Georgia anti-abortion bill strikes at heart of personal liberty
Georgia state legislators seem likely to pass a bill that would outlaw almost all abortions once a pregnancy has advanced beyond 20 weeks. (The current legal limit is 26 weeks). The rationale behind the bill is scientifically fraudulent, and its potential impact is tragic.
Let’s deal first and quickly with the ungrounded premise behind House Bill 954, which claims that “by 20 weeks after fertilization there is substantial evidence that an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.”
No, there isn’t.
Although a relative handful of scientists claim otherwise — and many of those scientists are pro-life activists — the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the neural connections needed to feel pain do not exist in a fetus until at least 24 weeks into gestation and even beyond that. A 2010 review of all research in that area by Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists makes the science behind the question quite clear.
Now, let’s talk about the practical impact of such a bill.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, nine out of 10 abortions performed in the United States occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Most of those are unplanned, unwanted pregnancies that the mother chooses to terminate.
However, the small fraction of abortions that occur after the proposed 20-week deadline are a very different matter. Many if not most such abortions occur not because the pregnancy is unwanted, but because prenatal testing has discovered serious or even fatal abnormalities in the development of the fetus.
However, rather than create an exemption for such tragic cases, HB 954 cruelly and callously forbids it. In fact, they are the target of the bill. Abortions beyond the 20-week limit would be allowed only to save the life of the mother or “to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” which is a very high standard for a “health of the mother” exception. There is no provision regarding severe impairment of the fetus.
Georgia is not alone in considering such legislation. To the contrary, HB 954 is part of a nationwide crusade to pass such laws. In the handful of states where it has passed, it’s already having an impact.
For example, in Nebraska last year, Danielle Deaver suffered a serious setback 22 weeks into a planned pregnancy when her water broke prematurely. Her doctors told her that her fetus’ lung and limb development had ceased as a result, and that even if carried to term, the baby would be born unable to breathe. But under a newly passed state law almost identical to that under consideration here in Georgia, Deaver was denied the right to end that pregnancy.
When she finally went into premature labor, the child died 15 minutes after birth. This was considered humane, moral and proper by Nebraska legislators.
In Washington, D.C., congressional Republicans are trying to pass a bill imposing similar restrictions on residents of the District of Columbia. At a press conference this week, Christy Zink, a D.C. resident and mother of two, recalled the impact that such a law would have had on her own tragic case.
Twenty-two weeks into her pregnancy, tests determined that if carried to term, Zink’s fetus would be born with half of its brain missing and other structures compromised as well. Shocked by the news, she and her husband made the difficult choice to end the pregnancy. Under the so-called “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” however, she would have been denied the right to do so.
“Its very premise — that it prevents pain — is a lie,” Zink said of the bill. “If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain.”
Here’s Zink’s statement. Watch it, and as you do, remember that in the eyes of many this mother of two is a murderer because of the difficult decision that she and her husband were forced to make, a deeply personal decision that members of Congress and Georgia legislators want to strip from citizens of this country because as elected representatives, they believe themselves to be more qualified.
These decisions are not easy. Several years ago, Rick Santorum and his wife Karen faced a similar dilemma and took a very different course, as he often describes in very moving terms. They decided to see their pregnancy through to term, even knowing that the child would certainly die once it left the womb. Just as their doctors warned them, their son, Gabriel, died two hours after his birth.
No one should question the decision that the Santorums made. It was their personal struggle, and they handled it on the basis of their own values, thoughts and faith. It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.
Likewise, however, I also do not believe it within the purview of the Santorums or Georgia legislators or members of Congress to question or most of all overrule the decisions that other Americans might make in that same situation. It is, or ought to be, unthinkable.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
494 comments Add your comment
Mick
February 22nd, 2012
12:15 pm
I’ll say it again, “they make themselves gods”…
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:15 pm
but, no, we don’t need to worry about the GOP overturning Roe V. Wade … that’s not on their agenda …
oy.
F. Sinkwich
February 22nd, 2012
12:16 pm
So what?
States have the authority to this.
Don’t like it?
Move.
Normal
February 22nd, 2012
12:16 pm
I’m sure that this bill will bring jobs to Georgia, right?
Steve
February 22nd, 2012
12:17 pm
This thread is going to bring out the religious nut jobs…I gah-rohn-tee.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:18 pm
Steve – “This thread is going to bring out the religious nut jobs…I gah-rohn-tee.”
you mean bring them up from downstairs
jm
February 22nd, 2012
12:18 pm
Jay’s brain may need an ultrasound.
In all seriousness, 26 weeks seems fine, no need to move it to 20 weeks.
F. Sinkwich
February 22nd, 2012
12:18 pm
“but, no, we don’t need to worry about the GOP overturning Roe V. Wade … that’s not on their agenda …”
Overturning R v W will not make abortions illegal.
I guess you didn’t know that.
