A town hall meeting to discuss the “paramount right to life” and a potential statewide abortion ban

State Rep. Martin Scott, one of the sponsors of HR 536, on the “Paramount Right to Life,” will be the featured participant. I’m told the meeting, which is sponsored by the College Republicans, will take place Monday week (10/22) in the Tate Student Center on the UGA campus in Athens.

HR 536 would enshrine in the Georgia Constitution the statement that “all human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every state of their biological development, including fertilization” count as “persons” and are therefore possessed of the inalienable Constitutional rights to life, liberty, etc. (emphasis added)

If you’re in the area and care either way on the issue of abortion, this sounds like a good opportunity to stop by and participate.


  1. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    ‘possessed of the inalienable Constitutional rights to life’

    So would this put an end to the death penalty?

  2. Burdell says:


    It would not. The death penalty is about someone forfeiting their right to life by committing a heinous crime.

    Abortion is about saying the fetus never had that right to begin with.

  3. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Hmm…let me see now….oh here it is: Thou shall not kill. Hmmm…let me see….well there doesn’t seem to be any footnotes here.

    No exceptions I guess.
    I mean, are there exceptions for the other 9 commandmants? I wonder how that would work? Let’s see:
    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife*

    *Unless thou is really horny and thy neighbor’s wife has enjoyed too much wine and help herself.


  4. BubbaRich says:

    Here’ s more of the zygote worship. This one is worse than most, because it intentionally condemns regular birth control pills as well as emergency contraception. Why do people worship that cell? Will they worship all cells when they can be cloned in the next year or two?

    Where is worship of the “fertilized cell” in the Bible, or whatever holy book they are basing this law on? If there is something special and individual about a fertilized cell, then we need to hold a LOT more funerals for the millions of zygotes that die every year. Menstruation after sex should probably be a potential capital offense.

  5. Bill Simon says:


    Not that I agree with Scott’s efforts, but, the Commandment you’re quoting spells the difference very clearly between us Old Testament folks, and you New Testament folks./

    In the Jewish version of the Old Testament, the Commandment reads: “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder, by definition, is the unlawful killing of a human being. It is not “murder” to lawfully execute a person whom the justice system has deemed to commit a capital crime.

    You can thank the liberal mind of King James for screwing-up the interpretation of the Bible.

  6. rugby_fan says:


    One of my ancestors assisted in translating the KJV Bible and one of the things he was outspoken about (in addition to James himself) was the change in the commandments.

  7. GodHatesTrash says:

    I always chuckle when I see evangelicals thrashing about about their King James Version Bibles.

    Britain is the opposite of the US – the homosexual and bisexual and bestial rustics live in the north, in Scotland. King James I of England was also King James VI of Scotland, and brought with him to the English throne the Scottish habit of sex with other men. (now you know what those kilts are all about). Thankfully, it appears he left the sheep and cattle alone.

    Anyhow, there was a common saying during King James I’s reign (he followed his cousin Elizabeth I to the English throne) – “Elizabeth was King: Now James is Queen.”

    So – evangelicals – enjoy your King?Queen? James Bible, the unerrant word of Gawd…

    Or not…

  8. StevePerkins says:

    It’s funny, the difference between an off-year and an election-year. Last year, the state legislature was focused mostly on meat-and-potato matters of taxing and spending… the most controversial issue on the table was whether the NRA was pushing 2nd-Amendment rights too far over property rights. Now that we’re in an election year however, it’s time to pitch abortion-ban amendments to the Constitution. How can any intelligent person look at the timing and take these election-year wedge issues seriously?

    In 2004, the GOP grassroots was powered by gay-marriage amendments, an issue backed by about 80% of the public, and yet still BARELY squeaked out a victory for an incumbent during wartime. Abortion doesn’t wield anywhere near that level of leverage… if the party’s going to rely on THAT to churn out the base this year (and the increased chatter I’m hearing on Peach Pundit lately makes me think this is the idea), it’s toast.

    For the past few decades… no matter which party held power, conservative PHILOSOPHY still ruled the nation. “Liberal” became a dirty word that Democrats ran away from. Labor union power collapsed. Free trade became a mainstream idea. Affirmative action was rolled back. HillaryCare was laughed out of town… and despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, Bill Clinton’s administration was basically forced down a moderate path and was probably less left-wing than even the Nixon administration was.

    NOW, however, the GOP has dropped the ball to the point where the philosophical tide is shifting. The country no longer argues about whether the government should increase its intervention in health care, but rather about how much it should do so. Free trade has become an ugly term. Instead of Democrats being forced in a conservative direction on economic issues, the Republicans are being forced in a leftist direction on economic issues.

    The answer is NOT to retreat even further and repeat the mistake of leaning on the crutch of social wedge issues, the answer is to learn from those mistakes… and focus on economic principles that have kept the conservative philosophy dominant for three decades (and created a boom that made us the world’s sole superpower). This kind of crap makes me want to pull my hair out.

  9. megan says:

    I agree with the general consensus here that these types of suggested amendments/legislation are primarily a PR trick, and never expected to pass and/or stand up to a serious court challenge. But assuming that someone out there takes them seriously, I’m curious how people who support these types of amendments/laws intend to enforce them in the case of a pregnancy that endangers the life of a woman. If the pregnancy is terminated, presumably the woman and her doctor are charged with murder/manslaughter. But if the pregnancy isn’t terminated, and the woman dies, are the child and doctor charged with murder/manslaughter? For surely if the unborn baby has an “inalienable Constitutional right to life” then so does the mother?

  10. Bill Simon says:

    Megan, Megan, Megan…

    The life of the non-existent person is always paramount above the life of any existing person.

    Unless, of course, if it can one day be predicted that that non-existent person will likely be gay when it becomes a person, and then he/she’s life is secondary.

Comments are closed.