A raw debate over abortion at the state Capitol
The House on Wednesday passed its first major anti-abortion legislation in several years, shrinking the time a woman has to seek the procedure. From my AJC colleague Christopher Quinn:
The legislation, House Bill 954, also would tighten medical exemptions for terminating pregnancies and require any abortion performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy be done in a way to bring the fetus out alive. The measure is commonly referred to as a “fetal pain” bill and says that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, therefore the state has an interest in protecting it.
The language of the debate was more than emotional. On the GOP side, the central debate is over Georgia Right to Life’s refusal to recognize rape, incest and the life of the mother as exceptions in the abortion debate.
Unlike some national groups, GRTL recognizes only the life of the mother as an exception – and a strict interpretation at that.
In this instance, there was an advantage to being in radio. Audio allows a certain rawness that neither print nor video can capture. Below is the Wednesday report of Parker Wallace of Georgia Public Broadcasting. In the AJC photo below, state Rep. Sharon Cooper, R-Marietta, is pictured with Rep. Allen Peake, R-Macon. Audio used with permission:
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
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
93 comments Add your comment
hiram bronson granbury
February 29th, 2012
10:01 pm
The planet has 6 billion people. The vast majority of them are ignorant beyond belief, and this is manifest by their actions all over the planet, every day, including here in the Georgia legislature.
Charles A. Jones Jr. (Athens)
February 29th, 2012
10:14 pm
I must say I am very disappointed in Mrs. Cooper’s conduct here. What Georgia Right to Life said is that if she voted against the bill they would try to defeat her in the next election. That is not a threat, that is democracy. That’s why we have elections in the first place, so we can vote out people we don’t like.
A threat would be if they had said to her “Vote for this or I’ll have your knees broken.” But to say “Vote for this or I’ll vote against you in the next election,” or “Vote for this or I’ll run against you in the next election” or “Vote for this or I’ll campaign against you in the next election” is completely fair – it is what democracy is all about.
Does Mrs. Cooper believe that she’s entitled to be a Representative for as long as she pleases and never have to answer to the voters? No ma’am you aren’t.
Shoshanna
February 29th, 2012
10:26 pm
Rep Sharon Cooper says that the National Right to Life position supports exceptions for rape and incest. This IS simply NOT true Rep. Cooper.. A call to their national office will confirm this.
She said doctors would be exposed by name when the bill specifically protects their anonymity. How many falsehoods can Rep Cooper get away with and still be “prolife”??
GRTL is right to target this PRINO (Pro-life Republican in Name Only).
Agnes Kravitz
February 29th, 2012
10:29 pm
If this is ALL the Republicans have to do in the State House, its time for them to go home
The Snark
February 29th, 2012
10:31 pm
@ Charles:
“Never have to answer to the voters?” The VOTERS, Charles? She’s being threatened by a single issue special interest group, not “the voters.” The voters are perfectly happy with her stance on the issues, as proven by the fact that they return her to the legislature every couple of years.
Something tells me your definition of “democracy” would change if your representative was threatened by a single issue special interest group you did not approve of.
Cutty
February 29th, 2012
10:36 pm
She represents her constituents, not some advocacy groups. Politicians, republican and democrat, would be wise to remember that.
South Ga
February 29th, 2012
10:56 pm
It sure would be nice to have the democrats back again.
Look before I leap...
February 29th, 2012
10:59 pm
Since only 2% of abortions occur after the 21st week, I am skeptical of the number of “lives” that the bill’s supporters claim will be saved.
The people most likely to have later term abortions are teenagers, victims of rape and incest and those with modest to minimal financial means.
So who is gonna foot the bill for all these children where there is little hope of a stable and financially capable household to care for them?
Shark Punch!
February 29th, 2012
11:19 pm
@ Look before I leap: You need to understand that the ANTI-CHOICE (I refuse to call these people “pro-life” for many reasons) agenda consists of nothing less than a complete and total ban on all abortions whatsoever. But their leaders are smart enough to realize that this won’t happen in one fell swoop, so they chip away at the issue with things like mandatory ultrasounds/counseling, waiting periods, and bills like this one. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about 2% or .02% of all abortions; if they can “save even just one unborn child,” they’ll call it a victory on the way to their greater goal.
td
February 29th, 2012
11:30 pm
Cutty
February 29th, 2012
10:36 pm
She represents her constituents, not some advocacy groups. Politicians, republican and democrat, would be wise to remember that.
Then her constituents will put her back in office. If the voters in her district want to vote on a single issue then that is their business.
td
February 29th, 2012
11:32 pm
South Ga
February 29th, 2012
10:56 pm
It sure would be nice to have the democrats back again
If you want them back then go out and purge your party of the social democrats that want to turn this state into a welfare state and it could happen.
td
February 29th, 2012
11:34 pm
The Snark
February 29th, 2012
10:31 pm
If this single issue does not matter then why are all you so threatened by it? If the voters in her district think she represents them then they will return her to office. If they do not then they are free to vote for a different representative.
Will the last Democrat in Georgia please turn off the lights?.....
February 29th, 2012
11:34 pm
Why do people keep trying to debate exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother and high-risk pregnancies in these bills?
These bills aren’t about just preventing late-term elective abortions, they are about preventing ALL late-term abortion whether they are elective, or involve cases of rape, incest, the health of the mother and high-risk pregnancy.
If you are truly against abortion, not only are elective abortions unacceptable, but ALL abortions are unacceptable, which should come as no surprise to supposedly pro-life State Representative Cooper, whose time for knowingly and gleefully straddling the fence between the pro-abortion and anti-abortion camps for personal political gain is quickly drawing to an unceremonial close.
Look before I leap...
February 29th, 2012
11:35 pm
@Shark
I understand the strategy. Nibble around the edges, pass legislation that is likely to get appealed and see what the courts do. The gamble is that SCOTUS is more ideologically conservative now than it has been in the last 50 years and they will abrogate some part of Roe and the finger comes out of the dyke.
In the mean time, thousands of lives are impacted and there are no provisions to handle the aftermath.
So very often, our politicians enact laws to address an issue with absolutely no regard to collateral consequences and create 10 news issues where before, there was only one.
