DOCSLIB.ORG

HB 481 - Heartbeat Bill

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Georgia State University Law Review Volume 36 Issue 1 Fall 2019 Article 10 12-1-2019 HB 481 - Heartbeat Bill Michael G. Foo Georgia State University College of Law, [email protected] Taylor L. Lin Georgia State University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael G. Foo & Taylor L. Lin, HB 481 - Heartbeat Bill, 36 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 155 (2019). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol36/iss1/10 This Peach Sheet is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Reading Room. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Foo and Lin: HB 481 - Heartbeat Bill PERSONS AND THEIR RIGHTS Persons and Their Rights: Amend Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Persons and Their Rights, so as to Provide that Natural Persons Include an Unborn Child; to Provide that such Unborn Children Shall Be Included in Certain Population Based Determinations; to Provide Definitions; Offenses Against Public Health and Morals: Amend Article 5 of Chapter 12 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Abortion, so as to Provide Definitions; to Revise the Time when an Abortion May Be Performed; to Provide for Exceptions; to Provide for the Requirements for Performing an Abortion; to Provide for a Right of Action and Damages; to Provide for Affirmative Defenses; Alimony and Child Support: Amend Chapter 6 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Alimony and Child Support, so as to Provide a Definition; to Provide a Maximum Support Obligation for Certain Circumstances; Parent and Child Relationship Generally: Amend Chapter 7 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Parent and Child Relationship Generally, so as to Provide that the Right to Recover for the Full Value of a Child Begins at the Point When a Detectable Human Heartbeat Exists; Woman’s Right to Know: Amend Chapter 9A of Title 31 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to the “Woman’s Right to Know Act,” so as to Provide for Advising Women Seeking an Abortion of the Presence of a Detectable Human Heartbeat; to Provide for the Content of Certain Notices; to Repeal Certain Penalties; Physician’s Obligation in Performance of Abortions: Amend Chapter 9B of Title 31 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Physician’s Obligation in Performance of Abortions, so as to Require Physicians Performing Abortions to Determine the Existence of a Detectable Human Heartbeat Before Performing an Abortion; to Provide for the Reporting of Certain Information by Physicians; Income Taxes: Amend Chapter 7 of Title 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Income Taxes, so as to Provide that an Unborn Child with a Detectable Human Heartbeat is a Dependent Minor for Income 155 Published by Reading Room, 2019 1 Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 36, Iss. 1 [2019], Art. 10 156 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 36:1 Tax Purposes; to Provide for Legislative Findings; to Provide for Related Matters; to Provide for Standing to Intervene and Defend Constitutional Challenges to this Act; to Provide a Short Title; to Provide for Severability; to Provide an Effective Date; to Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes CODE SECTIONS: O.C.G.A. §§ 1-2-1 (amended); 16-12-141 (amended); 19-6-15 (amended); 19-7-1 (amended); 31-9A-3, -4, -6.1 (amended); 31-9B-2, -3 (amended); 48-7-26 (amended) BILL NUMBER: HB 481 ACT NUMBER: 234 GEORGIA LAWS: 2019 Ga. Laws 711 SUMMARY: The Act adds an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat to the definition of a natural person and includes such unborn child in state population counts. The Act defines abortion, prescribes when abortions may be performed, provides exceptions to abortion performance limitations, establishes requirements for performing an abortion, and provides for a right of action, damages, and affirmative defenses. The Act permits alimony and child support payments starting when an unborn child has a detectable human heartbeat. Parents have the right to recover the full value of a child’s life when a detectable human heartbeat exists. The Act requires that women seeking an abortion be advised that a detectable human heartbeat exists, provides for certain notices to the woman, and repeals certain penalties. The Act requires physicians who perform https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol36/iss1/10 2 Foo and Lin: HB 481 - Heartbeat Bill 2019] LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 157 abortions to determine the presence of a detectable human heartbeat before performing an abortion and requires physicians to report certain information concerning such abortions. The Act considers an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat a dependent minor for income tax purposes. The Act also provides for legislative findings and provides standing to intervene and defend constitutional challenges to the Act. The Act provides a short title, provides for severability of claims, provides an effective date, and repeals conflicting laws. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2020 History House Bill (HB) 481 is one of many abortion regulations introduced and enacted in Georgia. In the mid-nineteenth- and early twentieth-century, abortions were illegal in the United States (U.S.).1 The rise of the women’s rights movement in the 1960s was a driving force behind the major changes in abortion laws across the country.2 By 1973, when the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, seventeen states had legalized abortion.3 In 1968, Georgia enacted a criminal abortion law generally patterned after the American Law Institute’s 1962 Model Penal Code, which replaced more than ninety years of statutory law.4 By 1973, the Model Penal Code’s section on abortion served as a template 1. Listeners Ask About the History of U.S. Abortion Laws, NPR (June 5, 2019, 5:08 AM), https://www.npr.org/2019/06/05/729874374/listeners-ask-about-the-history-of-u-s-abortion-laws [https://perma.cc/VDR2-JQRM]. 2. Id. 3. Id. 4. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 182 (1973). Published by Reading Room, 2019 3 Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 36, Iss. 1 [2019], Art. 10 158 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 36:1 statute for nearly a quarter of the states with abortion laws.5 The Model Penal Code abortion statute generally outlawed abortions subject to three exceptions: (1) carrying the pregnancy to term would cause harm to the mother, (2) the fetus was unlikely to survive after birth, and (3) the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.6 Georgia’s 1968 abortion law tracked the Model Penal Code’s structure, but it provided no exception for incest.7 Instead, Georgia’s law provided for abortions only in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or instances of severe or fatal injury to the mother.8 Further restrictions on abortion included a residency requirement, a written confirmation by three physicians and a three-member special committee approving justification for the abortion for one or more of the statutorily enumerated reasons, performance of the abortion by a board-licensed facility under the approval of a three-person committee at that hospital, and certifications in situations of rape.9 The 1968 abortion law and its specific restrictions on abortion were the focus of the Supreme Court case Doe v. Bolton, decided as a companion case to the seminal abortion case Roe v. Wade.10 In Doe, the Court acknowledged states’ rights to “readjust its views and emphases in the light of the advanced knowledge and techniques of the day.”11 Despite this, the Court struck down Georgia’s abortion law as unconstitutional, finding that certain restrictions violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution and that many restrictions were not rationally related to the regulation of abortions.12 Together with Roe, Doe reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s holding that terminating a pregnancy via abortion is a constitutionally 13 protected right. 5. Id. 6. Carl W. Tyler, Jr., The Public Health Implications of Abortion, 4 ANN. REV. PUB. HEALTH 223, 245 (1983). 7. Id. 8. Doe, 410 U.S. at 179; see also Tyler, supra note 6, at 245. 9. Doe, 410 U.S. at 183–84. 10. See id. at 179; see also Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The same 7-2 majority that struck down provisions of Texas law in Roe ruled in Doe. Doe, 410 U.S. at 179; Roe, 410 U.S. at 166. 11. Doe, 410 U.S. at 191. 12. Id. at 199, 200. 13. Id. at 189. Although the Court reaffirmed this constitutional right in both cases, the Court was careful to note that such a right is not absolute. See id. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol36/iss1/10 4 Foo and Lin: HB 481 - Heartbeat Bill 2019] LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 159 The next major development in Georgia abortion law was the passage of the “Woman’s Right to Know Act,” signed into law by Governor Sonny Perdue (R) on May 10, 2005.14 The Georgia General Assembly passed the Woman’s Right to Know Act to ensure women made an informed decision when choosing to have an abortion.15 The Woman’s Right to Know Act permitted the performance of an abortion only after the patient gave voluntary, informed consent to the procedure at least twenty-four hours in advance, except in cases of medical emergency.16 To give informed consent, the Act required that the pregnant woman be provided with certain accurate, objective information about abortions and pregnancy before proceeding with the procedure.17 Such information included: the medical risks of the procedure, the probable gestational age of the unborn child, the medical risks of carrying the pregnancy to term, the medical assistance available for childcare, and information about the father’s liability for child support.18 Following the Woman’s Right to Know Act, the Georgia General Assembly passed legislation in 2012 that prohibited the performance 19 of abortions after twenty weeks.
Recommended publications
  • DAVID S. COHEN Drexel University Thomas R

