Voice of Utah

On occasion, I remember that most people aren't political junkies, don't know who Chris Buttars or Stephen Sandstrom are, don't read blogs, and get most of their information from blurbs in local newspapers or TV. So it was interesting yesterday to have lunch with a group of lawyers who fall into that category, particularly when one of them brought up Sandstrom's new bill that would essentially ban abortion. Although lawyers are trained to look at things objectively -- to think with their heads rather than their emotions -- I was still a little surprised by the discussion.

First, some demographics. The group consisted of: 4 active LDS who are not pro-choice; 1 active LDS who is pro-choice (but struggling after reading George Will's recent column); 1 non-LDS who is pro-choice; and 1 non-LDS who is not pro-choice. (I won't say which category I fell in, but most readers of this blog would probably be surprised.)

The consensus among this mostly non-choice group about Sandstrom's bill? To quote the biggest diehard conservative LDS guy in the bunch: "I am deeply offended by it." Another uttered, "It's ridiculous." That sentiment echoed throughout the table.

What bothered everyone was that, as lawyers, they value the rule of law, and they resent frivolous lawsuits. (Passing an unconstitutional law is like filing a frivolous lawsuit, because the government is forcing a lawsuit to which there are no legitimate defenses.) Everyone acknowledges that the bill is unconstitutional, but hey, let's throw away $2-4 million that we could use to help veterans' families, or provide care for the mentally handicapped, or expand CHIP, or something with a real chance of doing good.

Being lawyers, some wondered why Attorney General Mark Shurtleff thinks it will cost $2-4 million to defend, but that figure is not surprising when one considers that it cost over $1 million the last time they tilted at this windmill. Additionally, the State will have to pay the other side's attorney fees when the court declares the statute unconstitutional -- which it will, as everyone concedes. (Once again, we marvel at the silence of the so-called Utah Taxpayers Association. That organization purports to fight taxpayer waste, but only when it suits a particular viewpoint. It really should change its name to something more accurate, like Utah Moralistic Taxpayers Association.)

Rubbing salt in the wound is that many of our government leaders seem hypocritical on the subject of abortion. They abhor it, but won't take actions to reduce unwanted pregnancies -- no insurance coverage of contraceptives, insistence on abstinence as the only form of birth control discussed with teenagers, etc. As one man at the table said, if legislators were truly pro-life, they would work as hard to avoid unwanted pregnancies as they do to avoid abortion. But moral consistency has never been a hallmark of our legislature.