Utah Tax-Funded Hospitals Can Resume Abortions on Disabled Babies


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2007 July
2007 May
2007 April
2007 January
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 June
2006 May
2006 February
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January

My Links
EWTN
Dayton Right to Life Org.
Just the Facts.Org
My Yahoo Group
Toys for Tots 2004

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


free web counters
Disney Store

dmoz.org
Visit the Previous Site in the Gunny Ermey's USMC Web Ring!

Gunny Ermey's USMC Web Ring

Prev 5 ? List ? Join ? Rand ? Next 5

Visit the Next Site in the Gunny Ermey's USMC Web Ring!
  There are currently sites in this ring.  


Utah Tax-Funded Hospitals Can Resume Abortions on Disabled Babies
06.17.04 (11:02 am)   [edit]
Hospitals in Utah that receive taxpayer money can resume performing abortions on handicapped children, under a rule issued by the Utah Department of Health.

Hospitals had ceased doing such abortions after a new state abortion law went into effect May 3. Under the law, hospitals could lose their public funding if they performed abortions for reasons other than rape, incest, or the threat of damage to a major bodily function of the mother.

But, under the rule adopted by the state health department, a publicly-funded hospital can abort a baby with a disability if hospital officials can prove that insurance, donations, or a patient’s personal check paid for the abortion.

Hospital officials are defending the rule, even though it could be perceived as a loophole which could lead to widespread abortions of children with special needs.

"If we had a woman who came to one of our physicians with a ‘grave fetal deformity,’ we would be able to provide the care she needs," Kim Wirthlin, a vice president for Health Sciences at the University of Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune.

Wirthlin added, "This clarification allows us to provide the medical care that is appropriate and compassionate in situations of grave fetal deformity."

Utah Assistant Attorney General Doug Springmeyer also supports the health department ruling.

"We’ve just been looking for a realistic way for hospitals to determine that they’re not cross-subsidizing termination of grave fetal defects with other procedures," Springmeyer told the Tribune.

The Utah legislature adopted the abortion funding law in order to prevent both direct and indirect taxpayer support of abortion.

But a publicity blitz, led by hospitals, has prompted public officials to press for a relaxation of enforcement of the law.

Also, news organizations have devoted a great deal of attention to a woman from Roy, Utah, who was upset that she could not have an abortion at a hospital because of the abortion funding law.

Suzie Combe, who was pregnant with a child that doctors said would not survive after birth, elected to go ahead with the abortion by having it done at an abortion business.

Her husband, Glen, has been quoted as saying that he's not satisfied with the new health department rule.

"I think it is a Band-Aid fix," Glen Combe told the Deseret Morning News. "What really needs to happen is that the bill needs to be amended to fix the problem for people without insurance."

While mainstream news accounts say the new rule is directed toward "doomed babies," pro-life activists point out that a handicap does not necessarily mean an unborn child is doomed to die.

The rule change also seems to ignore the fact that medical research shows that abortions can be far more dangerous to a mother than childbirth, for they represent the artificial interruption of a pregnancy. Abortion has been linked to a host of medical problems, including sterility, breast cancer, and even death.

The rule has already taken effect, but a 30-day public comment period begins July 1. The rule is scheduled to be officially implemented in August.

The sponsor of the original abortion funding bill is now planning to attempt to amend the law to cover abortions for women without health insurance. The lawmaker, Sen. Curt Bramble (R-Provo), also wants to define "fatal fetal deformities" and tinker with the law’s references to the mother’s health.

Bramble is planning to work on the amendments with Steven Clark, medical director of LDS Hospital’s Maternal Fetal Medicine Program.

At the time the original legislation was passed, Bramble said, "Abortions are reprehensible and taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a procedurethey oppose."

Related web sites:
Utah Department of Health - http://health.utah.gov
Utah Legislature - http://www.le.state.ut.us

 


posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 06.17.04 (11:08 am)

This is great. So Utah isn't as stupid as I had thought!



posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 06.17.04 (1:01 pm)

I fully support abortion rights, but I am opposed to abortions in most situations, and I am very offended that my money is being used for them.



posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 06.17.04 (1:02 pm)

Reply to: DrForbush
Hey!
I was about to defend Utah, but I suppose now that I'm registered to vote in Arkansas, I'm officially no longer a Utah. I'm so glad to finally leave a state who's people exist in the 19th Century..... oh wait, Arkansas, right?



posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 06.17.04 (1:13 pm)

Reply to: therealspartacus007

Do you have a thing for living in the past? Timetraveler? I felt that way when I lived in Texas, but then I only travelled back to the 1950s.

Your Name:


Your Comment: