location due to a medical emergency.
875          (4) If the unborn child has been diagnosed with a fetal abnormality that is incompatible
876     with life, at the time of the diagnosis, the physician shall inform the woman, both verbally and
877     in writing, that perinatal hospice and perinatal palliative care services are available and are an
878     alternative to abortion.

In other words, elective abortion is still legal up to 18 weeks.  This is actually more than almost all countries in Europe:

Quote

The BBC previously put together details on European time limits in this resource here. We have recently reviewed the time limits across the European Union, which are presented below.

Country name	Time limit for abortion on demand or on broad social grounds	References
Austria	“First three months”	Penal Code, Section 97 (1974) (German)
Belgium	12	Penal Code Chapter 2 Article 2 (French).
Bulgaria	12	Decree No. 2 on the conditions and procedures for the artificial termination of pregnancy (1990).
Croatia	10	Law No. 1252-1978 , Article 15 (1978).
Cyprus	12	Criminal Code of Cyprus (Sections 167-169 and 169A) as amended by Law No 59 (1974) and Law No 186 (1986) (no retrievable and entirely up-to-date version online).
Czech Republic	12	Law 66, Section 2(1) (1986).
Denmark (Mainland)	12	Law No. 350, Chapter 1, Section 1 (1973).
Estonia	11	Abortion and Sterilization Act, Chapter 2, Section 6 (1998)
Finland	12	Law 239, Section 5 (1970).
France	14	Code de la Santé Publique (Public Health Code) Article L2212 (2022)-1).
Germany	12	Strafgesetzbuch (German Criminal Code), Sections 218-218a (1992).
Greece	12	The Greek Criminal Code, Article 304 (No direct online access) (1986).
Hungary	12	Act LXXIX on the protection of fetal life, Section 6 (1992)
Ireland	12	Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018, Section 12 (2018).
Italy	12	Law 194, Article 6 (1978).
Latvia	12	Sexual and Reproductive Health Law, Chapter VI, Section 25 (1) (2002).
Lithuania	12	Order No. 50, Section 1.1 (1994).
Luxembourg	12	Law of December 17, 2014 amending 1) the Penal Code and 2) the law of November 15, 1978, Article 12 (2014).
Malta	None: abortion is entirely prohibited.	Criminal Code, Articles 241-243.  According to the Maltese Government: “Should the mother’s life be in danger, all efforts are made to save both lives, and the double effect principle applies, such as in ectopic pregnancy.”
Netherlands	24 (22 in practice)	Criminal Code, Articles 82a and 296). According to the Government of the Netherlands, “An abortion may be performed up to the time when the foetus is viable outside the mother’s body. Under the Criminal Code, this is 24 weeks. In practice, doctors apply a two-week margin of error, and stick to a time limit of 22 weeks.”
Poland	Abortion not available on demand or on broad social grounds. It is only available on narrow grounds, when pregnancy poses a threat to the life or health of the woman or in cases of rape or incest	Act on Family Planning, Protection of the Human Fetus, and Conditions for Pregnancy Termination (1993) and Judgement of the Constitutional Court of October 22, 2020 reference number act K 1/20(2020)).
Portugal	10	Código Penal (Criminal Code), Articles 140-142 (2007) (Portuguese with English translation available).
Romania	14	Noul Cod Penal (The New Penal Code), Article 201 (2014) (Romanian with English translation available).
Slovakia	12	Act No. 73/1986 Coll. on Artificial Interruption of Pregnancy, as amended by Act No. 419/1991 Coll., Section 4 (1993).
Slovenia	10	Law No. 1252-1978, Article 15 (1978). Note: This is the same abortion law as exists in Croatia since both were part of Yugoslavia when the law was passed in 1978
Spain	14	Organic Law 2/2010 on Sexual and Reproductive Health and the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy, Article 14 (2010) (Spanish with English translation).
Sweden	18	Lag om abort (Abortlagen), Section 1 (Abortion Law) (1974) (Swedish with English translation).

Ask your local representatives to take the Both Lives Pledge

TAKE ACTION

 

If the above is correct, only one of the listed countries (Netherlands) has more permissive abortion restrictions (22-24 weeks).

Quote

Utah has a trigger law that bans killing unborn babies in abortions except in cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies or emergency situations when the mother’s life is at risk. However, a court recently blocked it at the request of Planned Parenthood; Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes is appealing.

If Reyes succeeds, Utah would join 14 other states that protect unborn babies by banning or strictly limiting abortions. Pro-life leaders estimate these laws already have saved thousands of unborn babies’ lives.

