Abortion foes feel tide is turning (Atlanta Urinal-Constipation)

[bunkerbuster1]

Help on the way, GOP legislators tell Capitol crowd

Republican House Speaker Glenn Richardson told a cheering crowd — estimated by Capitol Police at more than 2,000 — that abortion legislation bottled up for years by Democrats would finally get a hearing in the General Assembly.

Here are the bills Georgia Right to Life plans to seek passage of during this session of the Legislature:

The Woman's Right to Know Act, which would require a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could have an abortion. A doctor would be required to inform her of the medical risks of the procedure and the probable age of the fetus, and she would be offered written information on fetal development, fetal pain and agencies that offer alternatives to abortion.

The Parental Notification for Minors Seeking Abortion Act would require a parent or guardian to be notified before an underage girl could have an abortion. Currently, another adult can sign a statement that he or she has been notified.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make it a crime to injure a fetus at any time during a pregnancy in cases where the mother is the victim of a crime. The state now recognizes murder of a fetus only after "quickening," about the 20th week of pregnancy.

more at http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/legis05/0105/22legabortion.html

+ + +

Last time I posted about this issue, I asked for some alternative titles for the The Woman's Right to Know Act, my favorite of which was the "Non-penised second-class citizen subjegation act."

Here are my suggestions for the other two:

the Incest is Best! act (since there will be no provision for minor-age victims of incest, of course) and

the Fertilized Eggs is BAYBEEZ! act (since, by this reconing, the clock starts ticking for any "violence" committed to ANY "fetus."

[cali]

1. The language you propose

isn't terribly helpful. What we need to do is get accurate information out there- not to the hardcore anti-abortion crowd, but to the uninformed mushy middle.

Is the zeitgueist regarding abortion changing? Hard to know for sure, but my guess is a qualified yes. It seems that more people are willing to countenance restrictions on legal abortion. I suspect that we'll see a flurry of legislation severely restricting abortion coming out of several red states this year. Then we'll see the appeals. Nothing particularly new about this, I just think we'll see more of it.

[bunkerbuster1]

3. Agreed. my language is for our dining and dancing pleasure.

As to the other issue you raised: I have a hard time believing the "tide is turning" so much as we have a judiciary friendlier to such restrictions, and so there will be legislative action that pushes the envelope of Roe v. Wade. (And btw, we should be prepared to see that overturned, and fight this legislatively--because that's a fight we can, and must, win.)

I continue to believe that if we frame it as a pro-criminalization vs. anti-criminalization battle, rather than "does this thingie the size of a lima bean have a soul?" we've got something that preserves reproductive rights across the fruited plain.

I'll say it again--we're not pro-choice (wussy language!), we are ANTI-CRIMINALIZATION. All of the measures being proposed have provisions for making criminals out of women and their health providers and beyond.

[DemBones DemBones]

60. It certainly isn't. Mocking the name of the newspaper is sophomoric, and

would give any new reader the immediate impression that we're all a lot of immature brats at DU.

The AJC is NOT a conservative paper, they run both liberal & conservative columnists since the Journal & Constitution merged, and manage to make everyone mad! Still, their overall bias is to the left. It's not my favorite American newspaper but since it's the biggest paper in the state, I read it fairly often. I've been reading the AJC since 1972 and they've always supported legalized abortion editorially.

EDIT (Note: I moved my ideas about working together with pro-lifers to a separate post at the end of the thread.)

[drdon326]

2. I fear we will see the end of a womans right to chose....

in the next 4 years.

Say hello to coat-hangers and back-alley butchers.....amazing how people forget.

[bunkerbuster1]

4. No. Defeatist attitudes won't help us.

If Roe is overturned (and it probably will be) we have to fight this with the same fervor these pro-criminalization people use. It's hard to get MOST people fired up because it doesn't affect them... yet. but it will. So no, we will NOT see the end of a woman's right to choose.

In the meantime--it's the CRIMINALIZATION, stupid. Pound 'em on that.

[AndyTiedye]

22. The Scalia Court Will Ban Abortion By Judicial Fiat

They won't be satisfied with merely overturning Roe v. Wade.
They want a total ban. If they get their people onto the Supreme Court, they can have it all.

They'll just make a finding that a fetus = a person. That will
ban abortion in all 50 states, all at once, and there will be
nothing anyone can do about it without a Constitutional amendment
which the Bible Belt can block forever.

That is what we will be facing. A nationwide ban on abortion,
with no exceptions for medical necessity, let alone rape or incest.
They'll call the Pill a form of abortion and ban that too.

I hope I'm wrong, but once they get the Court, there's nothing
to stop them.

[annabanana]

5. the Great Delusion is that outlawing abortion will stop abortion..........

This is the basic piece of the puzzle that the uninformed are not getting. It will just bring back the old phrase about a "girl in 'trouble'"....

America has lost it's memory and part of our job is to REMIND PEOPLE why abortion was legalized in the first place.

[flygal]

9. Exactly - especially in this day and age

where women are putting so much into education and careers. I don't think too many of them - even repugs, will go the route of adoption or becoming a mother at a young age.

I also see a trend towards making contraception harder to get. And let me tell you - I don't know too many repug friends who don't use birth control of some sort. This whole thing is just going to be a mess.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Funny, isn't it, how the rightwingnuts say we progressives are forcing our

beliefs down THEIR throats.

WE aren't trying to FORCE ANYONE to have an abortion.

WE aren't trying to FORCE ANYONE to marry same-sex.

WE aren't trying to FORCE ANYONE to ANYTHING.

But the rightwingnuttery ARE trying to FORCE EVERYONE to do & not do only what the rightwingnuttery want everyone to do or not do.

I wonder if they truly believe God won't see through their utter hypocrisy...