    DAVID S. COHEN Drexel University Thomas R

    DAVID S. COHEN Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law 3320 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215)571-4714 [email protected] TEACHING EXPERIENCE DREXEL UNIVERSITY THOMAS R. KLINE SCHOOL OF LAW, Philadelphia, PA 2006-current Professor of Law Teach Constitutional Law courses and Sex, Gender, and the Law. AWARDS: Dean Jennifer L. Rosato Excellence in the Classroom Award (2009, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016) Abortion Care Network Person of the Year (2016) Center for Reproductive Rights Innovation in Scholarship Award (2015) UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL, Philadelphia, PA 2003-06 Lecturer-in-Law Taught upper-level seminar each spring entitled “Sex Discrimination and the Law.” UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Philadelphia, PA 2004-05 Adjunct Professor Taught undergraduate seminar each fall entitled “Law and Social Policy of Sex and Reproduction.” LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY, Brooklyn, NY 2000-01 Adjunct Assistant Professor Developed and taught graduate-level political science classes entitled “The American Constitution and Political System” and “Current Topics in Law and Politics.” EDUCATION COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, J.D. 1997 Honors: Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, 1994-97 Public Interest Commitment Award Columbia Human Rights Fellowship Activities: Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Managing Editor/Head Articles Editor Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Articles Editor Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, Research Assistant DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, B.A. in Philosophy with Women’s Studies minor, 1994 JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT, Santa Ana, CA 1998-99 Judicial Law Clerk for the Honorable Warren J. Ferguson 1 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, Trenton, NJ 1997-98 Judicial Law Clerk for the Honorable Alan B.
  • Texas Heartbeat Law

    Texas Heartbeat Law

    Texas Heartbeat Law Learn about the new pro-life law protecting the unborn in Texas. The Texas Heartbeat Bill, SB 8, passed the Texas Legislature with bipartisan support and was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021. This new law requires physicians to check for a baby’s heartbeat and inform the mother if the presence of a heartbeat is detected. Once a heartbeat is detected, the doctor must take all necessary steps to protect the life of the child. Texas Heartbeat Law Overview: How is Texas’ heartbeat law different from other states? • Requires physicians to check for a baby’s The legislation enacting this law was drafted in a manner to prevent heartbeat and inform the mother if the anyone from suing the state or its officials to enjoin (stop) the presence of a heartbeat is detected. enforcement of the statute. The law’s strength lies in the fact that it is • Once a heartbeat is detected, the doctor entirely enforceable by private citizens. Without a duty to enforce the must take all necessary steps to protect statute, courts cannot preemptively prevent officers of the state from the life of the child. enforcing it. • Creates civil liability for aiding and How early can you detect a baby’s heartbeat? abetting an abortion. • Relies on civil enforcement of the law by Current technology can detect baby’s beating heart between 6-12 citizens, making it virtually impossible for a weeks. Texas law previously allowed for abortions as late as 20 weeks. court to strike down the law as “unconstitutional.” How can this bill ban abortion in Texas when Roe v.
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    Arsakeia-Tositseia Schools Model United Nations 2019 Committee: Economic and Social Council Issue: Ensuring access to legal abortion services Student Officer: IoannaFlessa Position: Deputy President INTRODUCTION Dear delegates, ECOSOC’s third topic is one of the most controversial and complex issues of our era. Formerly, abortion without medical necessity was considered as an illegal action which was chastened by the law. However, people’s concept changed throughout the years and medical abortions were legalized under certain circumstances. Nowadays, the topic of abortions is a subject of ongoing debate with many people having different opinions on the matter. This study guide will provide you with a very good starting point for your research. However, it is extremely important that you do your own research as well, regarding your country’s policy. Should you have any questions on the topic or the conference in general, feel free to contact me via email ([email protected]) or my Facebook account (IoannaFlessa). I hope that this experience will be special and enlightening for you and I am looking forward to meeting and working with all of you at the conference! Kind regards, Ioanna Flessa 1 Arsakeia-Tositseia Schools Model United Nations 2019 Important note from the chairs’ team In order for the chairs to fully understand the dynamics of the committee, discovering any misunderstanding prior to the debate and for the better preparation of the delegates you are asked to proceed as indicated below; 1) Conduct your chairs via email and informing them about your mun experience so that they can know what exactly to expect of you.
  • January 14, 2019 Members of the Human Rights Committee Office Of