Here is a good update from January 2023 on the status of the appeal.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Utah's efforts to remove a halt on its law outlawing abortion is continuing to move forward in the Utah Supreme Court, as both parties and other organizations on both sides of the issue have filed briefs over the last week and months.

The "trigger law," passed through SB174 during the 2020 legislative session, prohibits abortions in Utah except under specific conditions. It went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood of Utah filed a lawsuit claiming the trigger law is unconstitutional, and a few days later a judge agreed with them, issuing a temporary injunction against the trigger ban and allowing abortions in the state to continue.

The state appealed that decision to halt the ban from going into effect in August, and the injunction is currently being briefed in the Utah Supreme Court. As of Friday, both sides have filed briefs in the case, along with many outside parties who filed amicus curiae briefs.

The article is dated January 28.  I suspect we'll get a decision from the Utah Supreme Court this summer.

Quote

Brief from Utah government

Utah's brief, filed on Dec. 2, argues that 3rd District Judge Andrew Stone was wrong to prevent the trigger law from staying in effect. The state said Planned Parenthood cannot support the law being placed on hold "based on an implied constitutional right to abortion," and that a preliminary injunction — the act that put the law on hold — should only be used in extraordinary circumstances.

The brief says Planned Parenthood Association of Utah "has no possibility of winning on its claims" — which is required for a preliminary injunction. It said Stone did not comment on the strength of the claims but only said they were not frivolous.

The state continued arguments presented in the 3rd District Court hearing regarding whether a hold should be placed on the trigger law going into effect, saying the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion and that prior to Roe v. Wade, Utah law criminalized abortion and has never recognized an abortion right.

"The Constitution's original public meaning has not changed to embrace an implied right to abortion," the brief says.

It argues that Planned Parenthood would not face harm without an injunction and the court should not have included third-party harms when making this decision. Instead, the brief says, Utah and the public's interests are harmed because of the injunction, because of their interest in preserving human life.

"That injury outweighs any PPAU harm — or harm to PPAU employees or patients — that denying equitable relief might cause," the brief said.

I think that's a pretty solid argument.

Quote

Support from organizations, doctors, Legislature

The American College of Pediatricians and said protecting unborn life "reflects scientific fact." The doctors argued not allowing people to protect unborn life would be a departure from the judiciary's role in the Utah Constitution and the court should remain neutral on abortion.

Another medical organization, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, argues in a brief that the trigger law supports Utah's interest in material health, citing published studies, and said the exceptions built into the trigger law are in line with medical ethics.

Utah's Legislature also submitted an amicus curiae brief supporting the state and the bill it passed. It argues that the 3rd District Court did not give enough consideration to the public interest — specifically the public's interest in preserving unborn lives and in laws supporting the will of the people.

I would like to read these briefs (and the amicus briefs with opposing viewpoints as well).  Here's an article about a brief submitted by the Sutherland Institute.  An excerpt from the article:

Quote

Sutherland Institute filed an amicus brief in the case to address these assertions, which are at odds with existing religious freedom principles. The brief points out factual flaws with the claim that Utah’s abortion law violates Utah’s constitutional protection of religious freedom by imposing a religious view of when life begins.

We note for the court that Utah’s law is similar to a proposal from the American Law Institute prior to the Roe v. Wade decision and that there is no evidence that any church interfered with or dominated the creation of Utah’s abortion law. The Utah law uses biological rather than religious criteria in defining abortion.

Sutherland’s brief also pointed to Supreme Court precedent allowing a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion, which said that similarities between legal and religious policy do not make the legal policy unconstitutional. As the court explained: “That the Judeo-Christian religions oppose stealing does not mean that a State or the Federal Government may not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, enact laws prohibiting larceny.”

Finally, Sutherland’s brief notes the basic principle that just having a religious belief does not mean that belief would invalidate the state’s compelling interest in protecting human life. Even sincere religious beliefs have to yield sometimes to critical interests like protecting life and public safety.

Last week, the Utah Solicitor General’s Office defending Utah’s new abortion law in court filed its final brief with the Utah Supreme Court. The portion of that brief addressing the religious freedom claims makes points similar to Sutherland’s brief, noting that if Planned Parenthood’s argument was taken to its logical limit, “the State could never legislate on controversial and divisive topics.”

The state’s argument also cites the Sutherland Institute brief as additional authority in responding to the religious freedom claims of the plaintiffs in the case.

The Utah Supreme Court must now determine how to respond to the constitutional questions raised by the case. There is no specific timeline for the court to issue its decision, but the court is known for timely rulings.

Interesting stuff!

A few closing thoughts/observations:

1. I am very grateful to be the father of six children.  Knowing and loving and valuing each of them as I do, I cannot comprehend what it would have been like if my wife had electively aborted one, some or all of them.  