[Kber]

61. Do they really believe in God?

I don't trust people who 1)say they believe in God, but 2) think that they are smarter than said deity they can get one over on the "big guy in the sky" on some human constructed technicality.

I honestly don't think it works that way.

[LynnTheDem]

73. Well said!!!

EXACTLY what they do! They go on these convoluted justification cruises, thinking they'll "outsmart God" with it.

I don't THINK so either!...if God is as easy to dupe as the average rightwingnut, then S/he isn't a God.

Thanks for your post! :)

[CottonBear]

7. I am a woman resident of Ga and I'm scared.

I used to live in a progressive southern state and now we are ruled by the GA taliban. I've had an abortion. I don't regret it. I had to go to Atlanta. It was a long drive. I can't imagine waiting 24 hours. The expense would be great for the poor. I want to tell all of these WHITE MEN to shut the fuck up. if they want to stop abortions then keep it in their pants or use a condom. How about automatic jail sentances for men who walk out on their pregnant partners. How about jail for deadbeat dads.

edit: sp. and... how about a 24 hr wait for emergency heart surgery for all white repub men? What would they think of that. I know it's extreme but so is what they are proposing to do to ME.

[bunkerbuster1]

13. Thanks for your story, but please...

This isn't, never was, a "progressive" state we live in. It was always, essentially, run by good ol' boy fascists. It's just that in more recent decades the Dems managed a facade of racial harmony and a veneer of progressive ideology.

I do fear that the remaining, older white GA dems who couldn't stomach the name-change but are really DINOs will go soft on this issue of reproductive criminalization. We really do need to attend our local meetings and hammer home the necessity of standing firm, here, and tell those go-along-to-get-along folks where they can get off.

[Lerkfish]

8. as a coworker pointed out to me: they'll never REALLY change the abortion

laws...because to do so would be political suicide for the republicans.
Its their bread and butter issue, along with gay marriage. If they ever ACTUALLY addressed them like the RW christians want, they'd lose the unction of that voter block to come to the polls and they'd start losing elections.
Keep in mind, these are one or two issue voters ONLY. And republicans realize that...so, they'll continue to dangle that carrot, letting them almost taste it, without giving it to them, in order to drive up voter turnout.

Its an interesting analysis, and one that bears considering.

[flygal]

11. so embarassed - I didn't read your post

didn't mean to rip off your "bread and butter" phrase :)

[Lerkfish]

49. hey, no problem! LOL :)

[bunkerbuster1]

14. Same deal with gay marriage in GA, actually.

I spoke with a newly-elected GA state rep recently who told me he believed that the reThugs were hoping/praying the courts would strike down the God Hates Fags amendment as being unconstitutional. That way the reThugs could run on that amendment, slightly altered, once again in 2006.

so folks, it's not just crazy/paranoid DU radical pinko-types thinking this way.

Back to the original topic--I suspect at least one, and possibly all, of the bills being proposed by the GA pro-criminalization reThugs would face very serious legal challenges. Well, ain't that grand! All the more to campaign on.

[stanwyck]

15. I agree, plus

there's the little talked about issue that men don't really want abortion to be illegal. Sure, the fundie men do. The old-time "women are inferior vessels" men do. But not even the good ole boys really want abortion outlawed. Why? Cause of the money. They'll be on the hook as daddy if abortion isn't available. And that includes all those fat cat legislators who have more than a passing acqaintance with helping to pay for an abortion for their wife (Bob Barr) or their girlfriend (GWB). Like the Confederate flag in Georgia, it's a wink, wink, nudge, nudge issue. The silly Republican voters who truly believe are just so easy to bait and switch.

[Avalon Sparks]

24. I've thought of that too...

But the thing is, if they make it illegal - then they can always claim that "Democrats want to turn over those laws and legalize abortion" thus keeping the issue on the front burner for years.

[CTyankee]

37. This is an excellent point!

And I think there is some truth to it. Notice that W just said he wasn't going to push the contitutional amendment on gay marriage. Do you think the righties aren't aware of this bait and switch deal, though?

[Kber]

64. i agree

They pass laws that have no provision for the life of the mother, which WILL be overturned, so they can demonize people who oppose the law. They aren't serious about reducing or stopping abortions. There are things they could do that i'd support, like providing prenatal care to any poor or middle income woman who wants it, providing legal protections for working pregnant women, providing healthcare and other support for all children, subsudizing quality childcare, easing the path to adoptions.

That would reduce abortions considerably I bet. But that isn't really their agenda.

i guess my point is that except in the relatively rare case where a pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life or health, women don't have abortions because they don't want to be pregnant - it's the next 18 to 22 years after delivery that we are worried about. As a mother, it's clear that their real concern ends where mine begins - with the well being of my children.

[DemBones DemBones]

65. I disagree. People also vote loyally for those who

have given them something they wanted. If SCOTUS overturns Roe, Bush** will get credit for it and pro-lifers will continue voting for him.

However, I think pro-life support for Bush** can be eroded. I'll tell you how,

The GOP has given them mostly promises so far. I'll bet some of them are angry with the GOP already. I know there was anger that Bush ** allowed any embryonic stem cell research; they wanted a total ban. Right-to-life leaders spoke publicly about that anger.

I just read that Bush** will be addressing the huge upcoming right-to-life march on Washington, but not in person. As always, he will address the marchers -- all of whom presumably voted for him -- by telephone, as he always has. Reagan, Bush I, and Dubya -- when it came time to publicly support their loyal voters on this issue, they've all phoned it in, avoiding any photo-ops that might embarrass them in front of other voting blocs. In other words, for decades they've been dangling the carrot of ending abortion, as you said, without delivering on the promise. But perhaps the time is coming when their supporters will insist they finally make good on their promises.