We keep sending these pandering idiots back to office year in and year out and many times based on a single wedge issue like abortion or gay marriage or some other silliness that has little impact overall on the majority of voter’s personal interests.
I don’t know if the stupidity in the local, state and national offices is a reflection of the voters or vice versa.
Either way it is depressing.
Black Conservative
February 29th, 2012
11:35 pm
I wish the legislators were this passionate about the things that really matter: education, traffic congestion, jobs, water…
Charles A. Jones Jr. (Athens)
February 29th, 2012
11:35 pm
Snark: Then there should be no problem, because this interest group is only “threatening” to bring her before the voters and challenge her and urge the voters to put her out. That’s not a threat, that’s democracy.
As I said, a threat is “Vote for this or I’ll break your knees or put a horse’s head in your bed.” Democracy is “Vote for this or I’ll do everything I can to persuade your voters to put you out of office.”
honested
February 29th, 2012
11:35 pm
Once again the GA republican party stoops to pander to it’s lowest common denominator.
Should this pass the Senate and receive a signature, millions of unwilling taxpayers dollars will be wasted to defend this nonsense with a clear loss looming eventually in the Supreme Court.
This is Settled Law for crying out loud. Everywhere this sort of nonsense to chip away at Roe is tried, it fails.
No religious test is required for any woman to seek the medical care she deems appropriate.
Why is it so difficult for you people to take NO for an answer?
In the Air Tonight
February 29th, 2012
11:38 pm
Dear Dan Becker,
I was there, and I saw what you did. I saw it with my own two eyes. You can wipe off that grin, ’cause I know where you been. It’s all been a pack of lies.
You can’t let legislators debate the issue on FACTS. You threaten and bully them. You make it your business to go where it’s none of your business. You slurp power for yourself off the misery of others, but that’s not good enough for you, is it? I saw you. I saw you watching us, sneering, and enjoying every moment. Yeah, that was us: mothers, sisters, and daughters. You know, the women with tears running down our faces during testimony that explains something that YOU will never understand: Love, tragedy, and the choices that women have to make and live with. You scanned each of our faces. You smiled as we choked back sobs, because the testimony spoke to things WE know, but you never will. You enjoyed watching, and I thought, “WHO IS THAT CREEPY GUY WATCHING US AND CHUCKLING?” I could practically SEE the boner you got watching us grow more and more distressed. I know your kind, Dan Becker. There’s a word for it: SADIST. You’re the very worst kind. Ah, but your ego was all too eager to jump in front of that TV camera, right? So tonight, I know who that creepy, icky guy was, licking his lips getting excited watching women cry.
From now on, I’m watching you.
honested
February 29th, 2012
11:39 pm
Black Conservative,
You hit the nail on the head.
One would have to watch all of the hearings so far to hear an occasional peep about education, traffic, jobs or water (aside from the idiocy of building pipes over the mountains from the TN River).
diane
February 29th, 2012
11:39 pm
Also harmed are those who discover fetal deformities or have other health issues after week 20. See Jay Bookman’s column today. This is a shameful intrusion of government into the legal, constitutionally protected private decisions of women and their doctors. Get the government out of my uterus.
honested
February 29th, 2012
11:40 pm
In The Air….
I think you pretty much summed up the whole anti-choice crowd.
td
February 29th, 2012
11:48 pm
This is not settled law and the SCOTUS has been chipping away at the issue for about the last 10 years. The whole problem is this issue was forced upon the nation by a SC decision instead of going through the legislative process to begin with. If a state or the Federal government wants abortions legal then you supporters should stand up and demand your representatives to stand up, sponsor a bill and have the gut to debate and vote on the issue. The voters will then decide if the murder of the unborn should be legal or not.
honested
February 29th, 2012
11:53 pm
td,
The ‘voters’ have been pretty clear about this for quite a long time, as exemplified by the current law.
This is just another example of a bunch of religiously oriented kooks who have never been able to accept THEY CAN’T ENFORCE THEIR DISTORTED BELIEFS ON THE REST OF US.
If you don’t ‘believe’ in abortion, please don’t have one.
Otherwise, shut up and get out of the way.
Shar
March 1st, 2012
12:05 am
@ Black Conservative: If it is your body that the government is trying to control, it is damn important.
Becker, if you don’t believe that abortion is moral, don’t have one. But don’t get between a woman and her doctor, a woman and her own conscience, and keep your cheezy threats to yourself. Representatives answer to their constituents, not to one-issue thugs with the insane light of total righteousness in their eyes and no respect for anyone else’s opinion.
This continued assault on women’s heath by white male Republicans is appalling. How ’bout no treatment for prostate cancer after 20 weeks, or mandatory castration if an unwanted child is conceived? Let’s mandate that a man’s doctor has to tell him lies, force him to have unwanted and unnecessary tests – and pay for them – and make him wait before any procedure at all is authorized. And if his life is at stake, that’s just too damn bad.
Look before I leap...
March 1st, 2012
12:10 am
@Shar
An even easier law to write:
If the state wants intrude on reproductive rights, then make it a level playing field for both genders.
A man must have written, notarized consent from his wife or significant other before a Viagra prescription can be written.
Ok I'll play along
March 1st, 2012
12:25 am
@Look before…that would turn Georgia into a “blue” state for sure. I for one am tired of the hey, “we men know what’s best for all involved.” This country is based on choices and this is another one. I don’t know a single person who would deliver a child knowing it was a product of rape or incest. I’m sure those folks are out there but ultimately it should be up to the women to decide. Rethuglicans simply have control issues.
Ted
March 1st, 2012
12:31 am
And the point is what?
lefty_316
March 1st, 2012
12:32 am
With each passing year I become more and more convinced that it’s time for the GOP to split into two distinct parties. One cannot be both a social and fiscal conservative and the goals of the two are completely at odds. The religious (social) conservatives are determined to do whatever they can to curtail and eventually eliminate abortion. That is fiscal liberalism. On the other hand we true fiscal conservatives realize that keep a legal and safe medical procedure widely available is in the best interest of all American taxpayers. In a perfect world abortion would never need to be an option, I suppose, but we live in the real world, not a perfect world.
Will the last Democrat in Georgia please turn off the lights?.....