2. I think and believe the Church's overall doctrinal and policy posture on this issue is congruent with God's will.  D&C 59:6 states: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."  As with most scriptures, passages like this require some interpretation and analysis in order to be practically applied.  For that reason, I am grateful that we have living prophets and apostles who have provided rather clear guidance on this issue.

3. In the face of some moral ambiguity, we as a society must nevertheless come to some sort of consensus as to regulating abortions, particularly elective ones.  In such discussions, I think the sanctity of human life and, in particular, the personhood of the unborn child deserves real attention and consideration.  

4. I think we will eventually look back on elective abortion as a great moral stain, as abhorrent as slavery, and perhaps even more so.

5. As I have noted previously, I think there should be legislation regulating elective abortion, but I am more interested in efforts to persuade, to improve education and availability of contraceptives, pregnancy resource centers, and so on.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think we will eventually look back on elective abortion as a great moral stain, as abhorrent as slavery, and perhaps even more so.

Imo, the moral stain is how society is not supporting women and families, including free contraceptives and prenatal care so abortion is not seen as a necessary alternative for so many. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

3. In the face of some moral ambiguity, we as a society must nevertheless come to some sort of consensus as to regulating abortions, particularly elective ones.  In such discussions, I think the sanctity of human life and, in particular, the personhood of the unborn child deserves real attention and consideration.  

Totally agree.  And I also figure the odds of successfully doing this on any sort of meaningful scale is about as high as figuring out how to solve the Palestine/Israel conflict tomorrow.

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Imo, the moral stain is how society is not supporting women and families, including free contraceptives and prenatal care so abortion is not seen as a necessary alternative for so many. 

I dunno.  The U.S. has a pretty substantial social safety net already.  And though oral contraceptives still require a prescription (that may be changing), they are already pretty cheap.  And OTC options are also pretty cheap.

Self-governance also goes a long way.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pyreaux]

I believe most LDS in their hearts are Libertarians except when it comes thinking they are morally obligated to be against the federal legalization of drugs and abortion, never considering other consequences, namely the black market. But Libertarians are also all about constitutional federalism, the sovereignty of states to make nearly any unique laws they want, if you don't like the law, move to another state. Each state is an experiment. You want socialism, try it out in one state first, maybe others will follow. Want the abortion? California is right there.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

U.S. has a pretty substantial social safety net already. 

And yet over 4 million women are working more than one job ( including 180,000 working two full time jobs) to feed themselves and their families, a significant percentage being single mothers (I used women because single mothers are more likely to have children living at poverty or below).  That takes a lot of women away from their children during crucial hours, such as mealtime and evenings, leaving older youth unsupervised, etc.

https://nwlc.org/4-3-million-women-work-multiple-jobs-to-make-ends-meet/

[Calm]

Just now, Pyreaux said:

Most LDS are Libertarians

CFR

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR

He would’ve been more clear to state that it’s his opinion that most are libertarians.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I believe most LDS in their hearts are Libertarians

If you mean in the US, that may be possible but I think it unlikely in general even in the US, especially once they figure out how that would play out if successful in getting libertarians elected in our current society. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR

Opinion based on personal experience, the winning arguments are usually a potent cocktail of American ideas of constitutional freedom and LDS primary ideas of Agency, you find it aligns well with the Libertarian core non-coercion principle (don't use force or fraud except in response to force or fraud), losing arguments tend to be reservations against supporting drugs and abortions in any shape or fashion fearing legalizing something means you morally support or validate it, and the temptation to support laws for other people's own good, even if it's against their will.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Imo, the moral stain is how society is not supporting women and families, including free contraceptives and prenatal care so abortion is not seen as a necessary alternative for so many. 

There are other non-lethal alternatives.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Imo, the moral stain is how society is not supporting women and families, including free contraceptives and prenatal care so abortion is not seen as a necessary alternative for so many. 

For couples in the gospel, carefully timed self discipline, which also is essential during courtship, could affect everything.

We receive spiritual lessons for fasting even once a month, don't we?

Theoretically then, should those who are capable of observing gospel standards support the vices of those who don't?

(Ducking for cover) 😲

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are other non-lethal alternatives.  

"Necessary" raises an interesting question.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Theoretically then, should those who are capable of observing gospel standards support the vices of those who don't?

And if we don’t, who pays the greatest price?  The innocent children, born and never born. 

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are other non-lethal alternatives.  

Which is what I am talking about. Unless we make other non lethal alternatives attractive enough, women will choose abortion. The best way to lower abortion rates have proven to be better access to contraceptives*** (free is about accessible as you can get ).  
 

