Georgia Right to Life takes on Speaker Richardson

They’re making robo calls asking people to call their Legislator to urge passage of the Human Life Amendment.

77 comments

  1. Bill Simon says:

    Soooo…I wonder how GRTL’s fellow whack-job Eric Johnson thinks about these robo-calls going out? After all, his bill would make them much more expensive.

  2. Joy says:

    Is this the same robo-call from a couple weeks ago, just before the primary? The really, REALLY long message to which I tried to give my full attention, but fell asleep after 4-5 minutes?

    It probably wasn’t, as that also had the request to attend some sort of family values rally.

  3. Harry says:

    I don’t know why Glenn wouldn’t let this go through. If/when Roe v. Wade is overturned, it says abortion would immediately illegal in Georgia. Evidently, if 57% of Georgians oppose Roe v. Wade, and the vast majority of those are Rs, it would seem like a no-brainer.

  4. Harry says:

    Maybe he’s not looking to be Speaker any more? I think a lot of us pro-lifers would ask our Reps not to vote for him next term.

  5. Bill Simon says:

    Harry,

    Here’s a question I have for you: I have been told many times by RTLifers that in the Roe v. Wade decision, the judges stated that while they believed a woman has a “right to privacy”, the RTLers argue that since there is no “right to privacy” spelled-out in the Constitution that no such right actually exists.

    SO…here’s the dig you should really think about: That is the only Court decison that states that there IS a “right to privacy,” and if you overturn that decison, that means that the presumed “right to privacy” must ALSO be invald…and, therefore, NOBODY
    in this country has a right to privacy.

    Are you willing to give-up your right to privacy just so every woman, whether they were willingly impregnated or not, carries every zygote to be born in the US?

  6. Harry says:

    Aside from the morality of protecting life, on which you may disagree….it’s more an issue to me of federalism and the proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    Great! I look forward to seeing how you feel when, after Roe gets repealed, the government starts installing cameras in your house so they can keep watch to make sure nothing “bad” happens to you. After all, you will not have a right to privacy then.

  8. Joy,

    “No such thing as moral legislation.”
    Ok, yeah. How about immoral legislation?

    Killing babies because they are not old enough to speak up for their right to life is the worst case of age discrimination ever. Be realistic.

    Glenn, pick on someone your own size instead of innocent and harmless babies.

    Speaker said at Cobb GOP: I care about the rights of the born, not the unborn.

    Oh brave new world with such people in it!
    –Huxley

  9. Joy says:

    “Oh brave new world with such people in it!”
    -Huxley

    How about this one?
    “Morality ends where a gun begins.”
    -Rand

    A law is not moral or immoral, any more than a gun is bad. If you say legislation speaks to the morality of those who write, enact and enforce it, on that I’d agree.

    If Georgia were to become the state with the lowest number of abortions performed, I’d be thrilled. But not if it’s done at the point of a gun.

    If churches and RTL groups expand the crisis pregnancy centers, build stronger networks of adoption agencies, and make counseling and education the priority, the abortion rates would drop.

  10. Bill Simon says:

    Martin Luther Street,

    “Killing babies because they are not old enough to speak up for their right to life is the worst case of age discrimination ever. Be realistic.”

    A one-cell amoeba is not a “baby.” A zygote is not a “baby.” A blastocyst is not a “baby.”

    A baby BECOMES a “baby” when it exists the womb and starts to breathe air directly into its lungs.

  11. GOPeach says:

    Joy –

    This is where it comes down to the BOTTOM LINE –

    I am not OKAY with paying TAXES to MURDER BABIES IN THE WOMB!

    Now if you want to go find a doctor and work a deal with him on your dime to murder your baby then go for it! You and God can work that out. Just leave me and my money out of it!

    I do not want your baby’s blood on my hands.

    THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

  12. GOPeach says:

    An ABORTION is performed on PREGNANT WOMEN.

    PREGNANT – def. – having a child developing in the body.

    WHEN CAN WE KNOW a WOMAN IS PREGNANT????

    Quantitative blood tests and the most sensitive urine tests usually detect hCG shortly after implantation, which can occur anywhere from 6 to 12 days after ovulation.

    Less sensitive urine tests and qualitative blood tests may not detect pregnancy until three or four days after implantation. Menstruation occurs on average 14 days after ovulation, so the likelihood of a false negative is low once a menstrual period is late.

    Ovulation may not occur at a predictable time in the menstrual cycle, however. A number of factors may cause an unexpectedly early or late ovulation, even for women with a history of regular menstrual cycles. Using ovulation predictor kits (OPKs), or charting the fertility signs of cervical mucus or basal body temperature give a more accurate idea of when to test than day-counting alone.

    The accuracy of a pregnancy test is most closely related to the day of ovulation, not of intercourse. It is normal for sperm to live up to five days after intercourse in the fallopian tubes, waiting for ovulation to occur.

    It could take up to twelve further days for implantation to occur, meaning even the most sensitive pregnancy tests may give false negatives up to seventeen days after the act of intercourse that caused the pregnancy. Because some home pregnancy tests have high hCG detection thresholds (up to 100 mIU/mL), it may take an additional three or four days for hCG to rise to levels detectable by these tests — meaning false negatives may occur up to three weeks after the act of intercourse that causes pregnancy.

    The Bottom Line
    _____________

    Abortions are performed on PREGNANT WOMEN!

    PREGNANT WOMEN are carrying a CHILD!

    To ” Abort” [ Cut -Off, Kill, Terminate, etc…] the LIFE of a CHILD is AKA MURDER…

    Abortion Doctors Are Murders.

  13. fishtail says:

    GOPeach…so you don’t want the Government using your tax dollars for abortions…but it’s OK to use your tax dollars for years and years of welfare baby support after they have “exited the womb…again, have you or any of your devout Christian friends ever adopted any of these unfortunate babies? That’s the BOTTOM LINE here…your hypocrisy is appalling.

  14. Bill Simon says:

    Fishtail,

    I think maybe it’s time we introduced the fact that, in reality, the whole issue of human life and when the human “becomes” a human being is really based on one’s interpretation of their religious beliefs.

    In that light, this now becomes an argument covered by the First Amendment’s clause of “freedom of religion.”

    Unless someone can present to me an Atheist (actually, several would be good, but one would start the process) who believes a human being exists at the time of conception, then all this subject becomes is a difference of religious belief…and, we are covered by our belief systems on that viewpoint.

  15. Joy says:

    So, which is it, GOPeach? Do you support a law to ban all abortion, or just tax payer funded abortion?
    You seem to be interchanging the two issues, and they are very different.

    Now, what to do with my Sunday afternoon? Darned if I didn’t take care of all my aborting yesterday morning.

  16. GOPeach says:

    JOY :

    ABORTION is the largest PORK SPENDING in AMERICA.

    To EARMARK MONEY to KILL AMERICAN BABIES is atrocious,deplorable, gruesome, horrendous, and barbaric.

    That id my POLITICAL VIEW!

    My MORAL VIEW is that ABORTION IS MURDER in the 1st DEGREE!

  17. GOPeach says:

    fishtail –

    I have 7 grandchildren – 3 are adopted – bi-racial.

    YES and I have many CHRISTIAN friends who sacrifice MUCH to adopt UNWANTED Pregnancies!!!!

    I have more INVESTED in my statements on this thread than you would EVER imagine.

  18. Bill Simon says:

    Let me ask you something, Peachy:

    When a dog is pregnant, do you believe all those forming future dogs are “puppies” in the bitch’s womb?

    Or, is the correct phrase “My dog is going to have puppies?”

    My religion (NO, not the ONE you’ve tried to adopt as yours, Peachy) demonstrates to me that the fetus/zygote/blastocyst/pre-human is not a “person” until that entity exists the womb.

    YOU and your fellow Christians are, for the most part, the ONLY religion that believes as you do.

    Show me an atheist who believes in this new legislation that states a “person” starts his/her existence at the moment of conception and is therefore protected under all other laws that are applied to the normal, air-breathing, hand-waving human persons, and I’d like to find out why he/she does that.

  19. Bill Simon says:

    “BTW – God does not believe in Atheists – therefore they do not exist.”

    Right, Peachy…people who profess atheism don’t exist, but non-humans DO exist as “persons.” Yeahhhhh…

  20. fishtail says:

    Let’s face it…GOPeach wants to shove her religious beliefs down everyone’s throats. If you have a different view than hers, then the Devil has taken over your soul…you are condemned to eternal Hell fire…she is to be pitied for her ignorant views.

  21. John Konop says:

    Bill Does make some interesting points here. I wonder what a lawyer would think about this article?

    The Consequences of “Personhood” Being Bestowed Onto A Zygote

    ….Now, if you bestow “personhood” on the human zygote in the womb at the moment of conception, then that means the following will happen:

    1) The legal birthday of that “person” becomes the date of conception. (I guarantee you even the most average of lawyers would be successful in arguing that to be the correct interpretation of the law.)

    2) At that date of conception is when the parent(s) can begin deducting that “person” on their taxes. (Again, even the most average of tax attorneys could successfully argue that to be perfectly valid.)

    3) All of the “welfare moms” who now receive monthly checks from the government for their children will be able to start receiving those checks right after the date of conception. What’s that? I’m hearing mumblings from pro-life conservative Republicans who don’t feel like allowing these 9-months-prior-to-normal-birth-welfare-moms to start collecting money on their new “persons” in the wombs. (What’s that? You’re going to pass another law that disallows this money until the zygote actually forms into a fetus and gets “born” the old-fashioned way? Well, that’s okay, we’re used to your continual and consistent demonstrations of sheer hypocrisy.)

