Being pro-life means protecting the sanctity and dignity of human life. Marsha is 100% pro-life and will support policies to reduce the number of abortions.
Being pro-life means protecting the sanctity and dignity of human life. Marsha is 100% pro-life and will support policies to reduce the number of abortions.
Bridger Beal says:
To me, one cannot begin to advocate for fewer abortions until they wholeheartedly support a change in state education to allow for comprehensive sex education for all high school students and allow for universal contraceptive access. Both of these policies have been repeatedly proven to reduce the number of abortions, do you support these policies?
Marsha Judkins says:
I do agree that we need to have much better access to birth control and more sex education–both of these things will help prevent unplanned pregnancy and limit abortions. I also think we need to quit shaming women and start insisting on men taking more responsibility for both unplanned pregnancies and for having unprotected sex. Long term birth control for women is important and needs to be readily accessible, but it messes with women’s hormones. A condom is easy, cheap, and effective. I do think that abstinence from sex until someone is in a mature, long-term, committed relationship is the best way to avoid abortion and to have a healthy relationship.
Jessica Black says:
So I heard that Utah enacted a trigger law on abortion should Roe vs Wade ever become overturned, if true what does the law say? Does it have exceptions and how did you vote on it in the house and what are your personal views on abortion rights? Also do you support the exceptions if there are any in the trigger law?
Marsha Judkins says:
The legislature approved a trigger law about two years ago. It allows for exceptions: life of the mother, rape, incest, age of the mom, and medical conditions which would not allow the baby to live outside the womb. However, it is quite strict, allowing only these exceptions for an abortion any time after implantation. I voted for it, but have some regrets about that. The way it is written has created some problems for women who miscarry and I have some other issues with it. I support the exceptions. For me, I believe that at about 4-5 weeks gestation, the fetus is a live little human, whose life has a right to be protected. I also believe that women bears the burdens of pregnancy, and society and systems have not made it easy to have children, especially if you are a single mom and/or experiencing an unplanned pregnancy. We need to change many things to better support women, children, and families.
Abortion is a pretty complex issue. Sometimes we like to make it black and white and only want to talk in extremes. All controversial bills are a balancing act between different rights, and we need to be able to have difficult, uncomfortable discussions, be able to disagree, and still respect, empathize, and listen to one another. Pro-life and pro-choice groups are both defending very important rights. I happen to fall on the more pro-life side, but I understand the arguments on the pro-choice side.
Bryce C. Carbee says:
An abortion is only necessary when the birth of a child is otherwise inevitable meaning that it is the active elimination of such life. To suggest it’s a right of autonomy sidesteps the core issue and promoting further sexualization of future generations as a solution is beyond reproach.
Only when we can view the subject matter for what it is can we propose a reasonable solution, weighing the cost of an infant’s life against for example, the life of a mother who might die in child birth. Given the severity of the decision, I believe abortions should be locked behind prescriptions as any reasonable argument in favor of its use should require medical intervention to begin with, to say the least. Coupling this with a strictly held rubric governed by a pro-life regulatory organization to prevent medical malpractice should produce an excellent balance of power against the doctors that earn their living performing such procedures. Lastly, there of course needs to be a time limitation against abortion. Late-term abortions are abominable and should be criminally prosecuted but on the other hand, how long should it really take for a pairing of adults to decide? If it takes too long to decide then they must air on the side of caution against taking the infant’s life. I think 30 days is long enough but as long as it’s 5 weeks into the pregnancy or sooner, I can support the decision as long as it’s reasonable. As long as the nervous system hasn’t developed, or it should be considered a malicious act of cruelty only unless it can be reasonably proven that the abortion could be performed without causing pain to the child. Even so, there should be a very limited time frame in that the parents decide whether to keep the child because indecisiveness means willingness to raise the child or at least give it a good home.
If the people decided the specific circumstances under which an abortion could be justified, wouldn’t this proposition be the most accepted by people on both sides willing to compromise? Keeping in mind that most of the pro-choice rhetoric would facilitate accessibility to minors under the guidance of public educators even against the knowledge of their parents, thus proving absolutely no intention of mitigating its use. I’m speaking of the reasonable voices on both sides. What are your thoughts?
Marsha Judkins says:
Bryce, I can tell you have thought a lot about this. I agree with your points.