And when making it a moral issue, it is imo reasonable to add to that the simple morality of caring for in need mothers and young children with good prenatal and postnatal care, extended paternity leave, free if needed health care for children, food programs to ensure kids get decent nutrition, etc.
 

***”When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/free-birth-control-cuts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds-f6285986

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Theoretically then, should those who are capable of observing gospel standards support the vices of those who don't?

 

If one puts one’s belief that those who commit sin should suffer the consequences—either in order to learn or to be punished for justice—as highest priority, then one needs to be honest that is more important to one than preventing abortions.  I do think it is very important for us not to be protected from all consequences of our actions in order to exercise our agency and learn what is most valued by us so we make better choices later on (possibly only in the next life), so I would not think less of someone who did choose that position.  But I wouldn’t buy it if they then tried to claim that stopping abortion was so terribly important to them because that is not how one lowers abortion rates even if it seems like it should. 

The most restrictive abortion countries…the ones that have the strongest consequences..are also the ones with the highest abortion rates.   Those two facts make not be directly related; there may be other cultural issues influencing both so there is only an association between the two rather than cause and effect, but that association should give someone pause if their highest priority is to prevent abortions, as distasteful as it may be to make it less consequential for someone else to sin by providing free birth control or free medical care if they get pregnant. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if we don’t, who pays the greatest price?  The innocent children, born and never born. 

So aren't we encourage killing babies by paying for abortions?

Surely God has a work around for those spirits, -or the plan is defeated- but He ain't gonna tell us for good reasons!

Suppose, as in the "bad" old days we did not pay that bill for abortions? ->Natural consequences we have removed, and look at what good that has done.

Do you really think there spirits that are "never born"?

I don't.

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

If one puts one’s belief that those who commit sin should suffer the consequences—either in order to learn or to be punished for justice—as highest priority, then one needs to be honest that is more important to one than preventing abortions.  I do think it is very important for us not to be protected from all consequences of our actions in order to exercise our agency and learn what is most valued by us so we make better choices later on (possibly only in the next life), so I would not think less of someone who did choose that position.  But I wouldn’t buy it if they then tried to claim that stopping abortion was so terribly important to them because that is not how one lowers abortion rates even if it seems like it should. 

The most restrictive abortion countries…the ones that have the strongest consequences..are also the ones with the highest abortion rates.   Those two facts make not be directly related; there may be other cultural issues influencing both so there is only an association between the two rather than cause and effect, but that association should give someone pause if their highest priority is to prevent abortions, as distasteful as it may be to make it less consequential for someone else to sin by providing free birth control or free medical care if they get pregnant. 

Giving away free things and removing accountability is not always a good way to reduce unwanted behaviors. 

[mfbukowski]

Agree, and it makes no sense.

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which is what I am talking about. Unless we make other non lethal alternatives attractive enough, women will choose abortion. The best way to lower abortion rates have proven to be better access to contraceptives*** (free is about accessible as you can get ).  
 

And when making it a moral issue, it is imo reasonable to add to that the simple morality of caring for in need mothers and young children with good prenatal and postnatal care, extended paternity leave, free if needed health care for children, food programs to ensure kids get decent nutrition, etc.
 

***”When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/free-birth-control-cuts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds-f6285986

We were discussing free abortions, not free contraception.

At least I was.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We were discussing free abortions, not free contraception.

At least I was.

From my first response to Smac, I was not discussing free abortion or even abortion itself, but the moral stain of not supporting alternatives to it. Without the alternatives, abortion rates will go up.  I started out with abortion not being seen as necessary, also I mentioned non-lethal, the never born innocents who would suffer (by being aborted), and free contraceptives and other support for mothers and children (implying the baby gets born).

Rather than just viewing abortion as the great moral stain of our time, I believe the future will look at the causes of abortion that could have been relieved by the community if they were truly dedicated to saving the pre born as the greatest moral stain (not only because if their contribution to abortion, but also other social ills).

Edited March 16, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Giving away free things and removing accountability is not always a good way to reduce unwanted behaviors. 

Which is why I look to actual research to see if it works or doesn’t. In this case research supports free contraceptives lower abortion rates (cited one study above), which deaths I care about more than stopping people from having sex when they shouldn’t, though I wish people wouldn’t because I think it can be emotionally, spiritually, and physically unhealthy. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree, and it makes no sense.

Tons of human behaviour doesn’t. Humans are not always obviously logical.  Again, talking here about free contraceptives. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

nvm

Edited March 16, 2023 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Self-governance also goes a long way.

Up until your religious beliefs dictate that self governance no longer applies apparently.