Abortion providers and advocacy organizations in Georgia have filed a lawsuit to combat the State’s recent Heartbeat Bill which bans abortions after a heartbeat can be detected at six weeks. The Living Infants Fairness and Equality or LIFE Act was signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp, who stated,”Our efforts to protect life do not end here. We must work to ease the adoption process, find loving homes for those in our foster care system, and protect the aging and vulnerable. Together, we will ensure that all Georgians are safe and have the opportunity to live, grow, learn, and prosper.”
Two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Planned Parenthood and Carefem. Within the suit, the Georgia Heartbeat Bill is decried as “an affront to the dignity and health of Georgians.” Opponents of the bill claim that the abortion restrictions are a threat to women’s health, and that they target low-income women, people of color, and those living in rural areas. Their argument is that these groups “are least able to access medical care and least able to overcome the cruelties of this law.”
However, it should be noted that a 2016 Harvard University Poll found that people making more than $75,000 a year are more supportive of taxpayer funded abortions, with 45 percent in favor, compared to the 24 percent in favor of them from a group of people who made $25,000 a year or less. This poll seems to suggest the poor women often cited as being in dire need of an abortion often do not desire one at all, but would prefer to obtain the necessary care needed to keep their babies instead.
There is also no evidence to the claim often made by abortion advocates that pro-life laws such as the one in Georgia will lead to a spike in maternal mortality rates. Texas was faced with this criticism as well after they redirected funds away from Planned Parenthood and towards federally qualified health centers instead. Allegations such as this were made by Democrat Don Bayer before the House Ways and Means Committee in May, where he boldly declared, “Anti-aborton bills increase maternal mortality and infant mortality.”
Kessler reported how the former president and interim chief executive of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Lisa Collier, attempted to correct Bayer’s assertions. Collier noted how an analysis of the data revealed that “there was significant over-reporting of deaths based on the death certificate data.” The alleged increase that was thought to be found as a result of pro-life legislation was merely the result of the state of Texas changing information located on death certificates. Further exacerbating the issue was the fact that coroner’s were incorrectly checking the box that indicated a pregnancy-related deaths, and the corrected rate was found to be lower than the national average.
Abortion advocates and providers know they must do all they can to discredit any act of pro-life legislation, as the recent Heartbeat Bills serve as a strategic way for the pro-life movement to confirm the personhood of the unborn. While there are legitimate concern that these pro-life laws will merely be overturned and the court-ordered fees will only help the abortion industry prosper, Representative Ed Stetzler was quick to respond to these claims.
“Georgia legislators are advancing the LIFE Act because it is also legally sound. HB-481 is unlike any other ‘heartbeat bill’ in the nation by establishing the legal personhood of the unborn child. Quoting the text of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade (1973) opinion, if the “personhood [of the child] is established, the [pro-abortion] appellant’s case, of course, collapses for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”
Stetzler went on to defend the Georgia bill, saying, “Informed by the Roe decision itself, the LIFE Act is built on the long established foundation of a state’s authority to recognize a person’s rights more expansively than the minimum required by federal law. As examples of this, Georgia currently provides more expansive privacy and eminent domain protections than the U.S. Constitution requires; also, many states recognized a woman’s right to vote long before the 19th Amendment required it.”
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.