Georgia’s worrisome intramural fight over abortion
There’s one bit of unfinished business from the GOP primary for governor. And, no, I don’t mean a public kiss-and-make-up session between Nathan Deal and Karen Handel.
I worry that the long-term health of the pro-life movement in Georgia may have taken a self-inflicted hit during this primary, because of the words and tactics of Georgia Right to Life.
The most prominent anti-abortion group in a red state, GRTL issues endorsements during each election cycle that Republican candidates covet. High among its criteria is a stipulation that candidates agree to only one exception to a ban on abortions: when the life of the mother is in danger.
GRTL defends its stance as “the 21st-century demands of being pro-life,” a tacit acknowledgment that one exception hasn’t always been the rule. For decades after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, many pro-life groups allowed for two additional cases: pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
It was largely over these two exceptions that GRTL and Handel, the only GOP gubernatorial candidate not to get the group’s endorsement, disagree. But it was no light disagreement.
After Handel received a late endorsement from Sarah Palin, GRTL lashed out: One day before the primary, the group sent out a robo-call to voters describing Handel as “extremely liberal” on abortion.
That’s when I began to worry.
I understand that intellectual consistency dictates that the unborn’s right to life isn’t lessened by the circumstances of conception. I understand that allowing abortion in the case of a rape but not in most others could lead to an explosion in the number of rape claims, and a ban-enforcement nightmare.
But I also understand that people don’t always like to be intellectually consistent. And, more to the point, we are eons away, in public-policy years, from reaching a point where this kind of debate can be more than just theoretical.
The fact is that abortion under any circumstance remains legal in this country — and that, as GRTL itself notes, more than 99 percent of U.S. abortions don’t involve rape or incest. Even a ban on partial-birth abortions proved highly contentious not that long ago.
There’s reason for hope. Gallup, which tracks U.S. attitudes toward abortion over time, found last year for the first time that more Americans call themselves pro-life rather than pro-choice — reversing a 10-percentage-point deficit as recently as 2006, and a 23-point gap just 15 years ago. There were gains in all age groups.
But the number of Americans who believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances remained a majority of 54 percent — almost unchanged from the years immediately following Roe. It’s unlikely that most of them favor just one exception rather than the more commonly stated three.
As the left has proved over the years, a gradual approach to big policy changes is usually more successful than a one-fell-swoop strategy.
Withholding an endorsement is one thing. But there’s an important difference between that and an all-out attack on a three-exceptions candidate as “extremely liberal.” The latter is an unlikely way to build and sustain the momentum in public opinion that will be essential to any lasting change in the law.
It’s a bit like Charlie Brown asking Lucy to place the football farther from the goal posts. To the degree that this rigidity makes it harder to realize slow but steady pro-life progress, it’s an unconscionable mistake.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
215 comments Add your comment
Aquagirl
August 28th, 2010
11:15 am
I didn’t vote Republican in the primaries, but didn’t they put a question about “life begins at conception” on the ballot? If so, wingnuts dutifully herded into polling booths for an entirely meaningless exercise in feel-goodism.
Considering Nathan Deal’s narrow margin of victory, it may be why the Republican party is still held hostage to extremists.
midtownguy
August 28th, 2010
11:20 am
Both parties are held hostage by extremists. Zealots are dangerous, especially the ones on your side.
Carpet Kitten
August 28th, 2010
11:23 am
There are way more important issues in this nation than a moral one like abortion. The way the Democrats are destroying this nation from within, Conservatives need to forget about abortion for now. There are bigger battles that need to be chosen.
Carpet Kitten
August 28th, 2010
11:23 am
For example, US News & World Report’s Mortimer Zuckerman latest article: “The Most Fiscally Irresponsible Government in U.S. History – Current federal budget trends are capable of destroying this country”
Well anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see what liberals and Democrats are doing to this nation. Then of course we have the latest news about our youth: the share of young people aged 16 to 24 who were employed this summer fell to 48.9 percent – the lowest rate on record since 1948. But let’s raise taxes on the evil rich business owners. Hell, let’s jack up the minimum wage to $10/hr too and force EVERY person who employs someone else to pay for their health care. Yeah, that will certainly turn the economy around. As Nancy Pelosi said, “private business needs to start hiring again.” What economic geniuses these leftists are running Washington.
Peter
August 28th, 2010
11:48 am
Hey Not So Casual Observer ……you points are pretty funny……..WW I and WW II…….. yes we should have done nothing then I guess……. Hitler was Good.
The Iraq WAR is current….and has been a total waste, but not really the “Cost Plus Contracts, made a few very wealthy…..nice to see the government can pay for vacations, at a premium.