    January 14, 2019 Members of the Human Rights Committee Office Of

    January 14, 2019 Members of the Human Rights Committee Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais Wilson 52 rue des Pâquis CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland Suggested List of Issues to Country Report Task Force on the United States for the 125th Session of the Human Rights Committee, 4-29 March 2019 The undersigned reproductive rights and justice and human rights organizations submit this suggested List of Issues to the Human Rights Committee (HRC) in preparation for the meeting of the Country Task Force on the United States during its 125th Session. This submission identifies seven reproductive rights and justice1 issues for the HRC to consider as it prepares its List of Issues for the review of the United States: (1) restrictive abortion laws (2) racial disparities in maternal health outcomes (3) permitting denial of reproductive health care based on one’s religious or moral beliefs (4) discrimination against immigrant women in accessing affordable health care (5) criminalization of pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes (6) treatment of women in detention (7) impact of the Mexico City Policy, or Global Gag Rule, on global reproductive health These policies and practices implicate a range of rights protected by the ICCPR, including the rights to: non-discrimination (Article 2); equality between men and women (Article 3); life (Article 6); freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 7); privacy (Article 17); freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (Article 18); freedom of expression and opinion (Article 19); and equality before the law (Article 26). Signed, Abortion Care Network Amnesty International Black Mamas Matter Alliance Center for Reproductive Rights The City University of New York Law School, Human Rights and Gender Justice Clinic In Our Own Voice National Advocates for Pregnant Women National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health SIA Legal Team SisterSong, Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective Abortion Access (Articles 2, 3, 6, 17) 1.
  • 'Heartbeat Bill Does Not Establish Justice for All Human Beings at Fertilization'

    'Heartbeat Bill Does Not Establish Justice for All Human Beings at Fertilization'

    Columbia Christians for Life ( CCL ) aka Christians for Life and Liberty ( CLL ) Columbia, South Carolina March 22, 2019 / Revised March 25, 2019 ( Audio / Transcript / Report ) 'Heartbeat Bill does not establish justice for all human beings at fertilization': Christian pro-life missionary testifies against incremental 'Heartbeat' Bill at SC House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing - March 21, 2019 The SC House Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee heard from several speakers in the Hearing conducted Thursday, March 21, scheduled for 9am. However, since not all those who signed up were given an opportunity to speak before the Subcommittee's time expired, no vote was taken on the H3020 Fetal Heartbeat Bill, and a future Subcommittee Hearing is planned for additional speakers to be heard. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Public Hearing H3020 Fetal Heartbeat Bill Constitutional Laws Subcommittee SC House Judiciary Committee Blatt House Office Building, Rm 516, 9 AM March 21, 2019 Photo: Testifying: Dr. David Sealy, MD, Greenwood, SC Constitutional Laws Subcommittee Members: Rep Weston Newton (R) - Chairman of ConLaws Subcomm Rep Peter McCoy (R) - Member of ConLaws Subcomm; Chairman of full Judiciary Comm Rep Russell Fry (R) Rep Mandy Norrell (D) Rep William Wheeler (D) The State ( Columbia, SC ) South Carolina lawmakers mull fetal heartbeat abortion bill https://www.thestate.com/news/state/south-carolina/article228223324.html MARCH 21, 2019 [ CCL: Emphasis added ] COLUMBIA, S.C. - Members of a South Carolina House subcommittee considered legislation on Thursday that would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, about six weeks into pregnancy. The subcommittee heard testimony about a proposal to require medical professionals to test for a detectable heartbeat before any abortion is performed.
  • State Legislators Serving CHAYIL (Fulton Co.) 2019-2020 Legislative Session Updated January 2020

