Don't get pregnant in Georgia

[Newtons Bit]

Show me where the law allows the removal of a non-viable fetus that is not an immediate threat to the woman's life.

I already have.

The term "abortion" shall not include the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device employed solely to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous abortion.

Which one of those words do you not understand?

Edit: also, the bill allows for abortions to protect from serious harm or death to the mother. There is nothing that states this harm most be "immediate".

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I believe what he means is that 'non-viable' does not mean the unborn child is already dead, just that it won't survive.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I believe what he means is that 'non-viable' does not mean the unborn child is already dead, just that it won't survive.

Uh. No.

The part you hilited just indicates that once a miscarriage has started, the process can be assisted. There is nothing I can see that allows the removal of a dead fetus that is just sitting there taking up space.

 

[bookitty]

The bill:
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/fulltext/hb954.htm

 

[theprestige]

So can somebody explain to me why this bill means, in the words of the OP, "don't get pregnant in Georgia"?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I already have.



Which one of those words do you not understand?

Edit: also, the bill allows for abortions to protect from serious harm or death to the mother. There is nothing that states this harm most be "immediate".

Strictly speaking it does not seem to allow abortions in that case, but rather defines them as not being abortions.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Strictly speaking it does not seem to allow abortions in that case, but rather defines them as not being abortions.

I haven't said otherwise.

 

[theprestige]

Strictly speaking it does not seem to allow abortions in that case, but rather defines them as not being abortions.

Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

 

[eeyore1954]

So can somebody explain to me why this bill means, in the words of the OP, "don't get pregnant in Georgia"?

I doubt if there can be a logical explanation.

 

[leftysergeant]

the law is vague enough that a layman is not going to understand it, which will lead to at least a few women's not seeking medical intervention in a timely mannr.

I see no need for it other than to ban abortion in as many cases as possible, regardless the consequences to women's health.

 

[Newtons Bit]

the law is vague enough that a layman is not going to understand it, which will lead to at least a few women's not seeking medical intervention in a timely mannr.

Oh please. The only way a woman will be discouraged from getting abortion is after reading the ridiculous lies and propaganda told by people like you and the writer of the OP. Your idea is so laughably absurd that it could only come from someone desperate to retain a delusional conclusion. Laymen (or laywomen in this case) very rarely read the laws. And the law isn't vague. It's quite clear.

 

[respect]

So can somebody explain to me why this bill means, in the words of the OP, "don't get pregnant in Georgia"?

I don't know but it seems to involve zombie fetuses wreaking havoc.

 

[Moss]

The actual text reads like "we don't care about the mental wellbeing of the pregnant woman, even if there is actual evidence that she suffers." Classy.
It also gets weasely with wordings like "a reasonable medical judgement" instead of of actual demands what constitute such a judgement. Though one might wonder if they lowered the bar by demanding just one physician instead of the consultation by two. Though at the same time that might make it easier to dismiss this physician's opinion.

 

[Travis]

All this talk about medical necessity is irrelevant. A woman should be allowed to get a late term abortion if she wants to.

 

[theprestige]

All this talk about medical necessity is irrelevant. A woman should be allowed to get a late term abortion if she wants to.

I know, right? I think abortions should be allowed at least through the twenty-fourth trimester, regardless of "medical necessity".

 

[TimCallahan]

So... "Don't get pregnant in Georgia if you're planning on using 'give me a late term abortion or I'll kill myself!' as your excuse for getting a late term abortion"?

I know, right? I think abortions should be allowed at least through the twenty-fourth trimester, regardless of "medical necessity".

Think about it. If a woman doesn't want all the bother of pregnancy and is totally selfish, will she really put up with having her body burdened and stretched out of shape for six or more months, then suddenly decide, on a whim, to abort? I think you will find that most late term abortions are done because the fetus isn't viable.

BTW, regarding the hilited area, as far as I know there are only three trimesters. If you mean 24th. week, and if there are 39 weeks in a nine month pregnancy (i.e. 3/4 of a 52 week year), then the 24th. week would be at about the 2/3 mark, or six months.

ETA: What is the point of having a woman carry an already dead fetus to term? If she really wants to have a child, then the sooner the dead fetus is removed, the sooner she can begin a new, hopefully viable, pregnancy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Tim, your OP title is sorta stupid.


If you want to have kids in Georgia, you first have to be pregnant.

So, regardless of how people agree or disagree on when and where abortion ought to be legal, and funded, and a choice, posting complete horsecrap as a descriptive of this disagreement is the technique of Yellow Journalism.

Way to dive into the gutter, Tim. You could maybe start writing copy for Fox News.

Now, on to the topic:

If you look at the risks inherent in the language of the law, it would incentivize getting an abortion early, and making a decision early, in the case that you don't want to take the pregnancy. Less risk to the pregnant woman, to end it in month one or two than in five or six. That may not be the intent of the law, but it looks to me to be a possible unintended outcome.

As to the detail, I have enough trouble with a recent Texas law requiring additional medical cost, and effort, for those considering an abortion. I'll let those crazy Georgians sort their chili out themselves.

 

[AvalonXQ]

This just in -- abortion proponents make up crap about an anti-abortion bill. Film at 11.

 

[theprestige]

Think about it. If a woman doesn't want all the bother of pregnancy and is totally selfish, will she really put up with having her body burdened and stretched out of shape for six or more months, then suddenly decide, on a whim, to abort? I think you will find that most late term abortions are done because the fetus isn't viable.

Good thing the bill provides for that. What was your point, again?

BTW, regarding the hilited area, as far as I know there are only three trimesters. If you mean 24th. week, and if there are 39 weeks in a nine month pregnancy (i.e. 3/4 of a 52 week year), then the 24th. week would be at about the 2/3 mark, or six months.

I mean the 24th trimester. Re-do your math.

ETA: What is the point of having a woman carry an already dead fetus to term? If she really wants to have a child, then the sooner the dead fetus is removed, the sooner she can begin a new, hopefully viable, pregnancy.

Good thing the bill provides for that. What was your point, again?

 

[TimCallahan]

Tim, your OP title is sorta stupid.


If you want to have kids in Georgia, you first have to be pregnant.

So, regardless of how people agree or disagree on when and where abortion ought to be legal, and funded, and a choice, posting complete horsecrap as a descriptive of this disagreement is the technique of Yellow Journalism.

Way to dive into the gutter, Tim. You could maybe start writing copy for Fox News.

Now, on to the topic:

If you look at the risks inherent in the language of the law, it would incentivize getting an abortion early, and making a decision early, in the case that you don't want to take the pregnancy. Less risk to the pregnant woman, to end it in month one or two than in five or six. That may not be the intent of the law, but it looks to me to be a possible unintended outcome.

As to the detail, I have enough trouble with a recent Texas law requiring additional medical cost, and effort, for those considering an abortion. I'll let those crazy Georgians sort their chili out themselves.

I'm sorry you think I'm diving for the gutter, etc. That was not, of course, my intent. Perhaps, however, the thread title was too broad.

Essentially, what I object to is the law's provision that a woman must carry a dead fetus to term, providing it doesn't endanger her life. First of all, what's the point of forbidding an abortion if the fetus is already dead? Second, it seems to me, that there is a high potential for the dead fetus to go from not endangering the woman's life to endangering it. After all, this is a corpse we're talking about.