Unless I'm missing something in the legalese, there doesn't seem to be any exception for rape, incest, or dangers to the mothers life or health.... Oh, right I forgot. Pregnancy is never life-threatening.

You're not missing anything, blair. It isn't in there.

Ugh... This is the most ridiculous piece of shit I've ever read.

Now that we KNOW life begins at conception? Have we done some scientific research about when the soul enters the body that I'm unaware of?

I felt like I was reading a church bulletin, not an actual piece of proposed legislation.

Wow, who knew abortion is responsible for:
*smoking
*alcoholism
*drug abuse
*breast cancer
*severe psychological trauma
*sleep disturbance
*divorce
*suicide

My grandmother had five of those symptoms and she had SIX kids! Maybe kids cause cancer too.

How in the world has abortions cost the state of Georgia more than children (most likely) born into low-income, single-parent homes (if they even have homes!)? How much has Georgia spent on the support of these abortion "victims"?

Instead of supporting women AFTER they decide to abort a fetus, why doesn't Georgia provide adequate health care, sex education, pay equity, job security, and child care IN THE FIRST PLACE to make abortion access less of a necessity?

That bill assumes that women are using abortion as a means of birth control instead of as a last resort.

I liked the Susan B. Anthony shout-out too, that was a cute touch. Anthony was also part of the temperance movement too, so maybe Georgia should be a dry state as well. After all, drinking costs Georgia much more than abortions do:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/impaired_driving_pg2/GA.htm

Wow...so much bullshit it's not even funny.

I do wonder...
"
(a) The State of Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death.
"

Does that mean the death penalty goes?

and

(4) As a direct result of three decades of legalized abortion on demand, the nation has seen a dramatic rise in the incidence of child abuse and a dramatic weakening of family ties, with the infamous Roe v. Wade decision pitting mothers against their children and women against men;

they offer nothing to prove that abortion caused the increase, they only cite a corralation which they don't back up. Then it brings up the same old "feminists hate men" bullshit.

".... 54 percent had nightmares"
I think almost everyone has nightmares, looks like having an abortion decreases your chance.
And besides, that's just silly, the government has no bussiness in your dreams. Even Ingsoc didn't go that low.

"(7) Another random study "
seriously.

"20 to 40 percent of the women studied showed moderate to high levels of stress "
That's most likely lower than the average population.

"(9) Abortion results in increased tobacco smoking, and women who have had an abortion are twice as likely to become heavy smokers and suffer the corresponding health problems as women who have never had an abortion;"

Oh. My. God.

"(11) Most couples find abortion to be an event which shatters their relationship, causing chronic marital troubles and divorce;
"

Weasel words have no place in law...and did they consider that unintended pregnancies might cause relationship problems?

"(13) Thirty years of abortion on demand have resulted in an increase in breast cancer, and a study has shown that women who had an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy before experiencing a full-term pregnancy may be at increased risk for breast cancer;"

What about plastics? GM foods? Implants? Cellphones? Smoking? Junkfood? Automotive exhaust? The price of tea in China?

"(15) The practice of abortion has caused the citizens of this state an inestimable amount economically including, but not limited to, the costs and tax burden of having to care for individuals and their families for the conditions cited above,"

1000x cheaper than paying for unwanted kids.

"The license of any physician indicted for an alleged violation of this Code section shall be suspended until resolution of the matter."
ALLEGED! That means it puts all doctors at risk of having their liscense suspended without them even doing an abortion.

"If any portion of this Act is found to be unconstitutional by the courts, the remaining portions of this Act shall remain in full force and effect."
They can just say that?

"All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed. "
That can't be good.

teddy10 said: "so maybe Georgia should be a dry state as well. After all, drinking costs Georgia much more than abortions do"

Hmmm... and think of how many accidental pregnancies are the result of too much alcohol consumption... I think you've got something there! haha.

I cannot imagine this legislation going through, but I hope the people of GA don't prove me wrong. Hopefully the citizens of GA will not stand for this at all.

a_human,

I presume wanting to keep the death penalty is what the addition of "innocent" in describing life is about (as if all people on death row are guilty? also ... they didn't specify human life, did they? so I guess all those animals they eat in GA were guilty of something?) ... but I presume at least some of these anti-choicers are Christian, nu? And for a Christian the distinction between guilty and innocent is a rather difficult one, ain't it? E.g. "we have all sinned", etc.

Unless the thinking is once the kid is born it's no longer innocent (because of original sin or some such) and hence it's life no longer is worth protecting? That would explain a lot about the anti-choicers, wouldn't it?

(9) Abortion results in increased tobacco smoking, and women who have had an abortion are twice as likely to become heavy smokers and suffer the corresponding health problems as women who have never had an abortion;

(11) Most couples find abortion to be an event which shatters their relationship, causing chronic marital troubles and divorce;

Co-occurrence, causality, whatever... the lack of good science or, more accurately, the preponderance of crap science used to justify the provisions of this bill is mind-boggling.