March 1st, 2012
12:46 am
The people in charge of government (in this case, the conservatives who dominate Georgia state government) reserve the “right” or privilege to restrict and deter the public from access to a procedureor practice that they do not look upon favorably, which in this case is abortion.
But who are we kidding, the passage and debate of this bill isn’t really about abortion and reproductive rights.
This debate IS about distracting the public from the pursuit of restrictions on lobbyist money and gifts to members of the Georgia General Assembly which do not currently exist and what better way to throw-off the gaining forces of the Tea Party and government watchdogs than to ignite a fiery debate about an explosive and volatile emotional social issue such as abortion.
This effort to further restrict abortion also helps the bill’s sponsor, Democrat turn Republican Doug McKillip win a ton of brownie points with the political base of his new political party and put on a much-needed exhibition of his before unbeknownst conservative bonafides so as to increase his chances to advance through his first Republican primary.
Any questions about McKillip’s conservative bonafides have taken a backseat with his sponsorship of a bill to outlaw late-term abortions in all situations, even in cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother and high-risk pregnancies.
This effort also helps to turnout social and religious conservatives in the general election who may have been growing reluctant to come out, vote and support Republicans in November after what has seemingly been a major slide in awareness of social issues with no major anti-abortion legislation being passed in the Georgia General Assembly in many years and communities now being able to vote to approve Sunday sales of alcohol.
If you are a social conservative, what has been a very dissapointing period on social issues suddenly looks a lot more promising with the advancement of the bill to outlaw late-term abortions with no exceptions.
If you are a conservative, this is what you’ve been looking for from a Republican-dominated Georgia General Assembly. No more compromising on social issues, just lining up, picking a smashmouth political fight with the other side, firing up your base and winning a key battle in the culture war.
Shar
March 1st, 2012
12:52 am
@Look: Viagara was immediately accepted onto the Medicare and Medicaid prescription approval lists, meaning for all intents and purposes that it was accepted by insurers as well. So women have to pay taxes that underwrite Viagara, but we are still waiting for coverage for women’s birth control. As the recent brouhaha over this illustrates, the social conservatives cannot tolerate anything that allows a woman to have control over her own sexuality – a woman who wants to use contraception is a slut and unworthy of taxpayer assistance in keeping from becoming pregnant, but if she does conceive then she must be forced to carry to term – and then she’s a welfare queen. And who gets trotted out to pronounce judgement? A panel of men, one of whom is a Catholic bishop who perpetuates a code of female submission and protects his fellow priests who rape young children. This is the person from whom women must take moral pronouncements? WHAT?
Permission for a Viagara scrip is not similar. Any male who, by DNA, is found to have conceived a child he is not willing to risk his life and health to nurture, who resists putting his life and priorities on old for 18 years at minimum, who will not devote himself to raising said child regardless of economic, social, professional, personal and all other considerations, must have a permanent life-altering punishment. Castration will teach him a lesson, and ensure that he never does it again.
Jeff Sexton
March 1st, 2012
3:26 am
I find it funny that any legislator is afraid of GRTL. They have about as much political influence as *I* do these days – which isn’t much. Becker and his bunch are a bunch of crazies that would rather endorse a man who admits to allegations of “sexual or sexually inappropriate relationships with underage girls” than actually protect those same girls from such a man.
Will the last Democrat in Georgia please turn off the lights?.....
March 1st, 2012
4:13 am
Jeff Sexton
March 1st, 2012
3:26 am
“I find it funny that any legislator is afraid of GRTL. They have about as much political influence as *I* do these days – which isn’t much. Becker and his bunch are a bunch of crazies that would rather endorse a man who admits to allegations of “sexual or sexually inappropriate relationships with underage girls” than actually protect those same girls from such a man.”
They also sound like a bunch of crazies that would force the underage girls that he admitted to having inappropriate relationships with to carry any pregnancy that resulted from those sickening interactions to term.
Now I’m not all that crazy about the practice or procedure of abortion, but outlawing them even in cases of rape, incest, protecting the life of the mother and high-risk pregnancies is just a tad bit extreme for my political taste.
But if it distracts from the issue of ethics in government, makes more work for lawyers in what is likely to be an expensive and lengthy court challenge and keeps the annual crazy train that is the Georgia General Assembly happily pushing this state towards a really bad end off-the-rails far from anything that remotely resembles economic prosperity, then I’m all for it.
Remember, election year wedge social issues that distract the populace from constructive legislative ethics reform: GOOD!
Issues that are remotely of any type of substance to the health and well-being of the citizens of this state: BAD!
As long as you remember that, you’ll have great success in Georgia politics.
Now, where was I? Oh yeah, I was talking about God, gays, guns, abortion and contraception while completely forgetting how to even spell the word “effix” (ethics).
rawmilkdrinker
March 1st, 2012
5:18 am
Boost the European travel industry by outlawing all abortions. The well to do wives, girlfriends, mistresses, and daughters will take more suddenly planned extended vacations to France, Denmark, and such. I guess the po’ folks will have to stick to coathangers, drain cleaner and falling down the stairs.
Attack Dog
March 1st, 2012
5:46 am
Georgia is already a welfare State. If women in this State want to drop back to being third class citizens, keep voting for Dixiecrats or not voting at all.
crankee_yankee
March 1st, 2012
6:03 am
You get what you vote for…
Willis
March 1st, 2012
6:14 am
These are the same hypocrites who complain about “too much government” yet they want to intrude in the most personal way in what people choose to do with their own personal health decisions.
seabeau
March 1st, 2012
6:43 am
This story highlights the ,”Liberals Great Moral Dilemma, The Murder of the Innocents and Pardoning of the Murders.” Their support of Abortion and their Anti-Catital Punishment stance tells us that they are moral cowards who ignore the blood on their hands when they are not faced with the deed itself.
Edward Ruffin
March 1st, 2012
6:52 am
If rape or incest creates a child why is that child less important than a child created in the traditional, or “normal” way? Please tell me. And by the way, it isn’t about a woman’s body, it is about a defenseless child. I could care less if a woman pierces her body, gets a tattoo, or jumps off a bridge, it isn’t about her, it is about the child.