If I had voted for those men and they couldn't show up once a year at the right-to-life rally, I'd sure start wondering how deep their support for unborn life really is. Wouldn't you? Not all the Bush** supporters can be so brainwashed as not to notice such behavior from their president.

I'm pro-life, though I don't want to re-criminalize abortion. Instead, I want it safe, legal, and rare, as Bill Clinton said it should be. That's the way a lot of Americans feel, perhaps even people marching in Washington against Roe v. Wade. Some insist on a complete ban. Others could live with legalized abortion if it were rarely performed. We could urge them to work together with us to make abortion rare, whiile keeping it safe and legal. The Democratic Party could do this.

Are we smart enough to do this? Politics is the art of the possible. It's not possible to convince them (or me) than unborn lives are worthless and deserve no protection. It is possible to convince us that abortion can be greatly reduced without banning it entirely. Both sides will have to compromise but it could be done.

[flygal]

10. " bottled up for years by Democrats" do you see where this is going

they won't take away their bread and butter - this keeps their fundi base on a leash. They'll just blame it all on the dems.

[bunkerbuster1]

12. In GA, the RW has just swapped names

I've said this many times in the past few weeks, but it bears repeating--the media is playing along with this whole "Sea change in GA" riff, as if to say huge changes are under way now that Republicans control GA.

It's SUCH bullshit. RW goons always ran GA; they were just slow to change their party affiliation.

It's not like GA allah sudden went RW. Anyways, this will probably be ground zero for very noisy, public, national displays of teeth gnashing over the criminalization issue. I've spoken with my local dems about it, and will continue to show them the replies my DU threads have generated.

[Yupster]

16. With partial birth abortion

pretty much gone as an issue, Parental Notification will be the push of the next decade.

Expect it to be a major campaign issue four years from now.

[iamjoy]

26. Please Don't Use That Term

"Partial Birth Abortion" - you are speaking the Conservative language. It is meant to conjure up a vivid and gruesome (but inaccurate) image to make more people oppose it, and lead to more people opposing reproductive rights.

[UL_Approved]

17. More radical wedge issue

This is like the scene of a schoolyard bully holding the first grader's backpack over a steep embankment, taunting the poor child. This is a bullying tactic to the core, and the bully needs to sit in the corner. :dunce:

[Dark]

18. What's so bad about these?

The Woman's Right to Know Act, which would require a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could have an abortion. A doctor would be required to inform her of the medical risks of the procedure and the probable age of the fetus, and she would be offered written information on fetal development, fetal pain and agencies that offer alternatives to abortion.

Please explain to me how it is a good idea to have a three day waiting period on guns so that if someone is angry and want a gun to kill in anger, they have a few days to 'cool down', but making a woman wait one day and be fully informed about the fetus before she terminates its life is some how bad.

The Parental Notification for Minors Seeking Abortion Act would require a parent or guardian to be notified before an underage girl could have an abortion. Currently, another adult can sign a statement that he or she has been notified.

I'm kind of divided on this one. I can understand a parent's desire to know his/her child is with child. And also, if they are underage, then do they have those rights to begin with? After all, it is one thing when a mature woman makes a choice over her own body, but a minor may not have the experience to make the choice for herself.

But, on the other hand, the parent may force their child to keep the baby completely against her will. And there are other rights, such as free speech, that are given to us at birth.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make it a crime to injure a fetus at any time during a pregnancy in cases where the mother is the victim of a crime. The state now recognizes murder of a fetus only after "quickening," about the 20th week of pregnancy.

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's the woman's body, and if the child inside her is a human, and it is, then she has the right to protect it as she would herself. And the law should protect them both.

The only problem I could see is if the woman was involved in a car accident and she was okay, but the fetus was killed. In that case, if this law was used to prosecute someone, I'd be against it.

[Mallifica]

19. These are just of few

of the things that I can see that are "wrong" with these proposed pieces.

"Woman's Right to Know Act" - otherwise known as the "Misinformation Act" - not only would this require a 24 hour waiting period (with no exception for victims of rape or incest) - it would also require the provider of said abortion to "inform" the woman how much pain the fetus could be experiencing (although no one really knows if this is true) - and advise her on other options . . . this legally opens the door - and in some cases will force abortion providers to proseltyze to patients.

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" - this is not an attempt to protect pregnant women (or their fetusus) from violence, but rather to define life a beginning at conception - which, of course, is detrimental to "anti-criminalization" activists. This passed last year on the federal level, and has already been deemed unconstitutional by several federal judges.

[Dark]

34. But still,

I think that women SHOULD be aware that there are other options. I understand that many pro-life groups would produce hateful and meretricious literature designed to confuse and coerce women.

But, I also believe that there are some good pro-life groups who want to counsel women, not coerce them. I believe that PP should partner with some of these groups and produce informative literature.

Women SHOULD be informed. Making a woman have an abortion by keeping her ignorant of her other options is just as evil as making her keep the baby through manipulative tactics and lying.

As for the unborn victims act, if it was already ruled unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional. And I don't feel that we need an amendment for that any more than we need an amendment for gay marriage. And if not, I would say that all a pro-choice person needs to say is, "The purpose of that law is to ensure that EVERY part of a woman is protected, even the fetus developing inside her.

[bunkerbuster1]

44. Ok, work with me. Which "good" pro-life groups should I be learning about?

the good ones that "want to counsel women, not coerce them." Any examples?

[dolo amber]

56. "I think that women SHOULD be aware that there are other options."

I can't imagine that women AREN'T aware there are other options...I mean, I know we're just daft sweet delicate things who should just let menfolks do the thinkin', but I'm pretty sure every woman alive has heard the term ADOPTION. I can't really see there being a need to wait 24 hours for that to occur to anyone.

