Gary Herbert, Utah Governor, Signs Law Mandating 72-Hour Waiting Period For Abortion

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R)

SALT LAKE CITY--Utah's Republican governor signed a law extending a required waiting period for women seeking an abortion to 72 hours on Tuesday, even though a similar requirement in South Dakota has been blocked in court, a spokeswoman said.

The decision by Governor Gary Herbert is expected to meet with approval from social conservatives in the heavily Republican state just four days after he upset some members of his party by vetoing a bill to curb sex education in schools.

"Governor Herbert is an adamant supporter of rights for the unborn," said Ally Isom, a spokeswoman for the governor. "He felt the bill appropriately allows a woman who's facing that decision to fully weigh her options and the implications of that decision."

The state currently requires a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion.

The law is the latest salvo in the long-running national battle over abortion that has seen a host of states pass laws imposing requirements on women before they can undergo the procedure. In neighboring Idaho, lawmakers are considering requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before ending a pregnancy.

A South Dakota law that passed last year also required women seeking an abortion to wait three days before having the procedure, but the state's Planned Parenthood group sued in federal court saying the law violated the equal protection and due process rights of women.

Chief Judge Karen Schreier of the U.S. District Court for South Dakota preliminarily blocked the requirement in June when she found it imposed an undue burden on women, noting that some low-income abortion patients travel long distances and cannot afford to go home and then return.

A representative for the National Organization for Women could not be reached late on Tuesday to comment on the Utah governor's action.

"We believe that a court will find the 72-hour waiting period (in Utah) is not an undue burden," Isom said.

One difference between the two state laws is that, unlike in South Dakota where lawmakers sought to require that women wait 72 hours after first meeting with the abortion provider, Utah would allow the waiting period to begin after an initial consultation with a health professional. That person need not be an abortion doctor.

The Utah law is due to take effect on May 7 in a state that is one of the most conservative in the nation and has not had a Democratic governor since 1985.

While South Dakota was the first state to pass legislation for a three-day wait in 2011, 26 states require women to wait before receiving an abortion. Most often, that is a 24-hour period, according to reproductive health organization the Guttmacher Institute.

(Writing By Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Eric Beech)

Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[RB88GOP]

01:39 AM on 03/24/2012

This will probably get struck down. As I said in another article, ask any woman if she had an abortion if she had a choice. No matter how you cut it, we all know innately that abortion is wrong. No pro choice person can ever tell me that they're completely o.k. with abortion. Sure, abortion helps reduce crime. But that's not a decent argument in favor of something to inhumane as a mother taking her child's life. May God protect these women and may they learn from their trials and tribulations and help share their story so that we don't have shows like 16 and Pregnant, or women having to do this procedure.

[mykirbyroo]

12:32 PM on 03/24/2012

RB88GOP, I'm now 63 (almost 64), female, married, never had children (never wanted to have children - never been pregnant). I wanted to work and in the early 1970's, I had my dream job - secretary to the president of a manufacturing company. Never understood how a woman could be married, work, take care of home, husband and children. I was one of those women who said it was a woman's "choice" whether or not she would have a baby. I said all the same things. And I believed it as gospel. Move ahead about 25 years. Oh, my, how my beliefs have changed!!!! I have learned the truth - that abortion is killing little tiny babies. It is murder. There is no reason to kill babies. None.

There is a video move (about 33 minutes long) that a preacher Ray Comfort put together called the 180 Project. I have been asking a lot of pro-abortion folks to take a time out, 33 minutes, and watch the movie. I have asked that they get back to me and tell me what they thought. So far, no one has replied. I'm not sure if they watched the video or not, but my guess is that they saw what it was, and clicked off of it real quick. The movie is at www.heartchanger.com and should be seen by everyone. It's not threatening. It's not mean-spirited. Preacher Comfort is absolutely right in his presentation of the facts.

[juliet marilynne]

07:46 PM on 03/26/2012

god is all powerful. god therefore has the power to stop abortion any time he sees fit.

abortions, which by the way, are a LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE MEDICAL PROCEDURE. continue to occur.

so which is it: either god CAN stop abortions and doesn't, which means god finds the procedure OK. or god finds abortions terrible, but CAN'T stop them because he in fact is not all powerful.

you can't have it both ways.