- Georgia Pundit
March 1st, 2012
6:56 am
[...] President Dan Becker threatened political retaliation to members who voted no. Jim Galloway has more at the AJC: The language of the debate was more than emotional. On the GOP side, the central debate is over [...]
Laurie
March 1st, 2012
7:04 am
So when women start dying because they can’t terminate a pregnancy that threatens their health, do you think those “right to lifers” will be sorry? Hardly. I hope every person who voted for this bill loses a duaghter or granddaughter to their own stupidity in regards to this bill, and all women should close their legs until our male dominated legislature pulls their collective head out of their backside.
Truth Today
March 1st, 2012
7:22 am
Every person who voted to place these Rupublicans in office have contributed to the threat women are facing to their right to address their healthcare needs as desired. Abortion is an issue that does not belong in the political arena. Republicans say shrink the government in one dialog and then expand overreach of the government when it pertains to women’s right. No, I do not belief and support abortion. However, I do not believe and support the position that men or women should dictate to another what he or she can do to her or his own body regardless of the consequences. I just don’t believe in hypocrisy which is so obvious with conservative ideology as it pertains to small government and women’s rights. Oddly enough, while they try to hinder women’s rights, their wives and daughters continue to obtain abortions. Shrink government or expand government? Which will the Republicans have. They cant have it both ways.
Bobby
March 1st, 2012
7:36 am
Isn’t it amazing that the same party that claims they want less government intrusion in our lives adds more intrusion. And even more amazing that it’s men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. And since the vast majority of abortions between 20 and 26 weeks entail fetuses without brains or limbs, I wonder if the Georgia GOP will fund the medical care for these pregnancies once they are taken to full term.
Double Zero Eight
March 1st, 2012
7:43 am
Like it or not, abortions are legal in the United States.
With that being said, our legislature is spending too
much time on this topic.
One Old Woman
March 1st, 2012
7:47 am
I don’t believe this fight is to distract voters from ethics or any other topic that’s currently up for debate. I believe THOSE issues were a distraction in the hopes that they could pass this incredibly stupid bill without many people noticing.
Morning Reads for Thursday, March 1 — Peach Pundit
March 1st, 2012
7:48 am
[...] anti-abortion debate is alive and well with House Bill 954. A commenter on Political Insider summed up my thoughts on this. “I [...]
homeschooler
March 1st, 2012
7:55 am
I’ve always considered myself pro-choice. We’ve gone the abortion is illegal route this country with dire consequences. However, do you all realized what a BABY looks like at 20 weeks?? There are babies born at 23 weeks who survive. There has to be a limit to how late we can allow this and right now that limit is too high.
I worked a case once at DFCS with a 16 yr old girl who disclosed when she ws 26 weeks pregnant that her father was the baby’s dad. They aborted that child. Meanwhile I was working a case with a drug addict who gave birth at 25 weeks and the baby was kept alive (and ultimately thrived) I had the hardest time thinking of that aborted baby. I knew he was the at the same size and development as the other child. He could have lived. Why was it okay to kill him at an age when he could have survived outside the womb? Yes, I understood that it was traumatizing for that girl to carry the baby to term, but at what point was it NOT okay to kill the child?? If she had been 28 weeks, 32 weeks they said she would have had to carry him to term. Why not just move that date forward to a time when the baby could totally not survive. I can’t see how anybody educated and open minded with any sort of compassion can think it is okay to kill that child.
I’m all for legislation against late abortions. Most woman find out they are pregnant around 2-4 weeks. There is plenty of time to abort before the baby has even developed into a baby. In cases of a problem with the fetus, abnormalities are almost always discovered at 20 weeks, in time to abort under the new law. I know the pro-life people will jump all over me for those last two statements but I try to be rational and sensible.
Tom
March 1st, 2012
8:08 am
I think medical technolgy and advances make the 20-week parameter pretty reasonable now, but there still needs to be exceptions under specific circumstances as to be determined by the proper medical professionals and the mother. Hopefully, the Senate will pay attention to those actually educated in these matters and amend the bill accordingly.
It’s hard to argue for the repeal of legislation that injects government into both the doctor-patient relationship and the marketplace of private insurance while looking to legislate the same type of interference in regard to this specific medical procedure.
No Longer Republican
March 1st, 2012
8:11 am
Republicans love the fetus and hate the child. They will fight like crazy to stop abortion, but once the unwanted child is born to a mother who cannot support it, they will cut unemployment benefits, cut food stamps, deny healthcare, etc. @ Ed, if it is about the child, why not help the children in Georgia who live in such dire poverty 24/7? These holier than thou morons make me sick when they do this crap because they sit on their church pews and judge everybody else and never lend a hand to these people who desperately need help.
Attention women in Georgia…you are not important enough to your Georgia Legislator to have your life protected. Instead your legislator is concerned about appeasing the men who run GRTL and their faithful church members. Some of the most ruthless people on earth…
Rural Georgian
March 1st, 2012
8:12 am
I was at the Capitol yesterday and listened to the entire debate. What bothers me about the bill is that if a woman finds out, say in her 25th week, that the baby in her womb hasn’t formed a brain, then she’d have to carry that child to term… What about that is humane, for the woman of the child?
After reading the bill, it is also unclear to me whether a woman whose baby dies in her womb after the 20th week could procedurally have the fetus removed, or would be left to pass the fetus naturally.
God gives us life, and God gives us common sense. I think we’d all benefit if the more people used the later during the former. This bill should have been amended or failed.
Rural Georgian
March 1st, 2012
8:13 am
*for the woman OR the child?
honested
March 1st, 2012
8:14 am
homeschooler,
I don’t care what a fetus looks like at 20 weeks and it wouldn’t matter if I did.
This insane rush to confer citizenship to any growing 2 cell mass (and make no mistake, that is the goal of the kooks that authored this abomination) is un-Constitutional and forces an illogical religious belief on Citizens who may not agree.
It is time for Georgians to bring a halt to this sort of nonsense under the Gold Dome, at least until the PRESSING issues are dealt with in a manner that puts the interest of Citizens first.
We are awash in the result of putting the monied special interests first, as in this stupid bill.