This isn't about *options*, anyway. It's about coersion, intimidation, and emotional blackmail. Oh, and probably a little *JAYSUS!!* thrown in for flava.

:eyes:

[athenap]

20. The problem lies on the slope

<i>The Woman's Right to Know Act, which would require a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could have an abortion. A doctor would be required to inform her of the medical risks of the procedure and the probable age of the fetus, and she would be offered written information on fetal development, fetal pain and agencies that offer alternatives to abortion.

Please explain to me how it is a good idea to have a three day waiting period on guns so that if someone is angry and want a gun to kill in anger, they have a few days to 'cool down', but making a woman wait one day and be fully informed about the fetus before she terminates its life is some how bad.</i>

The problem with this isn't necessarily the waiting period--but that's sort of oblique anyway--when's the last time anyone made a doctor's appointment for "right away?" :P So there's already a potential waiting period inherent in the process. The part of the act that is a challenge is "she would be offered written information on fetal development, fetal pain and agencies that offer alternatives to abortion" part. What's to stop them from making that written information be crackpot science and screaming rhetoric (which is already plentiful and foisted on women in reproductive issues)?

That, and the fact that buying a gun is not a medical procedure. Medical procedures take time, take people away from their responsibilities. The waiting period, for someone who has to travel a long distance to a clinic, clearly favors those who can afford to take an extra day, maybe spend an extra night in a hotel. Plus, to be honest, I think you'd find a very small percentage of women who would have made this decision lightly or randomly, and who haven't already thought heavily about it.

<i>The Parental Notification for Minors Seeking Abortion Act would require a parent or guardian to be notified before an underage girl could have an abortion. Currently, another adult can sign a statement that he or she has been notified.

I'm kind of divided on this one. I can understand a parent's desire to know his/her child is with child. And also, if they are underage, then do they have those rights to begin with? After all, it is one thing when a mature woman makes a choice over her own body, but a minor may not have the experience to make the choice for herself.</i>

Even as a parent, I am very much against this one. It creates an incredible problem with incest cases--who'd want to make a girl ask permission from the parent that molested her to abort the fetus he caused? And how many young women live in homes where they cannot confide in a parent and expect anything but a violent response? Another adult is fine as it is.

<i>The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make it a crime to injure a fetus at any time during a pregnancy in cases where the mother is the victim of a crime. The state now recognizes murder of a fetus only after "quickening," about the 20th week of pregnancy.

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's the woman's body, and if the child inside her is a human, and it is, then she has the right to protect it as she would herself. And the law should protect them both.

The only problem I could see is if the woman was involved in a car accident and she was okay, but the fetus was killed. In that case, if this law was used to prosecute someone, I'd be against it.</i>

Right...and that's the slippery slope. By granting rights to the fetus in utero, it starts with heavier prosecution on things like murder and assault, then moves on to turning car accidents, drug-use, and then smoking and drinking while pregnant into crimes rather than just Really Bad Ideas. And granting rights to fetuses (feti?) in utero opens the door to the government to force or restrict a woman into having medical care or medical procedures done to her for reasons of "protecting the fetus." So having a homebirth or attempting a vaginal birth after a C-section can more easily become "endangering a fetus."

[Dark]

35. Interesting points. However,

The problem with this isn't necessarily the waiting period--but that's sort of oblique anyway--when's the last time anyone made a doctor's appointment for "right away?" So there's already a potential waiting period inherent in the process. The part of the act that is a challenge is "she would be offered written information on fetal development, fetal pain and agencies that offer alternatives to abortion" part. What's to stop them from making that written information be crackpot science and screaming rhetoric (which is already plentiful and foisted on women in reproductive issues)?

That, and the fact that buying a gun is not a medical procedure. Medical procedures take time, take people away from their responsibilities. The waiting period, for someone who has to travel a long distance to a clinic, clearly favors those who can afford to take an extra day, maybe spend an extra night in a hotel. Plus, to be honest, I think you'd find a very small percentage of women who would have made this decision lightly or randomly, and who haven't already thought heavily about it.

What's to prevent our side from using crackpot science? I've seen it done in regards to abortion, trying to say that abortion is a completely safe and harmless process compared to pregnancy. It's not. It is better that they are having them in controlled, sanitary evironments with doctors performing them. But that doesn't make it healthier.

I would say the government, but with the trash they put out about drugs, it's obvious they aren't up to the job. But PP SHOULD be informing women of their options.

And the reason I compare buying a gun to abortion is that THERE ARE women who do it because they are scared, and don't know what to do. They are afraid of everyone finding out, that they can't support the kid, and thus have the abortion out of fear, not knowledge.

And a day or two to think it over AFTER being to the clinic, and being given informative literature from PP regarding alternatives to abortion could help them save some lives. It may not be the majority, but they certainly do exist. And fear does not subside in the days before the appointment, while the woman wallows in fear and ignorance.

But once she is informed, has talked to an expert who can show her alternatives, then she can make an informed choice. And I want a woman to be COMPLETELY informed and knowledgeable before taking such an extreme step.

As for the car accident, I would have to say that although I DO think it should be illegal to drink and smoke while pregnant (These are by far the biggest causes of mental retardation and low birth weight), I see that it is risky to allow the government to prosecute people for murder after a car crash.

[CTyankee]

39. First trimester abortion is safer than a pregnancy and birth for a woman

You are misinformed if you think otherwise. Pregnancy and birth carries more risk for women than a simple first trimester abortion. This is a well known fact. You might want to go to the website of the Alan Guttmacher Institute (agi.org I believe). AGI is the renowned source of accurate information on reproductive health. Their statistics are the "gold standard" for health departments all across this country, and abroad since they do research about reproductive issues globally. PLEASE inform yourself with a little more information!

