Abortion ban: Bold, dumb or a symbol of dumb?
A legislative initiative led by Rep. Carl Wimmer to outlaw abortions that was blasted by editorials in Ogden Standard-Examiner and in The Salt Lake Tribune as a waste of taxpayer's money and a campaign stunt, is applauded by the Provo Daily Herald as a bold stroke:The legislators behind the promised abortion bill are being lambasted for unveiling it a month before an election. . . .Then, of course, the PDH editorial writer (anonymous, of course) quickly changes direction pointing out that if the bill does not have a good chance of success, maybe it is, indeed, a waste of time, after all, Utahns . .But when should legislators announce such a drive? After the election? Then they'd be accused of deceiving their constituents by not publicizing their beliefs when voters were mulling things over. Or should these lawmakers unveil the plans in some politically dead season -- say July of a non-election year? Then they'd be accused of trying to bury it.
No, this is the best time.
. . . don't like abortion but neither do they like sweeping change or the wasting of money."The voice of Utah County again doubles back before winding up:
Then again, perhaps it's worth just making a point.
9 Comments:
So whats your "Point" Glen Warchol?
Sounds like unbiased reporting to me!......never once does the Daily Herald affirm a position one way or the other?
Unfortunately unbiased reporting at the Tribune went out with the buggie whip, long ago!!
If you are looking for a story? Why don't you tell us about Obama's voting record on Abortion and why he voted against the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" the exact same act that unanimously passed the Senate in 2001.
To Ron:
As one who has researched this particular issue, that is, Obama's Vote against a "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act", I found out that Obama explained his negative vote on this issue repeatedly and his reasoning was that such a decision on whether to provide medical services devoted to keeping a baby alive should remain with the family, and particularly, the mother of the child, that is, the decision of what to do with the child should be made by those who are closest to the situation, not by the heavy hand of government.
Of course, if you believe that no one, no matter the circumstances, should ever decide not to have a baby or to abort a baby even if the preganancy happened because of rape, or if the mother's life is in danger, then my believing that Obama is acting responsibly is something you may deride and mock, as it doesn't fit into what you believe the world should be.
To Richard:
Funny Richard, I can't find anywhere on the web..."your explanation"!
But here is what I did find:
Obama's campaign website offers two reasons why the senator opposed the bill in 2003. First, the website claims that Obama did not support the state legislation because it lacked language "clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade."
The other reason Obama opposed the bill, according to his website, is that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois."
*The federal legislation and the final version of the Illinois senate bill were essentially the same refuting Obama first argument.
* Funny again how Obama never discussed this at the hearing. irregardless, the 1975 law does not apply to non-viable infants...Obama supported Infanticide!
Ron, you need to get clear that Warchol is not an unbiased reporter. It's not his job to be objective. He's a columnist or, if you will, a blogger. His job is not to report but to opine.
Dear Glen, by blogging about the idiotic PDH editorials you just give those same idiots a wider audience. Then abortion warriors like Ron have another outlet in which to battle.
Dear Ron, as to your specific criticism regarding Glen's obvious bias, this is a blog. The red-haird step child of opinion. If it weren't biased it wouldn't be any fun.
Furthermore, Glen's criticism of the anonymous editorial is spot on. Cowards!
Reply to Ron:
Please check out this link - although I could find several with more 'liberal' leanings which supported my original post, I will instead provide this legal law review article that concludes that the charges the right-wing radio talk show hosts and others are bandying forth are not accurate nor truthful.
Check out http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/colb/20080813.html
To me, Obama is a constitutional scholar who has studied legal issues, has been and still is, a community activist, and is a man of the people.
To Richard: Did you even read the article you referred me to.....LMAO!!!
Read all the way to the bottom where she lists a "Correction"! Bury your head in sand dude...Vote Obama!
I could careless left or right...I just want to know the facts! The facts are: Obama supports live birth abortion. Infanticide which is homocide, genocide....MURDER!
Tribune editorials are anonymous also.
Warchol is not objective because he writes for the Tribune, not because he's a blogger. Rolly, Walsh, Anderson, McCittrick and all the other Tribune reporters are not bloggers (for the most part), but they still opine. That's their job. They work for the Tribune.
Wimmer is gay. I know because he is my girlfriend.
At least Democrat gays can be themselves.
Come on Wimmer, don't you think that God fixes everything in Heaven? Why not help reduce unwanted pregnancies? Because then what would you have to play politician?
Post a Comment
<< Home