John K
March 1st, 2012
8:14 am
Obviously an election year with the GOP ramping up the insanity. This year the boogeyman is a woman having a say over her body.
homeschooler
March 1st, 2012
8:36 am
@ No Longer Republican…WHAT.EVER…. There are way to many government handouts and no one is starving in my county, I can assure you. Working for DFCS I walk through the poverty you mention DAILY and can assure you, the idea of poverty in this country is way off base. The last woman who called me and said she had nothing to feed her children had a 5lb bag of rice and 8 cans of vegetables and was 3 days away from getting her food stamps. A friend had just fed her children pizza from Dominos and when I asked what exactly she needed she said “I don’t have any meat.” AND???? guess I’m a bad citizen because I didn’t run out and get her some ground beef. Sorry, we are already giving her 700.00 a month to feed her 6 children plus WIC and school lunch and breakfast. I figured they could eat rice and beans for dinner for 2 nights. Frankly I am tired of hearing that abortion laws interfere with women’s rights. Women are not stupid they can a) choose to use birth control b) use the morning after pill c) choose to abort before their child is 20 weeks. d) choose not to have kids at all. e) choose to have 20 kids and support them or choose to have 20 kids and let the government support them. Life is full of choices. Democrats just encourage people to make bad ones.
@ Rural Georgian.. I agree. I think cases of severe fetal abnormalities should be considered a whole different issure. And I do stress severe. I’ve seen way to many Downs Syndrone children who have been loved and brought so much love to the world to consider that they should be aborted.
Tom
March 1st, 2012
8:40 am
BuT biRTh cONTroL is “a lICenSe tO Do THinGs iN tHe sEXUal rEalM ThaT
iS coUNtEr to How tHiNGS aRe SuPPosEd tO bE”.
honested
March 1st, 2012
8:41 am
homeschooler (why anyone would think that is a good idea is beyond me),
So you agree.
This is a stupid bill that seeks to create a problem rather than address an existing problem.
The simple fact that late term abortion only really relates to:
Severe physical abnormalities.
Result of hidden illegal acts.
Fetal death.
Severe physical problems affecting the incubator.
Oh and thanks for the standard wrong wing talking points demeaning the impoverished, they should make you a stand-in for one of the various talk radio liars.
homeschooler
March 1st, 2012
8:44 am
@honested. I know that is the ultimate goal. I just don’t think they will ever succeed. I just think that people are more educated and more people are aware of the development of a fetus so more and more people (such as myself who has alway been pro-choice) are thinking that the 26 week cut off for abortions is just too late. Would you be okay with a woman aborting at 30 weeks if that what she wanted because it is her body? Sorry, at some point we HAVE to consider the child as a citizen also.
Dumb and Dumber
March 1st, 2012
8:50 am
Not only is the child a citizen, let’s not forget the rapist, child molestor and men who rape their own kids. They have paternal rights too that deserve protecting!
homeschooler
March 1st, 2012
8:54 am
Dumb and Dumber…I’m missing your point.
honested
March 1st, 2012
8:54 am
homeschooler,
If you understand that elimination of all reproductive control is the goal of these anti-Citizen kooks, then why tolerate ANY movement toward that goal?
While the reality of late term abortion might be disconcerting to some, that reality includes the fact that such procedures are already RARE and occur due to very specific and necessary circumstances.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to make efforts that reduce the number of circumstances that lead to the need for late term abortions? Doing so would be a much more efficient use of resources and would gain support of a broader public consensus, but it would not pander to the nutcases that make up GRTL.
In the meantime, I think it is best to stick to the Constitution and “MAKE NO LAW” that forces one’s religious beliefs on another.
Carole
March 1st, 2012
8:56 am
The Georgia Right To Life is much like Grover Norquist who made Republicans sign a pledge not to ever raise taxes. They are bullies. They are like the mafia. As much as I don’t like Karen Handel, they tried this same crap with her. Unfortunately the Repubs allowed them to get too powerful and now they are out of control.
No Longer Republican
March 1st, 2012
8:58 am
homeschooler…think you have all the answers don;t you. Good grief get off your high horse and get a clue. I know the extremely poor get food stamps, wic, etc. But just how many people are out there with children that work and work hard in low paying no benefits jobs. Many times they make too much for government assistance but not enough to have a decent standard of living. Many days they have to choose to eat or to pay to fill their car with gas to get work.Lately it has been also saving money for the light bill so the power doesn’t get cut off, instead of going to the grocery sotre. Adding another child to that situation would be disastrous financially. But I guess you have all the answers. I know this situation because it has happened in my family and with others that I know.
Some people in this world are lazy and could do much better for themselves. Some people simply do not have the ability or the resources to do better. But then again homeschooler knows all and has all the answers.
Sam I Am
March 1st, 2012
9:00 am
What the hell is this state coming to? If this is all those stupid bas####s have to talk about then we don’t need to waste the money for them to meet every year.Further more,these wacko ultra right wing bible thumpers are going to do for the democrats what they haven’t been able to do for themselves;put them back in office.who the hell do they think that they are representing ?
homeschooler
March 1st, 2012
9:01 am
I don’t understand why your are considering this a religious belief. I’m not religious at all. I just think a baby is a human being. You might be right about the majority of late term abortions but I have seen a lot of women who know they are pregnant put off the decision for way to long. I don’t think anyone should be able to abort a healthy 20 week or older fetus. Even in cases of rape or incest. I’m sorry and feel terrible for the victims but they obviously knew they were pregnant and could have aborted earlier. Maybe the bill should have been ammended. It has just bothered me for years that abortions are allowed so late when the baby is healthy.
Carole
March 1st, 2012
9:02 am
homeschooler
I am tired of hearing that abortion laws interfere with women’s rights. Women are not stupid they can a) choose to use birth control b) use the morning after pill c) choose to abort before their child is 20 weeks. d) choose not to have kids at all. e) choose to have 20 kids and support them or choose to have 20 kids and let the government support them. Life is full of choices. Democrats just encourage people to make bad ones.
++++++++
First GET ANOTHER JOB. I know there are people who use the system. I work in a situation where I hear some of this crap as well. But most people need help.
Are birth control pills free now? And since you mention Democrats I’m guessing your a Republican or Independent. If your’e a Repub, one of your guys is screaming about birth control pills being a sin. Abort before 20 weeks old–I’m guessing 1. They don’t have the money 2. They may not know they are pregnant before then 3. They were hoping to keep the baby and up until that point realized it just couldn’t happen.