Happy to clear that up for you!
carlosgvv
February 22nd, 2012
12:19 pm
A supprising number of pregancies end in natural miscarriges. And yet, if a woman elects to have an abortion, these people charge her with murder. In fact, people not only have miscarrages, they have heart attacks, strokes, fatal tumors and lingering painful illnesses. At the same time, most Americans insist their politicians publicly worship the “God of love” who is directly responsible for these miscarriges and all this other pain and suffering. And then they wonder why this country is in such a mess.
jm
February 22nd, 2012
12:20 pm
The economy folks……. the economy. Focus. On. The. Economy.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:23 pm
That’s a spectacularly silly position to take, Sinkwich.
Citizens have two choices: Stay quiet or move? That’s just nuts.
scrappy
February 22nd, 2012
12:23 pm
“Don’t like it?
Move.”
NO, we will do everything in our power to educate others about the side effects of these types of laws & try to prevent them from becoming law. Moving is not the action, being outspoken and voting are.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:25 pm
“Overturning R v W will not make abortions illegal.”
no, but it will open the door for states to do so.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:25 pm
“That’s a spectacularly silly position to take, Sinkwich.”
consider the source
Steve
February 22nd, 2012
12:26 pm
I don’t want to move. I live in the USA, not the country of Georgia.
Normal
February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm
“Citizens have two choices: Stay quiet or move? That’s just nuts.”
Jay,
Sounds like Communism, don’t it?
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm
well said, Steve!
Mr. Snarky
February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm
F. – Don’t like Obama’s policies?
Get the hell out!
You won’t be missed.
ty webb
February 22nd, 2012
12:28 pm
seems someone doesn’t know what communism is?…you’re not aloud to “move” out of communist states.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:28 pm
There is no realistic question: If Roe v Wade is overturned, congressional Republicans will move immediately to ban the practice nationwide.
As proof, every one of the GOP presidential candidates has endorsed a federal Human Life Amendment that if enacted would outlaw abortion nationwide.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:29 pm
I suppose there is not a better place to continue a discussion on the 9th Amendment than here. From yesterday:
Jay:
“They would not have ratified the Constitution without it, which tells you how important it was to them. It was not some redundant amendment that gave Congress the power to change the Constitution, a power it already had been granted elsewhere in the document.”
JHM:
“Those unemumerated rights exist *independent* of any Congressional legislation pertaining to them, and given the judicial branch’s express power to act as a check on Congress, there’s no justification whatsoever for claiming that the courts have to stand aside on the question of rights until Congress acts. SCOTUS can and has acted *ahead* of Congress in essentially saying ‘there’s a new right here, and you are not to intrude upon it, save in narrowly defined and specifically justifiable circumstances.Trusting the defense of our rights to Congress is a notably bad idea, and that’s why there’s a judicial branch in the first place.”
I believe the 9th Amendment pertains to rights and not powers (which the 10th already does). However, it cannot be known with any degree of certainty what rights are being referred to – state’s rights, individual’s rights or simply some “other” rights. Those, like you Jay, who want to argue that the 9th Amendment speaks to natural rights have the tremendous burden of proof to show why the framers did not simply include a passage in the Constitution securing those natural rights. Why? Because some of the state constitutions already had such language and there were at least 5 attempts to include a natural rights section in the Constitution itself that were defeated. So why would the framers implicitly and vaguely speak to these rights when they could have done so in an explicit manner??? THAT is the question you must answer, Jay.
The 9th Amendment leaves the status of unenumerated rights ambiguous. It does not “deny” or “disparage” these rights (whatever they are) but neither does it embrace or imply any specific right (where is the proof of this?).
Given this understanding, the SCOTUS is clearly in my view overreaching to establish specific rights that had not been articulated by the Constitution itself. There is simply not enough historical evidence to suppose that this is what the framers intended. The Bill of Rights were included by Anti-Federalists to ensure that governmental power would not encroach upon them. There is enough wiggle room in Article 1, section 8, (which enumerates governmental powers) to conceive of the government trampling all sorts of rights. That is what the Anti-Federalists were afraid of and something which Madison clearly saw.
As I have said, I see the 9th Amendment amendment as more of a disclaimer than anything, included to ensure that no one would suppose that there aren’t other unenumerated rights that may be enjoyed by the people. What those rights are the framers left uncertain. But to argue that they would have wanted the SCOTUS to decide that is nonsensical. If that were the case, they would have left out the Bill of Rights and simply state that the SCOTUS would have that function. But their conception of the SCOTUS was a far more limited one that we see now. They certainly did not envision the SCOTUS having the power to make de facto law. Look at some of the Founders expressed fears regarding the SCOTUS and you will see what I am saying.
ty webb
February 22nd, 2012
12:29 pm
and meant “allowed”…damn homophones!
Normal
February 22nd, 2012
12:29 pm
These “Anti-Abortions” Bills are just diversions by the GOP to hide the fact that they are weak on the economy and everything else common Georgians need.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm
Jay, Did you get a hint for this topic from downstairs? :LOL:
RB from Gwinnett
February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm
Is there a Christian with any morals at all left in the Democrat party??
I like how Jay discounts the scientists he disagrees with and follows the ones he agrees with around like a like a puppy chasing a dog in heat.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm
“Those, like you Jay, who want to argue that the 9th Amendment speaks to natural rights have the tremendous burden of proof to show why the framers did not simply include a passage in the Constitution securing those natural rights.