All the while Bin Laden has been free to do his merry work. Gee his family was rich and friends of the Bush’s.
Do you think we should have invaded Brazil during WW II ? No different than invading Iraq…….Oh wait Iraq had oil…..GEE no wonder……all the oil companies couldn’t get the contracts because of Saddam.
Hey it is the Republican blogger’s who say WAR is good for the economy……I always thought spending the money at home rebuilding America’s infrastructure like Germany has would be a better way to go.
Germany is the model economy for the world these days.
Also abortion is a personal issue…..but wait, Republican’s want to tell all what to do with religion…..the Easter Bunny is about as ” REAL ” as God is.
The Beck fellow is pretty funny as well…..He is a Republican, and preaches going back to God ? There are how many religion’s in the world….and if you don’t believe as each one does then you are going to hell ?
Seems everyone is going to hell then….since no one person alive believes in all of them.
midtownguy
August 28th, 2010
11:52 am
Your personal belief about “when life begins” is a belief, not a fact. Add to that basic premise the understanding that ‘what the Bible says” is irrelevant to a constitutional discussion. It is only relevant to how it influences your personal beliefs (all Christian churches are not anti-abortion). America is not a Christian nation (England on the other hand is, as there is an official state religion), it is a religiously free nation where Christianity is the dominant religion (for now). We can all believe as we choose here and many come here seeking that religious freedom. I think it is the loss of control of this country by white christians that really scares the right wingers to death. It explains a lot of their panic (abortion, immigrants, mosques).
mrs. w
August 28th, 2010
12:17 pm
As long as they don’t pass any laws that says my tax money will pay for one I am over it. I am pro-life but I personally cannot mandate what another woman does. I can only hope that if they make the decision to abort they do so very early in the pregnancy and only put themselves in that position once.
Let’s move on to other issues – this one is dead.
md
August 28th, 2010
12:18 pm
“Your personal belief about “when life begins” is a belief, not a fact. ”
No, there is only one fact – a life form exists at conception. That is proven science.
What folks are arguing is the definition of that life form. A definition that allows for the ending of that life form to make folks all warm and fuzzy about their “choice”.
The other “fact”, is that the “choice” is made long before abortion is even a consideration…………….
midtownguy
August 28th, 2010
1:03 pm
OK I stand corrected. Change that to “Your personal belief as to when a fertilized egg becomes a person/citizen and therefore entitled to constitutional protection.” All else remains unchanged. I do not believe that a fertilized egg is a person but is rather a part of the woman’s body. You believe whatever you want, just don’t impose that belief on others.
VIETNAM VET
August 28th, 2010
1:05 pm
Tea Party Member who want President Obama to follow the will of the people: 54PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE IN FAVOR OF LEGAL ABORTION.
md
August 28th, 2010
1:17 pm
“I do not believe that a fertilized egg is a person but is rather a part of the woman’s body.”
Out of curiosity, what do you believe it to be??
Leave it alone, and “it” will always grow into some form of “human”. Never seen one turn into a duck or cat or dog……………have you??
LeeH1
August 28th, 2010
1:18 pm
Those against abortion say that it is murder.
Under this view, women who have an abortion should be executed for murder.
Any lesser punishment would indicate that abortion is less than murder.
Remember, too, that making abortion illegal won’t stop it. Murder is illegal, and it still happens every day. We execute some of the murders. Now we will add more women to death row for aborting babies.
Is this what you want?
Skeptic
August 28th, 2010
1:25 pm
@md
The term “life form” has no accepted definition and is, in general, not useful.
The question of when human life begins has been answered differently by different cultures throughout history and, as is true of any question which has ethical/moral dimensions, is a matter of belief, not fact. It is a philosophical rather than a scientific issue.
Aquagirl
August 28th, 2010
1:26 pm
“a life form exists at conception. That is proven science.”
Maybe in wingnut science, where humans rode dinosaurs and abstinence-only education works. If you think a life-form magically exists at conception, fine, but don’t expect to toss that out there and think it should be accepted as fact.
B. Morris
August 28th, 2010
1:36 pm
**Leave it alone, and “it” will always grow into some form of “human”. Never seen one turn into a duck or cat or dog……………have you??**
The left needs to believe otherwise so they can shun any responsibility.
midtownguy
August 28th, 2010
1:36 pm
I defer to the other gender to decide this for themselves. I don’t have to live with the choice.
Good point, LeeH. My mother had three abortions after I was born as her third child (they were illegal back then in Georgia, so she went to NY). It would sure have been tough growing up without a mother if she had been executed for family planning.