Democrats encourage people to make bad choices. Hmm, I find the Bible just chock full of people who made bad choices. But a compassionate and loving God used them anyway.
David
March 1st, 2012
9:06 am
This is an issue between the woman, her family and her doctor. I wouldn’t want anyone else, including my legislatures telling me what type of medical decisions my family should make. The men in the legislatures are not doctors. They are just trying to get themselves re-elected. The current law at 26 weeks was just fine. Now they want 20 weeks, next thing you know, it will be 15 weeks.
The members of legislatures need to stop butting into everyone else’s business and worry about their own family.
Tom
March 1st, 2012
9:14 am
Correct, David…this is the point to which I keep referring.
If we truly want government to have as little influence over healthcare as possible (repealing Obamacare, etc…), we need to show consistency in that regard.
clyde
March 1st, 2012
9:15 am
I think I’d rather have the people involved,rather than a legislator,decide for themselves what they want to do about an abortion.
Heather
March 1st, 2012
9:26 am
A fetus cannot survive outside the womb at 20 weeks. I don’t care what it looks like. The fetus is not viable. The age of viability is not until 24 weeks (or 23 in rare circumstances), and even then the chances of survival are very, very low. The chances that a baby born that premature will not have some sorts of medical issues during their infancy and childhood is almost unheard of. Admittedly, I’ve become more pro-life after the birth of my daughter, and I could see just how amazing it can be to create and carry a life. But, I also realize that you cannot force a woman to carry a child if she doesn’t want to. Before abortions were legal, women were strapped to hospitals beds against their will so they wouldn’t try to abort on their own, and they were forced to carry the child to term. Many women who were successful in performing their own abortions ended up with infections, sterility or, worse, dead. No matter what, a woman who adamantly does not want to carry a child will find a way not to carry the child. I think it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure that she can safely do this.
murph
March 1st, 2012
9:36 am
Homeschooler-
What everyone is trying to tell you is to mind your own business. Mind your own body. Choose what you believe to be right but don’t assume that you (or the GA legislature) have the moral authority to dictate to others what choices to make. Get government out of our personal lives. Why is that so hard to understand? You guys are pro-life right up until the baby is born, then you disappear, and switch you mantra to, “How dare you take MY tax dollars to support these welfare babies!” the you go on to have feinting spells about personal responsibility. Shame on you!!!!
Shar
March 1st, 2012
9:37 am
I had a molar pregnancy. My husband and I wanted very much to have the baby, and we were very sad when I miscarried at about 20 weeks. However, I was lucky. A molar pregnancy is one in which the baby is fine but the attachment of the placenta to the uterus does not stop but continues and becomes a cancer. Because the woman’s body is creating so much human growth hormone to support the baby, the cancer is accelerated but masked until delivery, when a healthy baby can be born to a severely debilitated mother, who frequently dies soon thereafter.
I don’t know if the molar aspect of that pregnancy was the cause of the miscarriage, and neither did the doctor at the ER. However, I do know that if I had carried that child to term I could very well be dead. Ultrasounds (which Santorum also wants to delete from insurance coverage as “they almost always lead to abortion” – what?) can discover this condition, but most other standard pregnancy monitoring will not.
Had I found out at a 24 week ultrasound that the placenta that supported that child was killing me, my husband and I would have talked long and hard to the doctor about options and then have had to make a very private, difficult decision about continuing the pregnancy. It is no business of GRTL, some idiot legislator from Athens or anyone else what we would have chosen.
td
March 1st, 2012
10:19 am
honested
March 1st, 2012
8:54 am
homeschooler,
If you understand that elimination of all reproductive control is the goal of these anti-Citizen kooks, then why tolerate ANY movement toward that goal?
That is a bold face lie. I am as conservative as they come and I have not even considered doing away with birth control. I know a great deal of Christians and have never heard one of them talk about doing away with BC. Your argument is the one NOW, planned parenthood and the other loony left wants to come out with to protect abortion until birth.
td
March 1st, 2012
10:31 am
murph
March 1st, 2012
9:36 am
Homeschooler-
What everyone is trying to tell you is to mind your own business.
I agree with Homeshooler. What we are trying to tell you is that you are in the clear minority on this issue and we really do not care what you say because we the moral conviction on our side and the political power right now. You had 130 to murder the unborn and now it is time to protect them in this state.
Your heroes in NOW, planned parenthood and the ACLU will not challenge this new law because they are afraid that the tide has tuned and the SCOTUS is ready to either really restrict murder of the unborn or to totally outlaw the practice.
honested
March 1st, 2012
10:42 am
td,
So you would not extend your simple minded zealotry to birth control.
Good for you.
Unfortunately the so called ‘leaders’ of the political fringe to which you espouse yourself have stated otherwise, even to the point of allowing pharmacists to sidestep their duty and refuse to fill prescriptions.
The law is clear, if you do not want to have an abortion, you should not have one.
Now erosion of the current law should be tolerated for any reason.
honested
March 1st, 2012
10:44 am
td,
Your response to ‘murph’ explains why the wrong wing should never be allowed to erode the RIGHTS of others.
Becky
March 1st, 2012
10:46 am
We are women, we remember, and we vote.
td
March 1st, 2012
10:57 am
honested
March 1st, 2012
10:42 am
And the “political fringe” leadership in your party wants to give animals rights and some want to overthrow this government. Both fringes are nuts.
murph
March 1st, 2012
11:19 am
td says, “we really do not care what you say because we the moral conviction on our side and the political power right now. You had 130 to murder the unborn and now it is time to protect them in this state.”
So you lay claim to the supreme moral conviction? Really? Wow. Just…wow. Your arrogance showcases why the republicans can always be counted on to implode on themselves. You can’t lay claim to God.
So I’m assuming you and the GA legislature also claim to possess the medical expertise to interject yourselves into our private lives. As we’ve seen from many of these posts, there are so many different medical situations that can occur that can affect the decisions that need to be made. These decisions “morally” belong to the doctor and the patient, not the government, and certainly not YOU. This type of legislation is always conceived in an emotional haste without regard to the different situations that can occur.
