24-hour waiting period proposed
Source: Atlanta Jouranl-Constitution [Link]
Legislation aimed at reducing the number of abortions performed in Georgia will be introduced in the General Assembly today, setting up what is expected to be a passionate political debate over the procedure.Nay nay, says the Liberal from West Georgia. I'm already preparing my argument in my head for how to deliver my position to the opposition. I know how politics work in this state and in this country, I've studied long and hard and believe me when I say, this is a smokescreen - just like SR 595 was and countless proposed bills/amendments before it. But whatever you do, don't accuse them of furthering an agenda, oh no! There is no agenda other than the homosexual adgenda and the other "liberal agendas". It is indeed a means of chipping away, and if you knew the operatives in play here you would understand why. Case in point? The Federal Marriage Amendment is being resurrected. DOMA still stands, therefore making it completely uneccessary, but that's not the point, because here we are.
As part of the "Woman's Right to Know Act," physicians in Georgia who perform abortions would be required to give women information on the medical risks of abortion, the probable gestational age of the fetus, alternatives to abortion including adoption, and information on fetal pain. The bill would require women to wait 24 hours after receiving that information before deciding whether to move forward with the procedure.
Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta), sponsor of the proposal in the House, said the bill is intended to educate women. "Women are intelligent, but when you're emotional you're not thinking with the right part of your brain," Burmeister said Thursday. "We want to give them some information where they might say, 'Here are some other solutions and I can take those and prevent an abortion."
Sen. Renee Unterman (R-Loganville) introduced a similarly worded abortion bill in the Senate.
Becky Rafter, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Georgia, said Thursday the bills are intended to "chip away" at the legal and safe abortions provided by law in the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
"What this bill would do would place undue further restrictions on women's access to reproductive health care," Rafter said. "It's already difficult to receive an abortion because so many counties don't have abortion providers." [more]
I have serious reservations about modifying any law that in any way hampers, impedes, or otherwise places restrictions on reproductive freedom and choice. I see these things as a bigger picture, and therefore I force myself to make harsh decisions on how I feel about them. I got very nervous when Scott Peterson was being tried for the murder of his unborn son. In part because an 8 month in-utero fetus is viable outside the womb, and in part because I saw what would have come snowballing down immediately after. Where does it end? What about a 6 month fetus? What about two months? What about conception? There are many gray areas and even more possibilities for opponents of choice, therefore the fight to keep reproductive freedom laws intact is critical. The Senate Republicans, the neocons in particular, are always salivating like vultures any time a social issue comes into play that can be manipulated to their advantage, the advantage being a limit ultimately on the number of social programs available.
Common sense dictates that if you are against having an abortion, then you shouldn't have one. And if you don't appreciate porn, you shouldn't watch it. And if you don't like the content of a particular movie or cd, don't buy them or pay to see them. The core issue here is censorship, an idea wielded like a club by conservatives who refuse to accept the reality that censorship is completely unAmerican. Even unpopular speech must be protected, without such provision none is safe. The bigger fear, I suspect, is being held up to scrutiny, which is lame at best. If you cannot handle having your opinions torn down by someone else, then you're better off not voicing them. The problem with that philosophy is that if you don't exercise your right to voice an opposing opinion, it atrophies and eventually you're going to lose it.
The crux of the issue here is a waiting period, and hence the aforementioned "chipping away". I know there are those that would make the claim that there is a standard waiting period before almost any nonemergency, invasive surgical procedure, and there is no argument here. But in most cases, abortion is not an emergency. In the vast majority of cases, it is an elective procedure, and therefore the notion of "giving (women) some information where they might say, 'Here are some other solutions and I can take those and prevent an abortion'" I find rather insulting. Clearly they think women are stupid and are not capable of ascertaining such information on their own.
More proof that this is bullshit legislation? I direct you then to the suggested "information" that Rep. Sue Burmeister (sponsor of the proposal in the House) alluded to. Wait a minute, there's only a bare mention of such information, nothing has been provided as a counterpoint. How curious!
You may think this doesn't affect you personally. I can understand that. Will you wait to have an opinion until after more things like this happen that do affect you, when it comes into your house? Will your voice matter then? Will it even be heard? Will you indeed by then even have one?