Nothing stirs emotions quite like the debate over abortion. And for the past three years, Utah lawmakers have pushed the limits on how far states can go to restrict a woman's right to have one.
So with lawmakers still basking in the afterglow of a federal court ruling upholding a 1993 Utah law restricting abortions, they should be armed with confidence to again go where no state has gone before, right?Not likely. Rep. Robert Killpack, R-Murray, fears his colleagues, once passionate about protecting unborn fetuses, have lost the will to push the fight. And he has all but admitted defeat this legislative session.
"People just don't want to be bothered with it this year, from top to bottom," he said. "It's a sad thing, really. We win a major battle in the courts and we lose the fight here."
Maybe so, but Killpack will have his day. The House Rules Committee has finally voted to release HB129 - a bill that would toughen Utah's law even further - for a full committee hearing later this week.
Killpack, the sponsor of HB129, had originally proposed requiring women seeking abortions to view a videotape about abortions and receive an ultrasound of the fetus before receiving an abortion. He also wanted to have both parents consent for minors to receive an abortion, a provision based on a Mississippi law that was ruled constitutional by a federal appeals court.
But the bill that will be debated later this week will look a lot different from what Killpack originally wanted. He is making the videotape and ultrasound provisions "optional," and the parental consent issue has been dropped altogether.
Killpack does want to close a loophole in the 1993 law that now allows doctors to provide "informed consent" over the telephone. "What we have here is not informed consent," he said. "There is no way that doctor knows the person talking to him on the telephone is really the one coming in for an abortion. It makes informed consent a big laugh."
Killpack admits it is probably too late in the session to pass even his watered-down bill. However, an agreement does appear near on SB257 - a bill that resolves concerns of Utah's medical researchers over the state's 1991 abortion law.
A third bill, HB369 which would allow Medicaid funds to be used for abortions in cases of rape or incest, has little legislative support and likely will not be debated.
SB257, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Lane Beattie, R-Bountiful, appears to have broad support largely because it does not venture into uncharted legal waters. That bill adds language to Utah's abortion law, clarifying that doctors performing surgeries on unborn fetuses are not violating abortion restrictions.
That language, which has been the subject of intense negotiations between surgeons at University Hospital and Gov. Mike Leavitt, is the only legal hurdle left in resolving appeals over Utah's 1991 abortion law.
"I'm ready to go with it," Beattie said, "even though when all is said and done there will be some opposition to it. There will be opposition no matter what we do."
The Beattie bill would not allow experimental surgeries on fetuses but would protect doctors who use accepted procedures as part of prenatal treatments and surgeries.
A third abortion bill, which would allow Medicaid funds to be used for abortions in limited cases, is caught in a crossfire between federal bureaucrats and state officials who argue for state primacy.
The federal government has mandated that states use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions of poor women who are victims of rape or incest. Failure to comply with the mandate could mean the loss of hundreds of millions in federal Medicaid funds.
The state is at loggerheads with the federal government because Utah law prohibits the use of tax money for abortions.
But Rep. Mary Carlson, D-Salt Lake, the sponsor of HB369, says the issue here is not state's rights but equity for poor people: Utah law already allows for abortions in cases of rape or incest, but Utah's poor often cannot afford abortions even when legal under Utah law.
"We're talking about a handful of women, the poorest in the state," Carlson said. "We're talking about giving them the same choice as women who can afford abortions."
It is estimated there are five to 10 cases a year where women would qualify for Medicaid-funded abortions. At about $300 per abortion, the total cost would be $1,500 to $3,000 per year, three-fourths of which would be paid by the federal government.
"It is obvious the governor has decided this is a state's rights issue and he is willing to fight toe-to-toe (with the federal government)," Carlson said. "With all the different federal mandates on the state, I'm not sure why he chose this one to draw the line in the sand."
LaVarr Webb, Leavitt's chief of policy, says the state may well end up complying with the federal mandate. "But we are not sure at this point we are in danger of losing this money, and we will hold our ground until we know for sure," he said.
"When it comes to the point of costing us millions of dollars (for failure to comply with federal mandates) we have tried to comply. But it is offensive to many that tax dollars should be used to fund abortions. It is the principle of the thing."
And it is but one of many emotional factors that has the entire abortion debate back before lawmakers this week.