    State Legislators Serving CHAYIL (Fulton Co.) 2019-2020 Legislative Session Updated January 2020

    State Legislators serving CHAYIL (Fulton Co.) 2019-2020 legislative session updated January 2020 ***Bold lettering indicates that a majority of that legislator's district lies within your program service area. First Name Last Name District Capitol phone District phone Email Address City Zip Twitter P.O. Box 250614 Jennifer Jordan 6 (404) 656-6446 [email protected] Atlanta, GA 30325 Atlanta @JenAuerJordan NEW Brandon Beach 21 (404) 463-1378 (678) 640-1811 [email protected] 3100 Brierfield Rd. Alpharetta 30004 @beachforsenate Matt Brass 28 (404) 656-6446 770-265-6100 [email protected] P.O. BOX 1313 Newnan 30264 @Vote_matt_brass Kay Kirkpatrick 32 (404) 656-3932 404-822-4719 [email protected] Marietta @kirkpatrickdk NEW College Donzella James 35 (404) 463-1379 (404) 914-1285 [email protected] 3800 Pittman Rd Park 30349 @SenatorJames Nan Orrock 36 (404) 463-8054 (404) 524-5999 [email protected] 1070 Delaware Ave. SE Atlanta 30316 @SenNanOrrock 201 Joseph E. Lowery SENATORS Horacena Tate 38 (404) 463-8053 (404) 577-5609 [email protected] Blvd. Atlanta 30314 @HoracenaTate Nikema Williams 39 (404) 656-5035 [email protected] P.O. Box 92386 Atlanta 30314 @NikemaForSenate NEW SALLY HARRELL 40 (404) 463-2260 [email protected] P.O. Box 941365 Dunwoody 31141 @sallyharrellga ZAHRA KARINSHAK 48 (404) 656-0048 [email protected] P.O. Box 956034 Duluth 30095 @votezahra John Albers 56 (404) 463-8055 (678) 667-3656 [email protected] 530 Junction Point Roswell 30075 @johnalbers First name Last name District Capitol phone District phone Email Address City Zip Home phone Cell phone Twitter Wes Cantrell 22 404.656.0152 [email protected] 1044 Meadow Brook Dr.
  • Life, Heartbeat, Birth: a Medical Basis for Reform

    Life, Heartbeat, Birth: a Medical Basis for Reform

    Life, Heartbeat, Birth: A Medical Basis for Reform DAVID F. FORTE* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 121 II. THE STATUS OF MEDICAL RESEARCH IN ROE V. WADE .................. 123 III. CASEY'S MODIFICATION OF ROE. ...................... ...... 129 IV. THE VIABILITY STANDARD: STATE LEGISLATION . ............. 133 V. THE VIABILITY STANDARD: DEFINITION...................... 135 VI. THE VIABILITY STANDARD: THE RATIONALE ................. 137 VII. AN ALTERNATIVE: HEARTBEAT.............................. 140 VIII. CONCLUSION. .................................. ......... 146 I. INTRODUCTION We begin with terminology. Colloquially, parents say, "Before you were born. ." The clear meaning, of course, is that the "you" ("our son" or "our daughter") existed in the womb before the coming out known as birth. That son or daughter began biological existence, with a unique DNA, at the moment when a spermatozoon fertilized a human egg. Not inaccurately, the resultant fetus is often called an "unborn child." Pregnant women sometimes say, "I can feel my baby moving," or, if they know the sex, "He's (or she's) really kicking, now." We can then understand why that entity, a unique individual of the human species, is recognized as a rights-bearing entity, deserving-as of right-protection from unjustified harm, as any born human individual would possess that right.1 * Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University. A.B. Harvard, M.A. Manchester, Ph.D. Toronto, J.D. Columbia. The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to the scores of scholars who have analyzed the central holdings of the major cases on abortion, only a few of whom could be appropriately cited in this work. The author is also grateful for the skilled research efforts and drafting suggestions of Matthew Hebebrand, Anthony Miranda, Daniel Dew, Ryan Mulvey, and Christopher Stuart.
  • Abortion Testimony and Legislative Debate Related to Georgia’S Fetal “Heartbeat” Abortion Ban

