LDS Church uses charitable donations to support Prop 1 battle in Idaho

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

See my response to Kishkumen on page one of this thread.

How is that not a problem?

Regards,
MG

I would just be repeating what I posted on pg 1.

[MG 2.0]

I don't find this problematic at all.

On this particular bill have you looked at the Fetal Viability Standard being used and the Parental Consent standards in the bill? If so, do you think they are reasonable?

As I understand it the initiative says that the state may regulate or prohibit abortion after the point of fetal viability.

Also, the bill says that after viability, the state cannot ban or restrict an abortion if a physician determines in good faith that it is a "medical emergency."

Doesn't that open up a can of worms?

In this case do those that support "right to life" have reason to be concerned?

Regards,
MG

*The bill would allow abortion up to the point of "fetal viability" (typically around 24 weeks). Fetal viability. Think about that.

*The bill would allow post-viability abortions for a "medical emergency", defined broadly to include risks to a patient's health, rather than strictly life threatening danger. It is vague enough that it could effectively permit late term abortions.

*The language would change from the strict requirement of a "physician" to a broader "health care provider". These terms could lower safety standards for procedures for both the mother and the unborn child.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

On this particular bill have you looked at the Fetal Viability Standard being used and the Parental Consent standards in the bill? If so, do you think they are reasonable?

As I understand it the initiative says that the state may regulate or prohibit abortion after the point of fetal viability.

Also, the bill says that after viability, the state cannot ban or restrict an abortion if a physician determines in good faith that it is a "medical emergency."

Doesn't that open up a can of worms?

In this case do those that support "right to life" have reason to be concerned?

Regards,
MG

*The bill would allow abortion up to the point of "fetal viability" (typically around 24 weeks). Fetal viability. Think about that.

*The bill would allow post-viability abortions for a "medical emergency", defined broadly to include risks to a patient's health, rather than strictly life threatening danger. It is vague enough that it could effectively permit late term abortions.

*The language would change from the strict requirement of a "physician" to a broader "health care provider". These terms could lower safety standards for procedures for both the mother and the unborn child.

Regards,
MG

Could you please document where these statements come from?

Also, your first set of statements about the proposition language do not agree with your second set of statements. Why not? Are you changing your assessment of the language? If so, what prompted you to change your mind?

[PseudoPaul]

It's sad to see the church violating its own teachings on abortion by donating to this initiative, and being so willing to see their own female members killed by Idaho law.

On the balance scale of women obtaining elective abortions at any stage of their pregnancy, and the loss of human life…the babies…where do you stand?

If some babies can be saved through legislative action which tightens up abortion laws are you supportive of that?

Do you have children?

Regards,
MG

Killing babies is illegal in every state. The issue is terminating pregnancies and body autonomy. The fact is red state anti-abortion laws kill women. Do you know any women? Do you care if they live or die?

[MG 2.0]

*The bill would allow abortion up to the point of "fetal viability" (typically around 24 weeks). Fetal viability. Think about that.

*The bill would allow post-viability abortions for a "medical emergency", defined broadly to include risks to a patient's health, rather than strictly life threatening danger. It is vague enough that it could effectively permit late term abortions.

*The language would change from the strict requirement of a "physician" to a broader "health care provider". These terms could lower safety standards for procedures for both the mother and the unborn child.

Regards,
MG

Could you please document where these statements come from?

Also, your first set of statements about the proposition language do not agree with your second set of statements. Why not? Are you changing your assessment of the language? If so, what prompted you to change your mind?

Sources:
https://idgop.org/the-truth-about-the-r ... nitiative/

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local ... %2C%202026.

[Marcus]

*The bill would allow abortion up to the point of "fetal viability" (typically around 24 weeks). Fetal viability. Think about that.

*The bill would allow post-viability abortions for a "medical emergency", defined broadly to include risks to a patient's health, rather than strictly life threatening danger. It is vague enough that it could effectively permit late term abortions.

*The language would change from the strict requirement of a "physician" to a broader "health care provider". These terms could lower safety standards for procedures for both the mother and the unborn child.

Regards,
MG

Sources:
https://idgop.org/the-truth-about-the-r ... nitiative/

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local ... %2C%202026.

Do you realize you are posting disparate bits from different sources that are not in agreement? Why do that without an explanation?

[MG 2.0]

Sources:
https://idgop.org/the-truth-about-the-r ... nitiative/

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local ... %2C%202026.

Do you realize you are posting disparate bits from different sources that are not in agreement?

Yes.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Do you realize you are posting disparate bits from different sources that are not in agreement?

Yes.

Regards,
MG

You should include a statement in your AI prompts that your posts should at least be consistent.

[MG 2.0]

Yes.

Regards,
MG

You should include a statement in your AI prompts that your posts should at least be consistent.

Here and there I use Google search or another search engine (depending on browser) if there is something that I would like further information on. I read it, digest it, think my own thoughts, and post. For most posts I simply express my own views. Thing is, not everyone is knowledgeable about each and everything. I'm sure you would agree?

Sometimes I may not always put all sources of what I've read each and every time. If we've read something in a book, it's the same thing. Harder, however, to remember which book on the shelf to go back to.

Conversations are much more interesting when any one of us can go to a book or do an online search to retrieve and access information. The Prop. 1 thing up in Idaho was something that I didn't know anything about to begin with. My guess is that almost everyone here uses a search engine to find things out about something they weren't aware of or need to brush up on.

Thank you for asking for the sources on the abortion thread.

Regards,
MG

Try to keep this thread on track please.

[Everybody Wang Chung]