[mykirbyroo]

11:46 PM on 03/26/2012

juliet marilynne - Almighty God gave everyone something that some of us choose to use more wisely than others. That something is free will. You have the free will to determine how you are going to live your life and what you are going to do with that life. He only gave you one earthly life. You may want to re-think how you're going to spend that one life on this planet. Remember the words: Free will. No strings attached. Yours to do with as you choose. No questions. It's all yours.

God does not make your decisions for you. He gave you free will. He gave you the owner's manual (your Bible) to help guide you and help you through the rough spots. It's your free will whether you choose to follow the instructions in it or not. He won't stop abortion because it's your choice. Your free will. You will stand before Him eventually and He will decide your fate. Not me. Not the Supreme Court. Not even the thousands of little tiny babies that were aborted. It's up to you.

You may feel abortion is a "legal and legitimate medical procedure". Every 12 to 15 hours, the cells divide and the child continues to grow. It is a child. Like it or not. It's the way you started out and it's the way I started out. Just an egg and a sperm until God breathed life into us and we were formed.

[sheahananne2]

07:21 PM on 03/23/2012

Part II
I would love to see the response of the people if a governor (or any other official), mandated a 72 hour period "to weigh the options and the implications of the decision" before choosing their freedom to vote, to speak, to worship (or not - it's all a choice), to own and bear arms; against unreasonable searches and seizures; to realize that no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury; to be subject for the same offense twice; to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to obtain witnesses in his favor, and counsel for his defense; the right of trial by jury; no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. These are the guaranteed rights, the Bill of Rights, for the people of the United States - all the people, not just a chosen few. The last one states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; again, that's all the people - not just a few. If we continue to allow our governors, or otherwise elected officials, to legislate the choices women make - who's next?

[yorkiemum]

05:03 AM on 03/23/2012

These Republicans who are attacking women's abortion and contraception rights have no medical education and yet they are essentially practicing medicine. They have no idea what they are imposing on the health care of women.

I have yet to see any provisions for a pregnancy in crisis. I have read that at least one state does not want a dead fetus to be removed. The theory is that animals eventually expel their dead fetuses. Any veterinarian that allowed that to happen would have their license revoked. Waiting 72 hours for treatment, once an ectopic pregnancy has been diagnosed, can be a death sentence.

These people espouse to be deeply religious, but I'm sure they're going to be getting a first class ticket to the hot place when their time here is over. And, wouldn't it be the irony of ironies if God is a Woman!!!!

[Beckel411]

08:00 PM on 03/22/2012

I wonder if there have been any cases of women changing their minds during the waiting periods?

[pfreddie88]

07:49 PM on 03/22/2012

{sarcasm} good thing we weak, stupid women have the big daddy government state looking out for our interests!!

[PamperedHousecat]

07:20 PM on 03/22/2012

How about a man having to wait 72 hours each time before he has sex with a woman.....only 48 if it is another man.

[suchabigmouth]

07:01 PM on 03/22/2012

Where is the media coverage of who is sponsoring all these bills? The Koch brothers and their ilk are behing this. Come on media, do your jobs!

[sheahananne2]

06:03 PM on 03/22/2012

"Governor Herbert is an adamant supporter of rights for the unborn," said Ally Isom, a spokeswoman for the governor. "He felt the bill appropriately allows a woman who's facing that decision to fully weigh her options and the implications of that decision." I'm pretty sure any woman who's facing that decision has already weighed her options and the implications of what should be her decision - not the Governor's decision. If Governor Herbert is such an adamant supporter of rights for the unborn; just where does he stand on the rights for the already born? You know, the ones who are starving, sick, orphaned, removed from their parents' custody for whatever reason; I'd really like to know if he is just as adamant supporter for the ones already living and breathing? Just curious...

[DCR50]

11:31 PM on 03/22/2012

Or how about the adamant supporter of women who live in rural areas of Utah, where getting ANY health services can be a 5-6-10 hour drive? Or the poor woman who now must take 2 full days off work? What about the gut wrenching decision any woman goes through for the days and weeks before even seeing a doctor?