Which brings up another point I often make. If you limit abortions, you will only limit them for poor women. Women with means will go wherever it is necessary.
Bubba Bob
August 28th, 2010
1:46 pm
I agree that a woman has a right to her own body. However, the baby inside her is not her body…it’s the baby’s body. The woman does not have a right to it.
md
August 28th, 2010
1:49 pm
“Maybe in wingnut science, where humans rode dinosaurs and abstinence-only education works. If you think a life-form magically exists at conception, fine, but don’t expect to toss that out there and think it should be accepted as fact.”
Might want to revisit high school science. Once the egg is fertilized, it changes into a live organism – I find it interesting that anyone would dispute that fact. What you want to call that organism is what is currently debated.
And for the record, I’m a heathen – no religious zealot. Debating on the concept of logic and the fact that we choose everything we do.
md
August 28th, 2010
1:51 pm
“The term “life form” has no accepted definition and is, in general, not useful. ”
Exactly – it is all about definitions……………..doesn’t change the “fact” that a life form has been created.
md
August 28th, 2010
1:56 pm
“I defer to the other gender to decide this for themselves. I don’t have to live with the choice.”
They did, when they made a “choice” to bring 2 others into the equation. The “child” and the “father”. The argument that “it is her body”, is intellectually dishonest. Since we choose everything we do, consciously or unconsciously, a choice was made prior to conception.
And I’m not arguing the merits of abortion or the legality of it. Merely pointing out the “facts” and how folks use definitions to get around those facts.
Aquagirl
August 28th, 2010
2:03 pm
md, run that by a biology professor and you get a hearty guffaw. I find it interesting you make up arbitrary definitions and then say you’re debating on logic.
Sorry, you can repeat your talking points over and over and they still aren’t factual. Talk to the hand, honey. It’s a lot more understanding as far as your magical sperm moment is concerned.
barking frog
August 28th, 2010
2:05 pm
The law does not regulate pregnant women. The law regulates
abortion providers and allows them to perform abortions at will.
The allowance of abortion only for rape or incest are ineffectual
as doctors have almost no ability to verify these claims other
than to require the woman to report to the police before the
operation. The fetus endangering the life of the woman is
almost non-existent and would be treated as a medical
emergency anyway. Thus it boils down to abortion-at-will
or no abortion. A good step forward would be for pro lifers
to guarantee pregnant women that if they have the baby
they will pay all non insurance covered expenses for
mom and child and guarantee the child will have an
appropriate upbringing.
LizBeth
August 28th, 2010
2:19 pm
rc35@8:54
When abortion became legal, violence toward medical personnel performing abortions and women receiving them stepped up. For many years, I and my friends were afraid to say we were pro-choice because of the violent reactions of those we knew were pro-life. I even attended a church service where the guest speaker encouraged congregants to call in bomb threats to abortion clinics, whether there was an actual bomb or not, to prevent abortions from being performed while the clinic was being evacuated and searched.
Abortion doctors lived in so much fear during the 1980s, female patients in most clinics were not given the name of the physician who worked on them. Can you imagine not knowing who your doctor is just because everyone is so afraid? In America? Women know this experience.
Violence, both physical and emotional, toward women and those who helped them was, and often still is, the message of the pro-life party.
Your proposition is that child abuse statistics rose in this country after abortion was legalized and that it is due to that legalization. I propose that child abuse has risen in this country due to two factors: One, because people are learning to stop hiding abusers and speak up about it, enabling us to recognize it and enact laws requiring people who work with children to report it; and, two, the pro-life movement has supported a message that violence towards those with whom they disagree is acceptable behavior and this supported belligerent attitude is acted out upon family members.
When the pro-life movement focuses on listening skills and respecting all women, who hold within their hearts and wombs these tiniest of bits of life that cannot speak for themselves, then we’ll be on our way to an even greater dialogue where we can focus on eradicating violence toward our children that will have a major impact on our society.
AmVet
August 28th, 2010
2:24 pm
After five decades of trying to legislate morality in a nation that is irrefutably turning away form the old strictures and mores, you’d think the cons would finally wake up to the realities of the modern world. But, nooooooooooooo! They’ve dug in their heals and are now having tent revivals at the Lincoln Monument to restore honor and return to the good old days of the 1950s. What a laugh.
Of course these violence-prone reactionaries, religious nutjobs and science-averse neo-cons are angry! Other than their kids, they can no longer just intimidate and boss entire groups of people around any more, can they?
And they’re enraged about that.
Too bad, so sad. We in the reasoned and reasonable center took that power away from them and they’ll never get it back.
