Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abortion Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House reconsiders and passes resolution urging federal amendment on abortion after spirited debate
Summary
The House voted to reconsider and amend HJR 10 — a resolution urging Congress to seek a federal constitutional amendment protecting 'the life of the unborn' — after lengthy floor debate over exceptions and language; the amended resolution was passed and sent to the Senate.
Get email alerts on the Abortion Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salt Lake City — Lawmakers on Feb. 4 reopened debate and ultimately passed an amended resolution urging Congress to initiate a federal constitutional amendment "to protect the life of the unborn," after extended and at times emotional debate about exceptions and statutory language.
Representative Adair urged the chamber to reconsider and send a message to Congress. Opponents and proponents sparred over whether the resolution should include language reflecting Utah Code’s standards for allowing abortion when necessary to "prevent grave damage to the pregnant woman's medical health." One member cautioned that the amendment moved earlier did not conform to Utah statute (Title 76) and argued language matters because it affects when life-or-health exceptions apply.
Several members who support reconsideration stressed they were not indifferent to the complexity of real cases. Representative Throckmorton and others discussed national court decisions and the practical meaning of health exceptions; Representative Wei, the bill sponsor, acknowledged extraordinary circumstances exist but favored a more general request to Congress rather than detailed federal prescriptions.
After substitute language and a motion to reconsider an earlier amendment, the House voted to pass HJR 10 as amended and referred it to the Senate.
Next steps: The amended resolution will be transmitted to the Senate; because it is a resolution requesting federal action, any substantive constitutional change would require separate federal processes.