Even if the answer to the question of when life begins were unclear, the Georgia Constitution, at Article I, Section I, Paragraph II, provides: 'Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.' Because a fetus is a person, constitutional protection attaches at the moment of conception.

In other words, even if the answer to the question of when life begins were unclear, the Georgia legislature would still decide that life begins at conception, not letting a pesky detail like, say, implantation get in the way of a good old red-blooded American ideological screed. In that case, then, is Georgia prepared to extend dependent-child-care benefits or tax credits to blastocysts/embryos/fetuses for the full gestational term? I'd like to see savvy Georgians use that to claim more dependent exemptions on their state income tax forms (so the fertilized egg never implanted and was naturally expelled after a week--hey, it was still a dependent).

i think my favorite part must be when they say "(12) Abortion exploits women, treating them and their children as mere property" and then move on in section 15 to say that "The practice of abortion has caused the citizens of this state an inestimable amount economically including, but not limited to, the costs and tax burden of having to care for individuals and their families for the conditions cited above, as well as a significant reduction of the tax base and of the availability of workers, entrepreneurs, teachers, employees, and employers that would have significantly contributed to the prosperity of this state."

Because clearly, treating future generations like wage-slaves is nothing like exploitation.

egads.

Amazingly stupid piece of legislative wishful thinking. This has more unfounded nonsense than the South Dakota bill did.

There was a report put out today in South Dakota. Most of the legislators that voted for the ban had their voters vote against the ban. www.sdhealthyfamilies.org

Someone might want to mention this to the legislators in GA.

teddy10 said: "so maybe Georgia should be a dry state as well. After all, drinking costs Georgia much more than abortions do"

You're closer to the truth than you know - over half the counties in Georgia ARE dry; it might be close to two-thirds. Once you're 20 miles outside Atlanta (my original home town) the clock starts turning backward. As ridiculous as the language of HB 1 is, I would be certainly dismayed, but not terribly shocked if it actually passed.

I'd say the first clause, about how we've learned when life begins since the time Roe v. Wade was ruled, is the most laughable (though there are many candidates). Grill any of these people and they'll say they know life begins at conception because "God's unchanging Word" has revealed it. So, nu, the Bible was published after 1973?

A disturbing mix of bad science, misrepresented science, pseudoscience, and outright lies. There is no intellectual honesty to be found in this bill.

Cheers,

TH

Well, they do think it was published in 1611, so putting a precise modern-era year on it isn't foreign to them.

a_human: the last part of the Act is called a severability clause. Yes, they can do it, and yes, ANY good law contains it. Just imagine if a sexual harassment law were passed without a severability clause. If one portion were found to be unconstitutional, then the entire law would be thrown out.

BoltGirl - just as a state may deny dependent benefits to dependants over the age of 18 (for example, a high school senior still living at home), it may deny dependent-care benefits to those not born. Age is not a protected class, so any gov't distinction need only have a rational basis.

If we don't "know" when life begins, does that mean that we should not even attempt to so legislate? Are we stopped from drawing a legal line because the medical line is imprecise?

Tom Head - as an atheist, I would NEVER say that life begins at conception because God says so. Rather, I put the timeline very close to conception because the being bears all indicia of life: chromosomes, cellular structure, cell division, aging, growth, etc. No biologist worth her salt would consider "life" to have begun after the first or second trimester.

Ultimately, with legal questions, the moral issues and the philosophical questions will lose out to the policy issues. Pro-choicers have had three decades of policy domination. Laugh all you want, but this is the pro-life reply - the first foray into ground held by the abortion crowd.

a_human: the last part of the Act is called a severability clause. Yes, they can do it, and yes, ANY good law contains it. Just imagine if a sexual harassment law were passed without a severability clause. If one portion were found to be unconstitutional, then the entire law would be thrown out.

BoltGirl - just as a state may deny dependent benefits to dependants over the age of 18 (for example, a high school senior still living at home), it may deny dependent-care benefits to those not born. Age is not a protected class, so any gov't distinction need only have a rational basis.

If we don't "know" when life begins, does that mean that we should not even attempt to so legislate? Are we stopped from drawing a legal line because the medical line is imprecise?

Tom Head - as an atheist, I would NEVER say that life begins at conception because God says so. Rather, I put the timeline very close to conception because the being bears all indicia of life: chromosomes, cellular structure, cell division, aging, growth, etc. No biologist worth her salt would consider "life" to have begun after the first or second trimester.

Ultimately, with legal questions, the moral issues and the philosophical questions will lose out to the policy issues. Pro-choicers have had three decades of policy domination. Laugh all you want, but this is the pro-life reply - the first foray into ground held by the abortion crowd. It is the vindication of the deeply held beliefs of pro-lifers: that abortion is not good for women, marriages, men, or society, and, in 2006, women who do not want to be pregnant have a plethora of contraceptive options available.