[CTyankee]

40. You are woefully misinformed

if you think that Planned Parenthood centers don't give women seeking abortions all of their options. It is simply not true. Just for the hell of it, why not go to www.ppfa.org and see what the organization has to say about the issue, and all of the other issues you have problems with, for that matter. Please check these things out before posting statements that are false. It gives aid and comfort to the other side to have falsehoods posted here, on a liberal site.

[Mallifica]

42. let me get this straight . . .

you think that it should be ILLEGAL to drink or smoke while pregnant?

while no one would advocate such activities, it is surely none of the government's business nor place to criminalize them. if that's your position, then why not make it illegal to eat McDonald's while pregnant, or ride in a car while pregnant, or neglect to take enough folic acid while pregnant?

and on the other side, why not punish fertile men? if you're fertile, and could thus contribute to a pregnancy, why not make it illegal to harm your sperm? maybe we should make all men wear a cup, prohibit them from sitting in hot tubs . . . charge them with "intent to harm possible fetus" when smoking pot or cigarettes?

if you're so concerned about women being informed of their options, why not go out and educate . . or better yet, make sure you don't get one of those "ignorant" women pregnant.

talk about a slippery slope . . .

[antigone382]

50. I smoked with one pregnancy and had a ten lb 3oz kid

On edit: didn't realize the eight pound nine ounce kid ( smoked a small bit with her) was logged on. This was REALLY written by Buddy Holly's Ghost. Antigone- who escaped from Georgia as well - has no children that I know of! ( Sorry antigone. I'll log you off now!)




Not proud of that, but the kid has tested and been accepted to the Gifted Child program, has excellent conduct, just graduated to a boy scout, all that jazz. What's the crime? Should I be incarcerated?

I know a gal who was impregnated by her father, mother dead. Should they have notified her dad? I mean, come on White Male Plantationeers. Daddy didn't victimize her enough? Let's let Daddy have the chance to victimize her again!

I'll tell you what. When we FORCE men to give their organs to dying pregnant women who need transplants, and when those Goddamned HYPOCREEPS in Georgia stop supporting the killing of babies in Iraq, or at least remove pregnant Iraqi women before they bomb their homes, they can tell ME what to do with MY body.

OUTLAW VIAGRA FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Btw, I left Georgia because of the way women are treated as no more than chattel by the courts and legislators in that state. Georgia has NEVER been progressive and no woman who values her life or her daughter's or son's should remain there. LEAVE WHILE YOU CAN, My Georgia friends!

[Dark]

53. Drinking during pregnancy is the single greatest cause of

mental retardation. Not greatest preventable cause, greatest cause PERIOD. When women drink while pregnant, especially binge drinking, they can cause Fetal alcohol syndrome.



This PERMANENTLY affects the child. Once the damage is caused, it cannot be reversed.

I know, I know, 'My body, my choice.' But abortion is one thing, it will change the mother's life no matter what she chooses. It is her right to control her body in this case because she is making a life changing decision.

But making a woman go nine months without drinking cocktails? Perish the thought. . .:eyes:

Same with smoking. You are lucky that nothing happened to your child because you smoked. Not everyone is so lucky. Many children are born with a low birth weight, others are stillborn. Again, preventable. And doctors can prescribe safe drugs to ease the withdrawal.

Most birth defects are completely preventable. We owe it to children to take steps to ensure that they are born healthy and safely.

And as for the girl, I am sorry for what she went through, and there should be a hole for women so they don't have to notify parents if incest is involved, but they still should have to notify the courts.

[bunkerbuster1]

21. Happy you asked, here's what's so bad.

the non-penised second-class citizen subjegation act is problematic because it presumes that the waiting period only begins when a woman elects to go to a provider to terminate a pregnancy. I'd say the waiting period began when she learned she was preggers.

as for equating it with the gun waiting-period logic, well, I don't care all that much, myself, if you (as a law-abiding citizen with all your shots) march down to the local redneck mall and buy yourself a pair of M2s to mount on your front porch, 'k? If you want to go argue that up or down, fine. But it's got nothing to do with this bill.

the incest is best act sucks not because it provides notification to concerned parents. Actually I'm a bit like you in that I would very much prefer that juveniles communicate and work with their parents whenever possible. But I guarantee you that no legislation passed here in Shitsville is going to contain an out for victims of incest. This came up during the presidential debates, and as Kerry put it, the idea that a young girl would be forced to inform the man who raped her that she was terminating the pregnancy is despicable.

Sure, that describes a rather rare situation, but why not provide for that situation? what's the problem with these people.

the fertilized eggs is BAYBEEZ act sucks because, well, sorry--fertilized eggs ain't babies. Simple as that. As for your scenario (a car accident, first-trimester fetus killed but mom OK) presented, you can bet your ass that there will be even more outrageous applications of this new personhood assignment.

That's one slippery slope--saying a fertilized egg equals a baby. It could be used to ban IUDs and birth control pills and god knows what else.

[Dark]

36. Thanks for the answers, but I still have a few questions

the non-penised second-class citizen subjegation act is problematic because it presumes that the waiting period only begins when a woman elects to go to a provider to terminate a pregnancy. I'd say the waiting period began when she learned she was preggers.

as for equating it with the gun waiting-period logic, well, I don't care all that much, myself, if you (as a law-abiding citizen with all your shots) march down to the local redneck mall and buy yourself a pair of M2s to mount on your front porch, 'k? If you want to go argue that up or down, fine. But it's got nothing to do with this bill.

I think the waiting period begins once she meets with the doctor. Mind you, I don't want anything like a three week waiting period, but a few days won't change anything legally, but it will allow women to become more informed of their options and then make an informed choice, rather than one based on fear.