They did include such a passage, Crier. And it’s called the 9th Amendment.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm
Ah……. the case of the script DOES matter
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm
Sinkwich hasn’t responded back because he is in the process of packing………… Since he doesn’t like Obama’s policies he is moving out of the country
Right Sinkwich?
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm
I doubt a law will prevent the behavior. So nothing will change.
Filter
February 22nd, 2012
12:32 pm
jm,
“The economy folks……. the economy. Focus. On. The. Economy.”
I am going to take the rest of the day off from work and go play golf. Two comments with which I agree fully. With miracles such as this happening I’m hoping this is my hole in one day. Or at least an eagle or two.
Bill Orvis White
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
This is not about making ourselves Gods by any means. It’s about protecting those without a voice, the innocent. This is why a personhood amendment needs to be passed in all 50 states. We would solve the problem and move on to more pressing issues such as lowering and/or eliminating draconian taxes.
Amen,
Bill
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
RB
“I like how Jay discounts the scientists he disagrees with and follows the ones he agrees with around like a like a puppy chasing a dog in heat.”
Guess you never watch Fox, read right leaning blogs or listen to right lean pundits…. They selectively pick and choose science everyday……..
Is that ok or only when it doesn’t fit your ideology?
mm
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
If birth control were easily available and free, women wouldn’t need abortions.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
“Overturning R v W will not make abortions illegal.”
Unlike the SCOTUS (an unelected body of 9 person) making it de facto legal.
ty webb
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
we really need a “coat hanger” reference…I only need one more spot for my daily “Lib talk Bingo Drinking Game”.
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm
You don’t “play” golf, you go golfing.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm
“They did include such a passage, Crier. And it’s called the 9th Amendment.”
Is that all you have? What a lame response. Are you saying the difficulty I outlined for those of your position is insignificant in light of what I said?
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
12:37 pm
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm
You don’t “play” golf, you go golfing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good point. Wanna go golfing?
Filter
February 22nd, 2012
12:38 pm
“Is there a Christian with any morals at all left in the Democrat party??”
What an incredibly arrogant, judgmental and frankly unChristian statement to make. As adults are we not able to have differing opinions, different views of faith and morals without going back to the worn out contentions that the GOP is the party of God and all non-adherents to its tenents must certainly be immoral godless heathens????
Such arrogance is astounding and serves no purpose other than to prop up your fragile ego and drive people further away from the party you love so.
ty webb
February 22nd, 2012
12:39 pm
“If birth control were easily available and free”
check that, Bingo!…”free”.
scrappy
February 22nd, 2012
12:39 pm
“It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.”
If only we could keep repeating this, maybe our conservative “friends” would finally get it.
This election is a truly scaring me, and as a woman, I feel like every position the GOP takes is aimed right at me and taking away my choices. Well, no thank you.
Filter
February 22nd, 2012
12:40 pm
Jefferson,
You’ve never seen my “game”. I’m so bad that playing is being generous. A better description for me would be approximating golf. Or perhaps a nice walk in the park distributing golf balls to the woodland creatures and the water turtles.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
12:41 pm
“If birth control were easily available and free, women wouldn’t need abortions”
No birth control method is infallable, not even abstinence…if the Mary’s experience is any indicator.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:43 pm
““It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.” If only we could keep repeating this, maybe our conservative “friends” would finally get it.
Am I free to euthanize my grandmother who is senile then? The question is the sanctity of human life, born or unborn. If we could know with certainty if a fetus of a certain age was alive, would you bet your own life on the position it was not before you knew the truth?
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
12:44 pm
Normal @ 12:29
Bingo………. You get the Gold Star of the day……..
Wasn’t too many months ago that pundits from both-sides were saying that the election wouldn’t be about social issues……. Generally speaking the thought was that the “economy” would be a slam duck to hammer Obama. While the economy has a long way to go, it isn’t the slam dunk it once was, hence the social issues to shore up the social conservative vote…………..
I’m good with it………. It will not have moderates and independents flocking to vote for the nominee if that if social issues are in the forefront all the time. They may stay at home and not vote Obama, but social issues day in and day out………. will not win the WH for any Republican
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:44 pm
Crier, the purpose of the 9th could not be more clear. You can hem and haw and try to obfuscate all you wish, it does not matter. The 9th Amendment says point blank that human beings have rights beyond those actually listed in the Constitution.
Now where might those extra-constitutional rights emanate from? The only answer is that they are natural rights, inherent in us as human beings.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence of “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” that’s what he was referring to.
And as Founding Father George Mason wrote: “… all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
12:44 pm
Oh good lord…not doing this again.
“Georgia anti-abortion bill strikes at heart of personal liberty” – The personal liberty to commit legalized-homicide. Love it! But only for women!
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:45 pm
Peadawg, I challenge you to listen to Ms. Zink’s testimony and THEN tell me that a law should strip her of the choice she made. Go ahead.
mm
February 22nd, 2012
12:45 pm
Ty,
“check that, Bingo!…”free”.”
So if it’s free, who pays for it? Should the drug companies give it away?