By comparing the language in the proposed Georgia law to the draconian South Dakota ban that voters rejected in November, a clearer picture emerges of the future of anti-abortion legislation.
Challenge to Roe
Both bans make performing an abortion a felony and state that human life begins at conception. However, the Georgia bill not only uses stronger language, it also seems to overtly presume and prepare itself for a judicial challenge to Roe v. Wade, which was denied to South Dakota after voters rejected its ban.
SD: "The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization."
GA: “We know that life begins at conception ... Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, wrote: 'when those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer [to the question of when life begins].' Now, 30 years later, the General Assembly knows the answer to that difficult question, and that answer is life begins at the moment of conception.”The Georgia bill also states that “a fetus is a person for all purposes under the laws of this state from the moment of conception … constitutional protection attaches at the moment of conception.”
Prosecuting women
Whether the women who get abortions should be treated as criminals has long been a contentious issue for anti-abortion groups. South Dakota made clear that the woman was to be exempt from prosecution, but Georgia offers no such explicit protection:
SD: "Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty."
GA: "Any person performing an abortion in this state shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-1. The license of any physician indicted for an alleged violation of this Code section shall be suspended until resolution of the matter. The license of any physician convicted of a violation of this Code section shall be permanently revoked. The provisions of this Code section shall be in addition to any other provisions relating to the killing of a fetus or any other person."
Rationale for banning
The South Dakota legislation echoed the findings of an abortion task force that the state had convened prior to proposing the ban. The legislation said that an abortion ban was necessary “to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child.”
But the Georgia bill goes into great detail, making many claims regarding the negative effects of abortion, citing statistics without naming sources or scientific studies and echoing the rhetoric of anti-abortion activists. Not only have many of these claims been proven clinically incorrect or statistically distorted, the language used in the bill assumes unquestionable authority on issues previously deemed best left to personal interpretation. H.B.1 says that:- Legalized abortion has created a "dramatic rise in the incidence of child abuse and a dramatic weakening of family ties,"
- "[W]omen who have had an abortion require psychological treatment of such symptoms as nervous disorders, sleep disturbances, and deep regrets,"
- "[W]omen who have had an abortion suffered from diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder,"
- "[W]omen who reported post-abortion trauma also reported suicidal tendencies,"
- "Abortion results in increased tobacco smoking,"
- "Abortion is linked to alcohol and drug abuse,"
- "Most couples find abortion to be an event which shatters their relationship,"
- "Abortion exploits women, treating them and their children as mere property,"
- "Abortion is contrary to feminist values, and the great suffragette Susan B. Anthony referred to abortion as 'child murder',"
- Legalized abortion has caused an "increase in breast cancer,"
- Legalized abortion "has had a profound detrimental effect on the health and well-being of the citizens of this state as well as the health of the economy,"
- Abortion has caused the state "an inestimable amount economically" including "the costs and tax burden of having to care for individuals and their families for the conditions cited above" and "a significant reduction of the tax base and of the availability of workers."
Most of the purported psychological and physical side effects are unproven. Some, like the claim that abortion causes breast cancer, have been officially rejected by medical groups such as the American Cancer Society. The section about how abortion is "contrary to feminist values" reads like an exact reprinting of talking points from the group Feminists For Life. That same group has also long distorted the views of suffragist Susan B. Anthony, whose quotes are taken out of context to suit their own political views.
What was most troubling to many pro-choicers about the South Dakota legislation, aside from the obvious, was the legislation's use of "pro-woman" language. As Reva Siegel and Prospect deputy editor Sarah Blustain wrote in the October 2006 issue of The American Prospect, "Asserting that women are subject to coerced and dangerous abortions, the state prohibited the procedure, it said, not only to protect the unborn, but to protect women's choices, women's s health, and women's welfare -- new justifications that borrow pro-choice language and infuse it with some very old notions about women's roles." The Georgia bill spells out these "abortion hurts women" arguments much more explicitly, and devotes only a small section to fetal personhood. The rhetoric mirrors what the savvier wings of the anti-abortion movement have been saying for years.
Looking ahead
Because the bill is so radical, experts don't expect it to make it out of the House of Representatives. But both houses of the Georgia legislature are strongly anti-abortion, and Governor Sonny Perdue is also anti-choice. Surprisingly, some anti-abortion groups have expressed disappointment with the legislation. They say they would have rather seen these ideas enshrined in the state constitution rather than in a statute. Criminalizing abortion under Georgia law isn't enough, they say. After all, South Dakota voters were able to collect enough signatures to get their state's abortion ban on the ballot, where it was ultimately struck down.
But South Dakota is one of only 24 states that allow popular referenda on statues. Georgia does not. So if H.B.1 does happen to pass the state legislature and is signed into law by Perdue, voters wouldn't have a chance to overturn it. The ban would likely be challenged by Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups, eventually making its way through the court system -- where it would pose a serious challenge to Roe.
Alina Hoffman is an editorial intern and Ann Friedman is associate web editor at the Prospect.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to The American Prospect here.
Support independent media with a tax-deductible donation here.