And the gun reference is relevant. If someone finds out his wife is cheating on him, and he can go to the corner store and buy a gun within five minutes, then he can return and kill her and possibly her lover. But if he has to wait a few days, he will have a chance to calm down, talk to her, and think over it.

Thus, a life is saved. This was one of the flows of logic behind the gun control acts of the 1990's. By giving people a chance to think and calm down, one can save lives.

The same is true of abortion. The majority of women who have abortions are young, poor, single, and overworked as it is. So do you think that they have the time to research all of the options available to them, or do they just think of abortion as the only feasible option?

Just because they have thought about it doesn't mean they've made an informed choice.

I can sympathize with the parental notification part regarding incest. But if the minor were to call the police, or tell another adult and have him call the police, then they could obtain an abortion. That would be an intelligent solution to me. You would prevent any more molestation AND help the child get help.

And the third one kind of does seem extreme if they use it to go after car accidents. I would say that the bill would have to say that it could only be treated as a crime if it could be established that 'the injurer was deliberatley, whether through the passion of the moment, or through planning, to harm or damage either the woman or the fetus.' You can't use it on a car accident then. No one has an accident purposefully.

[bunkerbuster1]

68. Well, the gun ref really isn't relevant.

While I'm not a big fan of waiting periods for gun purchases, I'll play along and compare it with the "second-class citizen act" being discussed.

You say that "a life is saved... by giving people a chance to think and calm down."

You're talking about preventing a murder. A crime. Terminating a pregnancy is not a crime. It's not murder.

Considered another way--by electing not to abort, but rather to carry a pregnancy to term, you are not necessarily even saving a life. You might be condemning a new one, or a couple of existing ones, under any number of circumstances. And I remain devoutly committed to a woman's right to determine her own destiny in these matters.

More to the point, I am devoutly opposed to anything that would make these women or their healthcare providers criminals for determining that destiny in a lawful manner.

[CTyankee]

38. Here's what's wrong

The 24 hour waiting period is just a delaying tactic to keep poor women (who can't afford an overnight stay near the provider's clinic) or those who cannot afford to miss a day's pay, from exercising their right to choose. These RWs don't give a shit for fetuses once they are born. THEY ARE AFTER THE WOMEN, trying to keep them down.

Also, this assumes that women are not moral agents who can make up their own minds without the state telling them they have to ponder their abortion for a prescribed period of time.

As for parental notification, most underage girls who have a unintended pregnancy tell their parents or one parent. The ones that don't have good reason not to: someone in the family is responsible for the pregnancy, or the family would beat them and throw them out of the house, or they can't bring themselves to disappoint their parents.

I can tell you that as a parent of two daughters I would rather they go to a legal, safe abortion provider without my knowledge than to seeking an illegal or self imposed abortion and risk their lives. Next time you hear the parental notification line from a rightie, ask them what scenario they would prefer.

[fortyfeetunder]

48. Your questions, my answers

"Please explain to me how it is a good idea to have a three day waiting period on guns so that if someone is angry and want a gun to kill in anger, they have a few days to 'cool down', but making a woman wait one day and be fully informed about the fetus before she terminates its life is some how bad."

Most women who go for abortions have probably been pregnant for more than three days. Many women have probably thought about their predicament long before finally going into the medical clinic. Plus, it's HER body we are talking about, I see no need for prenatal education for someone who has decided she does not want to continue a pregnancy. Where will these yahoos be if she changes her mind and figures out she cannot raise the baby?

>>I'm kind of divided on this one. I can understand a parent's desire to know his/her child is with child. And also, if they are underage, then do they have those rights to begin with? After all, it is one thing when a mature woman makes a choice over her own body, but a minor may not have the experience to make the choice for herself.

What about if the (male) parent or relative IMPREGNATED the young woman? And the mom is in denial? Or a homeless young woman? I think notification to a TRUSTED ADULT is an option when there is a child abuse situation, but by no means should it be legalized.
---------------
I don't see anything wrong with this. It's the woman's body, and if the child inside her is a human, and it is, then she has the right to protect it as she would herself. And the law should protect them both.

the child inside her is a human? I don't agree -- it's a fetus, it isn't a child.
----------------
The only problem I could see is if the woman was involved in a car accident and she was okay, but the fetus was killed. In that case, if this law was used to prosecute someone, I'd be against it.

So what if the woman is AT FAULT in the car accident, then what? She's convicted for killing the fetus?

[gollygee]

71. Problems.

Orwellian named "Women's Right" act - the purpose of this isn't to tell women what an abortion is - it is to make an abortion harder to get. Some women can't afford overnight accomodations at a city that has an abortion provider. Therefore, they would not be able to get a safe, legal abortion. They are either forced to have a baby they don't want, or they have some kind of self-inflicted abortion.

Parental notification - young women would obviously be afraid to tell their parents, therefore they put off telling them and wait to have an abortion until it is later and therefore a more involved procedure. Or their parents force them to have a baby against their will.

"Unborn Victims" - a precursor to charging women who have abortions with murder. Obviously.

[CatWoman]

23. what is this "urinal constipation" nonsense

how can one take this thread seriously?

[iamjoy]

25. I Sort Of Agree With Parental Notification...

I'm mixed on that. Emotionally, I hate the idea. But, rationally, it is hard to find a good reason why a parent wouldn't have to consent. Don't they have to consent to other medical procedures? Anytime you have a medical procedure, you have to sign a release stating that you are aware of the risks involved with it. But, under contract law, if a minor signs such a release, is it valid?

What if it's incest? This is a poor argument. If that is the case, then abortion is treating the symptom, not the problem. If there is abuse in the home, the girl needs to BE REMOVED FROM THAT HOUSE.