[sheahananne2]

07:07 PM on 03/23/2012

Exactly right! This governor makes it sound like women make this heart-wrenching decision on a whim. When I found myself pregnant from a rape, it was still a difficult decision due to the way I was raised. He doesn't even take rape and incest into account with this mandate. I'm pretty sure that all women, when faced with this decision, have already fully weighed her options and the implications of that decision.

[sheahananne2]

06:03 PM on 03/22/2012

"We believe that a court will find the 72-hour waiting period (in Utah) is not an undue burden," Isom said.

Not an undue burden? Ok, Ally Isom, spokeswoman for the Governor, feels that it's not believed to be an undue burden for females seeking abortions to wait an additional 72 hours before having one. Since she is a spokeswoman for Governor Herbert, I must surmise that he, also, does not feel this additional time is a burden for the female seeking an abortion. I'm using the term "female" because not all who need/want/receive an abortion are ADULT women. What about the female child who is pregnant from rape, incest, child predator? For any adult woman, pregnant from rape (and, yes, I'm pretty sure we know when we've been raped - ooops, wrong Republican but, hey, they sound so much alike), or incest; waiting an additional 72 hours is punishing the woman for something not her fault. Now, I wonder how much more fragile a female child would feel if she had to wait? Or, how her parents would feel about this "undue burden" Ms. Isom is talking about?

[Wonder Woman2]

05:29 PM on 03/22/2012

By the time she makes that call she has fully weighed her options.

[giftsthatpurr]

12:56 PM on 03/22/2012

Every day I read about one or more of our States' governors introducing, advocating for or signing a new bill that infantalies US female citizens. This is always done in the name of "morality," religion or "for a woman's own good." Imagine if I was reading every day about bills that infantalized men - telling them they weren't adult enough or capable enough to make their own decisions. Why is morality and religion and incapacity always leveled only at women?

[MyAhaMoment]

09:54 AM on 03/22/2012

"He felt the bill appropriately allows a woman who's facing that decision to fully weigh her options and the implications of that decision."

What is his friggin BASIS for COMPARISON?

Has he personnally interviewed women who were in the process of making this decisiona and determined they hadn't quite thought it all the way through?

What if she's laying on the operating table suffering from life-threatening complications of the pregnancy...does she still have to wait 72 hours?

You know I don't tell men what to do with their penii and testicles, where do they get off telling me what to do with my womb?

[Nemo Oudeheis]

09:33 AM on 03/22/2012

Sign at border: "Welcome to Utah! Turn your clocks back 150 years!"

[giftsthatpurr]

12:59 PM on 03/22/2012

regression only aimed at women.

[Carla van der Meer]

01:43 AM on 03/22/2012

As far as my research tells me, Utah has no waiting period for gun purchases, but they want a 72 hour wait for a medical procedure? Sadly this irony is lost on the legislators.

[Haveissues]

12:47 PM on 03/22/2012

You beat me to it. I looked up the same thing. I guess most of these people read down to the second amendment, realize "I get to have a gun?", and skip the rest. Pitiful.

[Yvette67]

12:25 AM on 03/22/2012

"He felt the bill appropriately allows a woman who's facing that decision to fully weigh her options and the implications of that decision."
What makes anyone think that women have not already weighed options and implications? Arrogant and condescending statement

True story: happened before much pre-natal testing was available as it is today: A woman had 4 pregnancies - the first pregancy had, what appeared to be minor complications throughout the NINE months. When born, the child was so deformed the sex could not be determined and was unable to live ex-utero.
Also, the child was very large, due to the deformity, would not turn in the womb, and was born breech. This caused undetected damage to the woman that caused problems with subsequent pregnancies .
She had a second child that was born prematurely and died.
The last two pregnancies the mother had to be in bed rest for several months, causing some financial issue. In spite of the bed rest the last two were also premature.
If the first pregnancy had been aborted, all subequent pregnancies would have been successful. All the stress and emotional pain was a factor in the divorce that followed.

If this woman knew that the first child was unable to live ex-utero, she would, in today's world , gotten an abortion and have 3 children. There may not have been a divorce with its own complications and financial issues that ensued.

Vote wisely