And they will never succeed in outlawing abortion again…
barking frog
August 28th, 2010
2:32 pm
AmVet 2:24 ‘And they will never succeed in outlawing abortion again…’
With the current makeup on the Supreme court it is highly likely this
may indeed happen within the next couple of years.
md
August 28th, 2010
2:32 pm
“md, run that by a biology professor and you get a hearty guffaw.”
Name one – they would have to be awful clueless.
You sure you aren’t misinterpreting “life form/organism” with “human”. One definitely exists, the other is what is up for debate……………
md
August 28th, 2010
2:36 pm
“And they will never succeed in outlawing abortion again…”
And the law matters not one way or the other. What matters is educating folks to the fact that we choose everything we do and actions do have consequences, and maybe the need for abortions will diminish.
AmVet
August 28th, 2010
2:39 pm
What matters is educating folks to the fact that we choose everything we do and actions do have consequences, and maybe the need for abortions will diminish.
Well said.
I abhor abortions. *Especially* as a means of birth control.
But the the Republican “cure” is worse than the disease…
Just_Me
August 28th, 2010
2:47 pm
The government just needs to stay the hell out of social decisions like abortion and gay marriage and leave it up to the individual and whoever they choose to help them make the right decision. It’s none of the governments damn business.
Just_Me
August 28th, 2010
2:49 pm
With the current makeup on the Supreme court it is highly likely this
may indeed happen within the next couple of years.
What on earth makes you say this?? Sorry, but I disagree. Sure the newest members of the court aren’t as clear as others on their abortion stance, but I seriously doubt the two of them would vote yes to overturn them and without them there isn’t a chance in hell that it would be overturned.
barking frog
August 28th, 2010
2:53 pm
we will say a fetus is a healthy body part that the person wants removed.
some doctors will, some refuse..all can legally.
we will say an arm is a healthy body part a person wants removed.
most doctors refuse some might. all can legally.
we will say a penis is a healthy body part that the person wants removed.
some doctors will, some refuse.. all can legally.
In order to circumvent equality before the law the
courts have to find that the fetus is superior to all
other body parts with rights separate from the person.
This is not a great stretch for our current Supremes.
Just_Me
August 28th, 2010
2:53 pm
Considering Nathan Deal’s narrow margin of victory, it may be why the Republican party is still held hostage to extremists.
Amen! And this is the exact reason that more often than not why I don’t vote Republican, because more often than not they are a party of extremists. The Democrats can often be too liberal for me, but in general they are much more moderate than the Republican party. When either side gets too far to their respective sides (right for Republicans and left for Democrats) I dislike it … hence the reason why I am a Moderate, Independent.
md
August 28th, 2010
2:55 pm
“Sure the newest members of the court aren’t as clear as others on their abortion stance, but I seriously doubt the two of them would vote yes to overturn them and without them there isn’t a chance in hell that it would be overturned.”
My 2 cents – the court is already leaning right, and Sotomayor has a Catholic background. Would be interesting…………..
Just_Me
August 28th, 2010
2:55 pm
A fetus is not a body part. A body part is something that is a natural part of the body at birth.
Holy Roller
August 28th, 2010
2:55 pm
As I recall GRTL drew one of the few “pants on fire” ratings from politifact over their statement that Handle’s position would allow abortions of babies like Palin’s son Trig (which is 90% of the reason she came down here to smack down GRTL). Worse is that in doing that they gave up a great deal of their credibility on the issue…”Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness…” is a top 10 as well and equally worth of damnation (there well be a lot of politicians and pundits who pay for that one in the afterlife)
Just_Me
August 28th, 2010
2:56 pm
My 2 cents – the court is already leaning right, and Sotomayor has a Catholic background. Would be interesting………….
True, but I still don’t believe she would vote to overturn it. And ironically most Catholics I know don’t follow the Church on the issue of abortion (well they’re not for it, but they’re not against it … they just truly believe in a woman’s right to choose).
Just_Me
August 28th, 2010
2:57 pm
I still find it crazy that Palin endorsed Handel. Palin has much more in common with Deal. The only thing she has in common with Palin is gender.
md
August 28th, 2010
2:58 pm
“we will say a fetus is a healthy body part that the person wants removed.”
Interesting take on it.
Here’s one for you – how many other body parts will survive if removed from the body and put in an incubator?
Is there really a difference between a fetus inside the womb at 5 months and one born prematurely and already living outside the body??
Definitions are the key………….
md
August 28th, 2010
3:04 pm
“(well they’re not for it, but they’re not against it … they just truly believe in a woman’s right to choose).”