The issue of parental consent should not be thought of in terms of abortion, it should be thought of in terms of what sorts of rights we think minors should have under law.

All that said, I voted against the Parental Notification amendment issue on the ballot (in Florida) this past November. I don't trust our Florida legislature (who sponsored the amendment). And I do see it as a step to outlaw all abortions.

[Charlie Brown]

29. I oppose the Parental Notification lingo

I believe a minor seeking an abortion should come to her parents or guardian in her own time, and not because the gov't demands it.

I agree that clinics should require parental consent to perform an abortion, but the CLINICS should be the ones requiring this info, not the STATE.

This law simply heeps more burdens on a confused and frightened minor, amd will make them feel like criminals when they have to own up to mommy/daddy that they've made a mistake.

[iamjoy]

32. Very Clever - About The Clinics

The release the minor signs is invalid because she is not of legal age. In my opinion, the clinics are leaving themselves vulnerable if they do not require parental notification. An underage girl could get an abortion, but then develop a small complication. Or maybe she feels guilty, and bawls the whole thing to her parents. They then sue the clinic for massive punitive damages and "pain and suffering" on behalf of their little girl.

[Charlie Brown]

27. It's what some people call the Atlanta "Journal Constitution" n/t

[CatWoman]

28. I live in Atlanta

and I've never heard of this "referral"

seems kindergartenish to me.

[Charlie Brown]

30. I agree

Why are people at DU resorting to childish Freeper-like trash-talk.

[bunkerbuster1]

43. Ok, ok, I do too.

but I can't edit my original post to change the subject header. Mea culpa. In truth, the AJC does some decent work, and they bend over backwards to present a balanced view on their editorial pages (and they get an incredible amount of static from the RWers who scream "LIBRUL BASS!" at the slightest provocation).

And they printed my LTE a few weeks back about the evils of black-box voting, so I guess they ain't all bad.

[bunkerbuster1]

45. plus the AJC's Mike Luckovich rocks

He drives the local wingnuts, well, nuts. Since most of them can barely read, and mostly look at the pictures, it's no surprise they think the AJC has a libruhl bass...

[CTyankee]

46. Don't apologize, Bunkerbuster

I want to thank you so much for your post and your perserverance. You are a wonderful supporter of prochoice rights and I salute you!

Please, all of us on this website join with Bunderbuster in her fight to hold back the tide of regressive government that intrudes on our right to choose!

[bunkerbuster1]

47. er, thanks, but I was apologizing for dissing the AJC

there are way worse papers out there.

[antigone382]

51. It's slang in Georgia for the Atlanta Constitution

Like FUX News, etc.

[DemBones DemBones]

63. CatWoman is in Atlanta and I'm in GA, too. nt

[DemBones DemBones]

55. Idiotic, isn't it, CatWoman? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has

always supported legalized abortion editorially, at least since I began reading it in 1972.

[bunkerbuster1]

67. alright, jeez... now I'm being "idiotic?"

I subscribe to the damn paper, read it every day, have for 3+ years. The AJC is often on the correct side of most issues. But they're not above any number of typical MSM moves that legitimize the hard right.

example? Just today in the "quotes of the week" header that they run on the op-ed page, there was a face-off with a Barbara Boxer quote, and a Condi quote. But of COURSE Condi gets the last word, and of COURSE she gets a longer quote. It has the effect of making Condi look like the wronged party, and Boxer, an unpatriotic shrew.

And just to twist the knife a bit, in the interests of "fairness," the AJC ran someone's political 'toon that equated Condi's confirmation questioning with the battlefields of Iraq.

[genieroze]

31. Right Wing Hypocrite

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/12/flynt.01/

[LeftyMom]

33. A problem with making any stage of pregnancy a person

(besides those already discussed) when a crime is commited against it is that some pregnancies are molar, and there is no baby. A woman can have a positive prenancy test, expanding uterus, but nothing's in there but little sacs of fluid.

http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/pregnancyloss/a/aa072599.htm

The "quickeining" standard is a better one, since it at least implies that there is actually a developing being in there and it has reached a stage where viability is likely. (Not that that's a perfect standard, either, but it beats the heck out of the alternative.)

[Charlie Brown]

41. Tell Republican legislators what you think of these bills

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2001_02/house/mail.htm

[MadisonProgressive]

52. If they ban abortion, then people will just get

friends or relatives to send them RU-486 from another country and nobody will be the wiser.

[Mallifica]

58. RU-486

only works during the very beginning stages of pregnancy - most likely before you know that you're pregnant.

Desperate women will have to resort to much more barbaric and unsafe tactics to end an unwanted pregnancy.

[MadisonProgressive]

59. You can use it through the 5th week or longer

[DemBones DemBones]

66. But there are still many women who don't know they're pregnant

within that time frame. Many women have bleeding at the time they would normally menstruate for several months into their pregnancies. I've read it's fairly common and it happened to me in my second pregnancy and to my mother in one of hers. You realize you're pregnant because of other changes in your body.

[MadisonProgressive]

69. How about home pregnancy tests?

Couldn't you take that within 5 days?

[MountainLaurel]

75. What about poor women

Who don't have friends living abroad? It's ok then that they'll have to resort to knitting needles and eating lye, like they did before RvW?

[recovering democrat]

54. Revising the Argument

While your title suggestions for these acts may be more controversial, I do believe it is important that pro-choice advocates change the terms of the debate by changing titles and arguments.