Shar
March 1st, 2012
11:26 am
@td: Here are the crucial questions that drive my support for pro-choice freedoms:
- Why should your religious and moral beliefs trump my own?
- I absolutely disagree with Edward Ruffin’s post above, that “it isn’t about a woman’s body, it is about a defenseless child.” No – it is about the considered reasoning and personal beliefs of an actual adult over the supposed rights of a potential person. Why do you not trust and respect your fellow citizens to do what they believe is best?
- Why do you believe that you are better able and morally entitled to make the decision that my husband and I were facing, and to force us to accede to your decision?
- Are you willing to return to the time when safe abortions were not available and women frequently died trying to avoid carrying children they did not want? Is this truly better than having healthy women making choices about their own lives?
- Are you personally willing to guarantee support and nurture for every child born to a woman who is forced against her will to carry it?
- Are you willing to provide the level of prenatal care for unwilling mothers that will lift the US maternal mortality rate from 50th in the world – behind most other developed countries as well as many in the Middle East, Albania and Poland – to a level that will assure her safety in carrying and delivering the unwanted child?
These are serious, life-altering questions that I believe those opposing abortion sidestep but which any woman, whether pregnant, potentially pregnant or with fertile daughters, sisters and/or friends, cannot.
I believe you are sincere and well-meaning in your conviction that any conceived life be brought into the world. However, these issues are real, crucial and, thus far, their consequences have been avoided or disparaged by those holding your views. Can you rationally explain your position in light of these considerations?
Tom
March 1st, 2012
11:34 am
What happens when a woman’s physician tells her that the fetus she is carrying has a condition that will almost certainly lead to its death…either in-utero or during/after delivery…..unless a surgery or other medical intervention is performed?
Should the state have the power to mandate that procedure?
James S Pendergraft M.D.
March 1st, 2012
11:39 am
I am a Physician that trained in Ob/Gyn, did a fellowship in high risk pregnancies and specializes in performing late term abortions. I have been performing these procedures for over 25 years. The fetal pain bill is an absolute hoax. It is time for Physicians and other medical personnel in the medical business to raise up in arms and stop legislatures, governors, and other political leaders who have the agenda of ending all abortions. They want to start at late term abortions because they think that the procedure is an easy target for Americans to support outlawing this much needed procedure. The indication for late term abortion is the threat to the woman’s life or health or a fetal genetic defect or a significant fetal anomaly. Those against saving having an abortion even to save the mother’s life, rape or incest is because of the possibility that the fetus is able to feel pain at 20 weeks. Yet they speak of anesthetics and analgesics (medications that put patients to sleep, or stop pain discomfort) are given when a fetus undergoes fetal surgery after 20 weeks in the uterus for conditions to try to save the life of the pregnancy. Yet you would think that these same medications can’t be given before starting an abortion procedure which would make the fetal pain argument non-existent. In essence, there are medications that can be given by several different techniques to assure that the theoretical possibility of fetal pain becomes mute. So let me give an example of what I am talking about. It is known that giving analgesic and anesthetic medications directly to the mother will also make the fetus go to sleep and alleviate the theoretical possibility of fetal pain. These medications can also be given in the amniotic fluid (fluid that surrounds the fetus in the uterus), or given intramuscularly in the fetal buttocks or the thigh. These areas are commonly used to give injections to newborns and infants with no immediate or long term complications. Let’s end this thought of fetal pain by giving medications that we know that will make this issue mute, though I do not believe that fetal pain is an issue. We will be able to re-focus the argument on what late term abortions are all about. That is the decision to have a late term abortion should be between the pregnant woman and her physician as long as the patient meets the appropriate indications and guidelines. Late Term Abortion specialist are rare, and with legislatures and government officials attempting to pass laws who’s only purpose is to outlaw a procedure that saves a woman’s life is immoral, unjust, unlawful, unconstitutional, and will not be tolerated in the United States of America.
Shar
March 1st, 2012
11:47 am
Dr. Pendergraft, thank you for your difficult specialty and your compassion and support for women in such difficult and dangerous situations.
unbelievable
March 1st, 2012
11:50 am
Good for Sharon Cooper for at least being on the side of an exception for rape and incest. Anything else is inhumane to the WOMAN carrying the child, or have Republicans forgotten that she even exists??
I’d like to see a bunch of men debating on the impacts of carrying a child that is the product of rape or incest. I’d love to hear how that affects them, you know, personally.
unbelievable
March 1st, 2012
11:52 am
And Dan Becker is a troll. He called Karen Handel “barren” after she revealed her and her husband’s struggle with IVF. I guess in Dan’s world a woman isn’t worth much unless she can incubate…
When did we go back in time to the 13th century??
Tom
March 1st, 2012
12:23 pm
Referring to Dan Becker as a troll is an insult to trolls everywhere.
homeschooler
March 1st, 2012
2:48 pm
Dr. Pendergraft,
Thank you so much. I always appreciate the opportunity to hear from those who can provide facts. . As I said in my first post, my adversion to late term abortions primarily stems from one experience in which a healthy 26 week old fetus was aborted. For months I thought about that baby. How exactly did he die? How was he disposed of? I really didn’t know. All I know is that, despite him being a product of incest, the OB said he seemed perfectly fine and healthy. I just kept thinking that if this girl had said something about the incest one week later, she would have had to have carried the child to term. I knew of several families who would have adopted that child. To this day, 10 yrs later, I wish he had had a chance.
I too think the fetal pain argument is just an attempt to get these things passed. I know the ultimate goal but, as I stated before, I just don’t think this country would ever go back to abortion being completly illegal. I do now, from reading your post and thinking through the issue that severe medical conditions of the fetus or mother should have been left completely out of the bill. As I said, my focus was on healthy mothers and babies
I stand by my feelings about rape and incest. It’s a terrible thing but, I’m sorry, is killing a baby and tossing it aside any worse?
and, hey murph..I already said I was pro-choice. And most welfare mothers I know have their babies. The ones aborting them are the middle class who had access to and knowledge of birth control and failed to use it. It IS about personal responsibility.
Shar
March 1st, 2012
3:23 pm
@td, Edward Ruffin, Dan Becker and others: I asked legitimate questions in my post. You must have considered these issues as you formulated your own opinions. They are inescapable for every woman you know. Will you not take a few moments and present your thoughts on why restricting women’s access to reproductive health care is sound public (not religious) policy?