    Abortion Testimony and Legislative Debate Related to Georgia’S Fetal “Heartbeat” Abortion Ban

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ibis Reproductive Health Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters ISSN: (Print) 2641-0397 (Online) Journal homepage: https://tandfonline.com/loi/zrhm21 A narrative analysis of anti-abortion testimony and legislative debate related to Georgia’s fetal “heartbeat” abortion ban Dabney P. Evans & Subasri Narasimhan To cite this article: Dabney P. Evans & Subasri Narasimhan (2020) A narrative analysis of anti- abortion testimony and legislative debate related to Georgia’s fetal “heartbeat” abortion ban, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 28:1, 1686201, DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2019.1686201 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2019.1686201 © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 31 Dec 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1533 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=zrhm21 RESEARCH ARTICLE A narrative analysis of anti-abortion testimony and legislative debate related to Georgia’s fetal “heartbeat” abortion ban Dabney P. Evans ,a Subasri Narasimhan b a Associate Professor, Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Center for Reproductive Health Research in the Southeast (RISE) at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. Correspondence: [email protected] b Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Center for Reproductive Health Research in the Southeast (RISE) at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA Abstract: Fetal “heartbeat” bills have become the anti-abortion legislative measure of choice in the US war on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR).
  • Janet Porter 954-465-1500 Lori Viars 513-932-3554

    Janet Porter 954-465-1500 Lori Viars 513-932-3554

    Janet Porter Responds to Heartbeat Opponents Quoted in Ohio Senate President’s Letter Contact: Janet Porter 954-465-1500 Lori Viars 513-932-3554 May 3, 2012 – For Immediate Release A letter dated May 2, 2012 from Senate President Tom Niehaus said that because H.B. 125, the Heartbeat Bill, offers a challenge to Roe v. Wade, it is somehow misleading to state what the bill, when enacted, will do. As Right to Life founder Dr. Willke stated, the Heartbeat Bill will protect 90-95 percent of the babies who would otherwise be aborted. Using a very conservative estimate, based on the annual number of Ohio abortions, the Heartbeat Bill would, indeed, save 26,000 babies each year--more than 70 each day--which is more than can fit into any school bus. While it is true that the Senate has passed several regulatory bills, every Senator who ran on a pro-life platform promised to vote to end abortions, not merely regulate them. It is also true that the Ohio Senate has had the Heartbeat Bill since last June--for nearly a year. As Dr. Willke said in his letter, “After forty years and 54 million dead babies, don't ask us to wait any longer.” The pro-life people of Ohio agree and that agreement is demonstrated with more support than for any bill in Ohio history-- 500 national and state pro-life leaders, dozens of the nation's leading pro-life attorneys, and a poll that revealed support from 2 out of 3 likely voters in Ohio--more support than for any bill of its kind.
  • 2021 GACSB Legislative Update