For example, when you hear someone say "pro-life" you know they are "anti-abortion". The term "pro-choice" is translated in the opposing camp into "pro-abortion". In recent years, the greatest harm has been done by abortion opponents hitching their battle to the term "partial birth abortion". It is a meaningless term but it has been used effectively to actually alter the argument. Rather than repeating the justifications I read here and elsewhere, which are all valid, I will not try to add to them. However, I hope we can focus on making appropriate changes in how we phrase our arguments to meet the challenge of misleading, inapppropriate arguments.

In Georgia, and elsewhere, I have seen the greatest confusion among anti-abortion advocates raised when they are questioned about WHO should be punished under these laws - the woman or the physician, or whoever. They seem to have vastly different opinions, and this argument seems to get them arguing among themselves, and then they make far less sense! At the very least, I would like to see us help to frame the debate about proposed laws in that context, and try to reduce their effectiveness.

[bunkerbuster1]

72. Absolutely. Make this about criminalizing the act. That's a winner.

If we argue that we should have a "right to abortion", then we'll lose. but if we frame it so we ALWAYS turn it back to whether or not we should criminalize the act, it's up to the other side to defend their decision to imprison women and doctors.

If the pro-criminalization side thinks they can win that fight, at the risk of sounding like a simian Preznit, I say bring it the hell on.

[htuttle]

57. You know, these same people think we are winning the war in Iraq

Not to downplay the threat of Roe v. Wade being overturned, but the Right always seems to start doing it's victory dance on the 20 yard line...

[DemBones DemBones]

62. Those who want to keep abortion legal need to

find ways to work with the many people who support abortion to save a woman's life, and perhaps in cases of rape or incest, but are not so sure about allowing abortion for any other reason. These are people who want abortion to remain legal and safe but want it to be rare, and there are a lot of us. Most of us belong to neither pro-life nor pro-choice organizations since they all tend to take "all or nothing" positions.

Then there are the hard-core pro-lifers, who want abortion outlawed in all cases. Can you work with them? I think you can, but not by playing "my way or the highway" games with them. Some will never compromise but I think some will. You will never know how many will compromise unless YOU are able to compromise and accept some restrictions on abortion.

For three decades, hard-core pro-choicers have refused to give an inch -- and have mocked the very real concerns of pro-lifers in the ugliest of terms. Now the hard-core pro-lifers have the upper hand with the executive branch, at least an equal hand in the legislative branch, and may soon own the top court in the judicial branch, not to even mention all the "lesser" judges they've put on the bench. Is it wise to publicly mock the beliefs professed by those in power? I doubt the sincerity of belief of many
in public office -- I think they profess certain beliefs to win elections.

But they are winning elections, which should tell you that the people who vote for them do so because they (the other people) are sincere in their beliefs and want to be represented by someone who at least gives lip service to the same beliefs.. Some pro-lifers may realize that Bush's commitment to pro-life issues is not as deep as theirs but they're certainly not going to vote for a Democrat when the Dems have taken a hard-core position in support of legalized abortion on demand.

With their views in the ascendant now, pro-lifers won't be likely to reach out to pro-choicers but perhaps it's not too late to reach out to them. Show them you're willing to work with them and compromise. You might, for instance, agree to 24 hour waiting periods, and then have pro-choice groups organize and raise funds to help any women for whom the waiting period would be a hardship -- helping them with transportation or with an overnight stay if they live far from a clinic and have financial difficulties.

You might agree to informed consent -- "Women's Right to Know" -- so long as both pro-choice and pro-life groups agree on the information to be provided to women seeking abortions. After all, people having other surgeries are told about what the surgery involves, potential risks, etc. Why not also inform a woman of the size and level of development of the embryo or fetus she is considering aborting? It could be done in unemotional and simple technical terms, without value judgements.

If there was informed consent and a waiting period and a woman still chose abortion, everyone would know that she was well-informed and had time to rethink her decision before acting on it. I don't doubt that women think about this decision before they go to the clinic. I do doubt that all women are well-informed about what's happening inside their uterus during pregnancy. I doubt it because my years of teaching showed me that many people don't take advantage of the many resources for information around them. Sometimes they don't know how to, even when they've finished high school and been in college a year or two. And I've heard many stories of people's ignorance of their own bodies from doctors and nurses.

Ignorance is not stupidity; ignorance is just not having information. Why not give women information and let them make informed choices about abortion?

[bunkerbuster1]

74. Gotta ask...

Then there are the hard-core pro-lifers, who want abortion outlawed in all cases. Can you work with them? I think you can, but not by playing "my way or the highway" games with them.

Why would we want to work with them?

I don't ask to be snarky. On a certain level I can understand the philosophy, the logic (such as it is) that defines "human life" all the way back to Minute One, when the cell divides. Fine; you think that's a baby, and that by destroying that life, you're committing murder, ok. Fight the elective procedure, and fight IUDs and oral contraceptives as well, to stop the "murder."

I can understand it. But I can't work with it. That's just bending way too far, methinks--it's beyond the breaking point. Even if only for crass political reasons, I think you can keep a viable progressive coalition together much more easily by electing to cut off the absolutists within what calls itself the "pro-life" movement.

[youngdem]

70. Mississippi paper

I live in Mississippi, yesterday the Clarion Ledger which is the main paper out of Jackson, MS had a front page headline on abortion and Roe v. Wade. The article went on to say how the right to life organization's were pleased that MS. only had one abortion clinic left in the state. That soon there would be no access to abortions in our state. They felt that this was a great accomplishment. Are all these "right to lifers" going to raise these children, that are a result from accidental pregnancy? No.

I guess we are going to go back to the 50's when women and teens were going to back alley abortionist,for lack of any other option. And then,some of these women would bleed to death or contract a serious infection from these "dirty shops". Abortion clinics do not promote abortions, they have always been around, they were just done "quietly"

What next? What if a woman has to have a hysterectomy? Will she be stopped from that? Since it will make her not able to carry a child?