Becky, above, is absolutely right. Women cannot help but feel threatened by these male-led efforts to make our intimate decisions for us, and to interfere with the ability of our doctors to give us their best knowledge and recommendations. We respect each other enough to support each other’s choices, regardless of whether we agree with them, and to protect those choices. We do, indeed, vote, something which the Dan Beckers of this world seem determined to undermine and nullify through brutish personal threats.
Can’t you articulate your reasons for ignoring my concerns and doing your best to forcibly remove my options?
murph
March 1st, 2012
5:05 pm
My apologies, Homeschooler, for the tone of my post. My frustration is with your argument, not you.
You stated, “The ones aborting them are the middle class who had access to and knowledge of birth control and failed to use it” – In some cases, yes, and if that was 100% of all abortion cases then the argument for personal responsibility would hold more water, and this legislation might make more sense. BUT we are humans and we come with all kinds of chemistries, medical issues, genes, family histories, etc. Shar has given us but one of the many variations of situations and problems that can occur during a pregnancy. This legislation and others like it ignore our humanness and differences, and propose sweeping one-size-fits-all regulations that restrict our medical options, and infringe on our own personal rights of liberty.
Charles A. Jones Jr. (Athens)
March 1st, 2012
5:09 pm
I too was at the House watching the debate. I live and vote in Athens and I am extremely proud of my representative, The Honourable Doug McKillip, for bringing this issue forward.
In Shar’s list of argumentative questions there is only one that really needs answering, and even then it was not so much a question as a comment. Shar said: “I absolutely disagree with Edward Ruffin’s post above, that “it isn’t about a woman’s body, it is about a defenseless child.” No – it is about the considered reasoning and personal beliefs of an actual adult over the supposed rights of a potential person.”
Wrong. A spermatozoon or an ovum is a “potential person” – but at the instant that they join together, that is a new person. From a scientific standpoint, the new person is formed through the formulation of a completely new DNA at that moment. I think one of the Representatives also mentioned that the baby also has his own blood type which may be different from the mother’s. So this whole “potential person” business is nonsense and should be dismissed accordingly.
GET REAL
March 1st, 2012
5:09 pm
td, do you know who needs to settle these issues regarding reproductive policy? Every woman voter out there who can’t quite understand why a bunch of conservative, so-called Christians ought to dictate what happens to their bodies. That’s who needs to resolve this issue. The women in my house would never consider aborting a fetus, unless it was the result of a rape. And I don’t think you, me, the GRTL, Nathan Deal, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Our Founding Fathers, or Sean Vanity have any buisness taking that decision away from them. Just who in the Hell do these people think they are? It’s ironic isn’t it that conservatives who constantly prattle on and on about government staying out of their lives are the very first ones to try and dictate what a woman should do with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy or, now, should not complain at all about having an ultrasound probe inserted in her body, even if she or her doctor have not asked for it. Just how much more invasive and dictatorial should these folks be allowed to get?
Women voters- wake up and vote these nutjobs out of office for telling YOU what your “reproductive duties” will be to them and society. VOTE THEM OUT !!!!
Shar
March 1st, 2012
6:17 pm
@Charles Jones of Athens: Those questions I posed are ones that every woman wrestles with in her own way. To say that only one is valid, and that you have decided that you are in a position to decide it, is beyond arrogant and veering into delusional.
Although estimates are very rough, it seems that somewhere between one third and one half – and quite possibly more – of all initial human fertilized eggs spontaneously abort. They were not people, they were potential people.
And where in the Constitution does it say that a woman must subjugate herself to a fertilized egg?
I repeat, why do you feel empowered to insert yourself between a woman, her doctor, her spouse/partner and her conscience? How much are you willing to increase your taxes for the care of the prenatal woman and for a decent upbringing for her unwanted child? Why would you want to make women who are unwilling to carry a pregnancy to term endanger themselves with unsafe alternatives to medical abortions? Why do you believe that your morals and beliefs give you hegemony over the other 52% of humanity? These are important public policy questions that you can’t just wave away as unworthy of your consideration. They’re difficult, as is anything associated with the abortion question, but they are very legitimate. And they do, indeed, “need answering”.
Charles A. Jones Jr. (Athens)
March 1st, 2012
7:09 pm
The first thing I am concerned about is the idea that women are all pro-abortion. Quite to the contrary – when I was co-President of the UGA Pro Life, the great majority of members were women, and all of the other officers were women. And I believe that Representative Taylor and Chairman Sheldon spoke very well on the floor yesterday in support of the bill. We have wrongly allowed “woman” to become synonymous with “abortion” in the public discussion, and I do not think that shows the proper amount of respect to womanhood or motherhood.
Not that it really matters, because abortion is a men’s issue too as I advised the House Committee.
Law is about imposing society’s morality. Not everyone will agree with the law – in fact if everyone agreed, it wouldn’t be necessary to have a law. But we have laws to protect people – including people in the womb. We protect them from people who want to kill them.
This particular bill only protected twenty-two-week-old people, not younger people. But I still do not see any scientific support for saying that once the new DNA sequence is formed, that is not a new individual human being. Even if some of them do “spontaneously abort” does not appear to change that fact; just because someone died does not mean that he was never alive in the first place.
lefty_316
March 2nd, 2012
1:31 am
A person becomes a person when the fetus is viable outside the womb. This garbage, this nonsense about life beginning at the moment of conception, is nothing but religious right rubbish. In fact the entire agenda of the religious right is unsubstantiated bile. Make all abortions illegal? Fine then PROVE life begins at the moment of conception. Outlaw gay marriage? Fine, find a valid reason; “because the Bible says it’s a sin” is NOT a valid reason. Intelligent design? Please spare me.
And quit trying to rewrite history. The most influential of our founding fathers, the intellect behind the founding of this great nation – Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton – these great minds were products of the Enlightenment. They placed value on logic and reason over religion.
Morning Reads for Thursday, March 1
March 2nd, 2012
1:35 am
[...] anti-abortion debate is alive and well with House Bill 954. A commenter on Political Insider summed up my thoughts on this. “I wish [...]