    2021 GACSB Legislative Update

    Lyly Trinh From: Jesse Hambrick Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:30 PM To: Jesse Hambrick Subject: Georgia Legislative Session Update - Legislative Day 31 (Crossover Edition) Legislative Day 31 Crossover Edition As Crossover Day is in the rearview, legislators wasted no time getting to work with committee hearings to round off the 2021 session. Deliberations intensified on HB 81 (Fiscal Year 2022 Budget), as Senate Appropriations’ subcommittees met to learn more about the Governor and agencies’ priorities and changes made to the proposal by the House. Notably, the Department of Community Health, which oversees the Medicaid and PeachCare for Kids programs, has extended the care management organization (“CMO”) contracts for two years until 2024. Thus, the procurement for new CMO contracts will likely be postponed 9 Legislative Days remain in the 2020 session: Monday, March 1st - Legislative Day 25 Wednesday, March 3rd - Legislative Day 26 Friday, March 5th - Legislative Day 27 Monday, March 8th - Legislative Day 28 (CROSSOVER) Tuesday, March 9th - Legislative Day 29 Wednesday, March 10th - Legislative Day 30 Thursday, March 11th - Legislative Day 31 Monday, March 15th- Legislative Day 32 Tuesday, March 16th - Legislative Day 33 Wednesday, March 17th - Legislative Day 34 Thursday, March 18th- Legislative Day 35 Monday, March 22nd - Legislative Day 36 1 Tuesday, March 23rd - Legislative Day 37 Thursday, March 25th - Legislative Day 38 Monday, March 29th - Legislative Day 39 Wednesday, March 31st - Legislative Day 40 (SINE DIE) Awaiting Governor Kemp's Signature HB 367, by Rep. Butch Parrish, seeks to make an annual update to the state's dangerous drug scheduling list. Awaiting Final Agree/Disagree SB 4, by Sen.
  • Georgia Heartbeat Bill

    Georgia Heartbeat Bill

    Case Study: Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill For this assignment, students are assigned to write either a political strategy memo (not to exceed three pages) or an editorial (not to exceed 600 words) from the perspective of one of the case actors below. A number of states, including Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and Ohio have passed or attempted to pass sweeping new abortion legislation in 2019. The legislation that came to a vote in Georgia was a “heartbeat bill”—HB 481 would outlaw abortion after a fetal heartbeat could be detected, which medical professionals estimate is possible at six weeks, earlier than many women learn of their pregnancy. Governor Brian Kemp (R) pledged during his campaign to support the measure if passed by the legislature. HB 481, and laws like it in other states, are widely understood to have implications reaching beyond state lines. By stretching the limits of what is possible under Roe v. Wade (and other reproductive health precedents)—and by inciting pro-choice advocates to file lawsuits—these state laws serve as potential constitutional challenges to Roe, which have the potential to alter the legal landscape of abortion nationwide. It is believed that the architects of the Georgia bill had such a constitutional challenge in mind when introducing the legislation. The composition of the Supreme Court, with two justices appointed by President Donald J. Trump having moved the court rightward, may be more receptive to revisiting Roe and other precedents than it has been in the recent past. Heartbeat laws, like the one considered in Georgia, have never been reviewed by the Supreme Court before.
  • 2021 Georgia General Assembly Legislative Days 20-24 Overview

    2021 Georgia General Assembly Legislative Days 20-24 Overview

    2021 Georgia General Assembly Legislative Days 20-24 Overview Housekeeping The Georgia General Assembly convened for the seventh week (Legislative Days 20-24). Legislation has moved quickly through the week with a continued focus on election reform. Other closely watched bills that have been moving this week include various school voucher bills, online gambling, and tort reform. The calendar has also been officially set to Wednesday, March 31st (Legislative Day 40, Sine Die). Crossover Day is set for Monday, March 8th (Legislative Day 28). Crossover Day marks the cutoff for when a piece of legislation must pass a legislative body in order to be considered for the rest of the year. The General Assembly will reconvene on Monday, March 1st for Legislative Day 25. Election Bills on the Move This week, the Georgia General Assembly saw movement on a series of election bills with many being passed on a chamber floor. While the majority of election bills that have been moving have been sponsored by Republicans, one Democratic sponsored bill (Sen. Jen Jordan - SB 40) made it to the Senate floor and was passed unanimously. One of the most closely watched bills include the House Special Committee on Election Integrity Chairman Barry Fleming’s House Bill 531. House Bill 531 is considered an “omnibus bill,” a bill that packages together several measures into one piece of legislation. His bill would make sweeping changes to Georgia’s election system. Senate Majority Leader Mike Dugan (R-Carrollton) introduced his own omnibus bill on the Senate side that also included extensive changes to Georgia’s election system.