I too firmly believe in the woman’s right to choose, but it is that choice that got her in the predicament to begin with, so………………actions(choices) do have consequences, too bad so many “choose” to remember that after the fact.
whocares
August 28th, 2010
3:06 pm
I have an idea!! Those Anti Abortion Crusaders should be taxed 30% off their total yearly income in addition to regular taxes to take care of kids that may have been aborted. Put all these crusaders on the list, make them adopt kids in orphanages here in America. That would really mean something instead of running your mouth telling others what’s right for them. Put your money where your mouth is!
barking frog
August 28th, 2010
3:06 pm
Just_Me 2:49 I believe Roberts said at some point that Roe v Wade
should be revisited, if so Roberts- catholic,Alito-catholic,Thomas-
catholic,Kennedy-catholic, Scalia-Catholic…
Ted Kennedy died excommunicated because of his pro-choice
views…Which of these would risk that?
barking frog
August 28th, 2010
3:09 pm
Just_Me 2:55 an egg is a body part.
Grand Forks
August 28th, 2010
3:09 pm
The abortion issue is small. More Americans are now against it and it will one day be illegal. Left wing retards have more to worry about now than ever before since Obozo is destroying himself and the democrap party. Oh well, at least left wing retards still have their conservative parents money to live off of for a while.
md
August 28th, 2010
3:17 pm
“I have an idea!! Those Anti Abortion Crusaders should be taxed 30% off their total yearly income in addition to regular taxes to take care of kids that may have been aborted.”
Or, just abort any and all unwanted humans – that would fix it – right? No more juvenile delinquents and senile old folks to contend with.
Or, maybe you can explain the difference…………..
Holy Roller
August 28th, 2010
3:18 pm
“left wing retards”, “obozo”? I’m sure your opinion is taken seriously with choice snippets like that. Does your Mommie know you are on the PC without supervision…be careful or you might get spanked
barking frog
August 28th, 2010
3:26 pm
md 2:58 ‘Here’s one for you – how many other body parts will survive if removed from the body and put in an incubator?
Is there really a difference between a fetus inside the womb at 5 months and one born prematurely and already living outside the body’
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
1.eggs and sperm can be frozen, others may be maintained and cloned(we think)
2.you answer the question yourself, it’s a matter of dependency. my question is,
how can a doctor legally kill either?
josef nix
August 28th, 2010
3:31 pm
As someone earlier said, I don’t have a dog in this fight. This is a breeder issue as far as I personally am concerned and breeders are a messy lot all the way around. My own snipe out of the way, I do have opinions and beliefs, but those are mine and I don’t expect anyone to subscribe to them.
But the bottom line, whether we want to play silly nyanh-nyanh over it or not, is that life begins when egg cell meets sperm cell. The viability, durabilty or desirability of that life is a matter of various factors. The point is, were there no conception, there would be no life. Once the processes begun there stops, then death occurs. We can just as easily say that death begins at conception, Be it the natural process of spontaneous abortion or at the age of 105 in a peaceful passing, an induced abortion or smacked crossing the street by a MARTA bus, life begins and life ends. Those are givens. Make of the rest of it what we will.
Shar
August 28th, 2010
3:33 pm
If abortions are outlawed, they will still happen. They’ll just return to back alleys for those women too poor to get out of the country to have one. The women who must turn to that option will frequently be scarred, mutilated or dead, just as our grandmother’s generation of women were.
An unwanted pregnancy will be dealth with, whether the woman throws herself down a flight of stairs, goes into a back alley or uses her own coathanger.
The antiabortion block either does not believe that supply and demand will prevail or they are pleased that women will be forced into this corner. After all, if they die from an unsafe abortion, they not only deserved it but they will be a warning to other women to toe the line.
GRTL’s rigidity in demanding obedience from any candidate seeking their endorsement in fact means that such candidates support the Hobson’s choice forced upon half of their constituents. Any candidate who is willing to accept endangering my health and that of my daughters, neices, friends and all other Georgian women for the political benefit to be gained through GRTL makes it impossible for me to vote for him or her.
midtownguy
August 28th, 2010
3:34 pm
Pro Choice folks arguing with Pro LIfe folks over abortion is like Jews arguing with Catholics over Jesus Christ being the Messiah. One group will never convince the other.
barking frog
August 28th, 2010
3:39 pm
joseph 3:31 ‘ life begins when egg cell meets sperm cell’
both are living before the ‘collision’ and together become more
than separate. we have continuity not creation. as to the “dog
in the fight” I believe you would give give your life to save a child
in the street about to be hit by a car…