Abortion debate hits Utah’s capital
House Bill 235 has had a wild ride through the Utah Legislature, but given the bill’s content, no one should be surprised. HB235 is a measure that would ban all abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or serious risk to the mother’s health.
Since the law comes into conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision about abortion in Roe v. Wade, the bill was originally introduced as a “trigger” law – one which would go into effect if or when Roe v. Wade was overturned. After its introduction, the bill was amended to remove the trigger clause, which would have surely thrown Utah into a legal battle to overturn Roe v. Wade.
But financial concerns about what would have been a lengthy and potentially unsuccessful legal battle prompted the House to remove the amendment. The House passed the bill in its original form on Feb. 12. The bill is expected to move quickly through the Senate.
Although Utah won’t be challenging Roe v. Wade, the bill puts the issue of abortion into people’s minds, bringing up issues about life, medicine, law and politics.
“Abortion is a deeply moralistic issue,” Jim Davis, director of the Health and Wellness Center, said.
Davis would go as far as to parallel abortion with the issues that caused the Civil War. He said both deal with the control of a life, personal development of individuals and money, and both are extremely divisive.
“I see a lot of parallels between those two issues, and the first issue split the country. I don’t think the second issue is that far from splitting the country because each individual, as with all moral issues, has their own feeling about it,” Davis said.
Aubrey Hill, president of the College Democrats, agrees that abortion is very divisive, but wouldn’t go as far as Davis. She said it is on a much smaller scale than the issues that caused the Civil War.
Abortion is such a divisive issue because it brings up basic questions about the value of life and has deep ties to religion and morality.
“Moralistically, what makes one life more important than another? That’s the question that you answer individually, but is extremely difficult to answer for a society,” Davis said.
“Who makes the call on which life is more valued?” Michelle Lundberg, a senior in law and constitutional studies and Academic Senate president, said. “I would hate to be the person to make that.”
In the United States, these decisions about the value of life and when it’s OK to get an abortion are made by law created by elected representative.
Abortion is also an issue of choice. Whose choice should it be to get an abortion? And when is abortion an appropriate choice?
“The choice should occur before you get pregnant,” Davis said. “You should choose whether or not to get pregnant; that would solve the problem. That’s a hard line, it doesn’t always occur – people make mistakes. And so we, as a society, have to decide whether we will accept pregnancy as a mistake that has the outlet of abortion.”
Davis said he thinks the vast majority of abortions are for unwanted pregnancies and not a result of health risks, rape or incest.
Research from the Guttmacher Institute backs this up. The Guttmacher Institute is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. Their numbers show each year 10,000 to 15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies resulted from rape or incest, but in 2002, 1.29 million abortions took place. That means abortions in cases of rape and incest accounted for a small percentage.
Medical doctors, like Davis, deal with abortion in a different way because they can’t choose for a patient. Davis said as a clinician, his job is to provide the information and options and let the patient make the decision. Then he assists them in getting the medical care they desire.
All doctors are familiar with the abortion procedure, Davis said. The procedure is taught in medical school and is the same one used for a miscarriage, he said.
Although they may be familiar with the procedure, it is usually not acceptable for doctors to proactively discuss abortion, Davis said.
“When it comes to abortion, you probably have a strong moral idea, as I do, and it becomes less proper for me to proactively bring my moral viewpoints into play in your health issues. It’s more appropriate for me to wait, and you to ask,” he said.
“It’s a struggle to put those views aside and see what’s really in the best interest of that patient,” Davis said. But, he added, he has learned to do it.
Unlike doctors, lawmakers and members of the judiciary don’t have to put their personal viewpoints aside to deal with issues relating to abortion. In fact, it is usually quite the opposite.
Lawmakers reveal their personal feelings, and those of their constituency, in the laws they pass. HB235 is a good example of this. Many members of the Utah Legislature said because of their personal views about abortion, they wanted to be at the forefront in overturning Roe v. Wade.
Some also see these actions as having political undertones.
Hill sees the saga of HB235 as a political statement used to reassure the state’s conservative base that the Legislature is still in line with their values.
“If every once in a while you go out and say, ‘Hey, we’re going to fight the good fight,’ then you reassure your base that you’re with them, even if you’re not really going to be effective. A lot of this isn’t about being effective,” she said.
James Strickler, assistant professor in the political science department, also sees some politics coming into play with the trigger law.
“They could just wait. Why do it now? Well, because they want to make a statement,” he said.
But it may not be all about a statement. Strickler, like many people, doesn’t feel like there is a chance Roe v. Wade will get overturned anytime soon.
“It now has the weight of decades behind it,” he said about Roe v. Wade.
This precedent has even been strengthened. In the ’90s, a case called Casey v. Planned Parenthood upheld the central holdings of Roe v. Wade.
Strickler also cites the make-up of the Supreme Court as a reason for a switch to a trigger law. There are four liberal justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade, two conservatives who would overturn it, two new judges who are unknowns and one swing vote – Justice Anthony Kennedy. Strickler said Kennedy isn’t likely to overturn the decision because of its status as precedent.
“You just have to look and say, ‘We don’t have five votes, so why even bother right now?'” he said.
Even though a challenge would most likely fail, there are other reasons Strickler sees for Utah’s abortion legislation.
“You tend to get a new wave of laws like this when you get new people on the Supreme Court,” he said. “States want to test and see if the new people will overturn the old law. They get excited and want to put up a test case.”
He also said he thinks a trigger law puts pressure on the Supreme Court, especially if multiple states pass them.
But, does the passing of abortion legislation, whether it is a trigger law or not, put pressure on people in the state to start discussing abortion?
It’s hard to tell if publicity about HB235 has increased discussion about abortion, but Hill and Lundberg think it should.
“I think it’s very much under the radar,” Hill said.
Lundberg said it is important to discuss divisive issues like abortion.
“It reminds people not to be complacent, that there are issues out there that are hot-button issues that still need to be resolved,” she said. “It helps people find their center and remember, ‘OK, this is why I believe what I do.'”
Hill also said she feels the discussion of abortion is important, especially on a college campus. She said people should be informed so they can have discussions that are more than just a
shouting match.
Lundberg agrees that people should be informed about the procedures and facts about abortions so they can discuss the facts and, if the situation arises, make a good, informed decision about getting an abortion.
But any discussion of abortion has the potential to get heated, because all individuals tend to have their own closely held belief.
“If you’ve got 350 people in the room, you’re going to get 350 different answers,” Davis said. “People base their opinions on their own experiences.”
-dabake@cc.usu.edu