    4) At the moment of conception, the “person” will be assigned a social security number, and be eligible for anything a regular, air-breathing “person” is eligible for now……

    http://sitemail7.hostway.com/sitemail/reademail.php?id=206&folder=Inbox&[email protected]

  22. BubbaRich says:

    Peach still hasn’t answered my question about whether zygotes are people only if you have sex, or if you make them in the lab, too.

    Her Bible seems to have an extra book about abortion, since the God Who was speaking to the rest of humanity forgot to mention it.

  23. Bill Simon says:

    Peach,

    You and your ilk are nothing but f*cking idiots. To equate the torture, starvation, beating, and killing of REAL LIVE PEOPLE to the aborting of non-existent human beings demonstrates just how STUPID you are.

  24. John Konop says:

    GOPeach

    Bill Simon can be crude but he does have a point. Is this bill unconstitutional via changing when a person counts via our legal system? I am no lawyer but it seems like a very legitimate question.

  25. BubbaRich says:

    Peach:

    You still didn’t answer the question. Nice distraction, though your God seems to be somewhat pathetic if He can’t say what he means to anybody but goatherders in the Bronze Age desert.

    Now if you can come back to the subject for a second, which zygotes have earned your Stamp of Approval? A cell produced in the lab, or only if it is produced during sweaty sex?

  26. profg says:

    Bill Simon wrote: “That is the only Court decison that states that there IS a “right to privacy,” and if you overturn that decison, that means that the presumed “right to privacy” must ALSO be invald…and, therefore, NOBODY in this country has a right to privacy.”

    Sorry Bill, that is not correct. The SCOTUS ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), that the Constitution protected a “right to privacy,” by discovering “penumbras,” unstated rights in the “shadow” of enumerated rights in the 4th and 9th amendments.

    Griswold (and the later Eisenstadt v. Baird [1972]) were cited in support of the Court’s result in Roe v. Wade (1973).

    BG

  27. OleDirtyBarrister says:

    Profg is right on the mark, and I was about to post that as well.

    Bill Simon:

    Where do you laymen get this stuff to support such hysterical posts?

    Do you really beleive that it is Roe v. Wade that protects your home from invasion by the govt and installation of a camera?

    The “reasonable expectation of privacy” is a central element as to whether a search or seizure is “reasonable” under the 4th amendment.
    Overturning Roe v. Wade would do nothing to change that.

    There are many who don’t care that much about the abortion issue who still see the incredible activism in Roe. If Roe were overturned, it would simply put in back into the realm of democracy, and it would either be decided in the states or nationally the way that the constitution was intended to be amended-under Article V.

  28. newuser says:

    “….Now, if you bestow “personhood” on the human zygote in the womb at the moment of conception, then that means the following will happen:

    Whoever dreamed these up is obviously willing to take pride in ignorance.

    1) The legal birthday of that “person” becomes the date of conception. (I guarantee you even the most average of lawyers would be successful in arguing that to be the correct interpretation of the law.)

    This is plain foolish. Birthday = date of birth, not conception. The “guarantee” makes the claim even more outrageous.

    2) At that date of conception is when the parent(s) can begin deducting that “person” on their taxes. (Again, even the most average of tax attorneys could successfully argue that to be perfectly valid.)

    Wrong again. At the risk of validating the seriousness of this ridiculous argument, suffice it to say that the deduction is a privilege accorded to the taxpayer, not to the dependent, so the “personhood” of the dependent is irrelevant. Further, not all children qualify as “deductions” in any event. For instance, if a taxpayer makes more than a certain amount, then the dependent child deduction goes away.

    3) All of the “welfare moms” who now receive monthly checks from the government for their children will be able to start receiving those checks right after the date of conception. What’s that? I’m hearing mumblings from pro-life conservative Republicans who don’t feel like allowing these 9-months-prior-to-normal-birth-welfare-moms to start collecting money on their new “persons” in the wombs. (What’s that? You’re going to pass another law that disallows this money until the zygote actually forms into a fetus and gets “born” the old-fashioned way? Well, that’s okay, we’re used to your continual and consistent demonstrations of sheer hypocrisy.)

    Wrong again, for substantially the same reasons as described with respect to tax deductions. The aid to women with dependent children is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right, and there is absolutely no basis for this ridiculous assertion that the aid should start before the child is born and requires sustenance outside the mother’s womb.

    4) At the moment of conception, the “person” will be assigned a social security number, and be eligible for anything a regular, air-breathing “person” is eligible for now……”

    No one is now “assigned” a social security number at birth. You have to apply for it. What planet does this guy come from? Making birth a prerequisite for application would not be a big deal.

  29. John Konop says:

    newuser

    I am confused is not the pro-life argument that you are protecting a person with rights that they cannot protect themselves similar to minors?

    The Bill of Rights and Constitution is based on the rights of a person. Why would not defining when a person is considered one legally be an issue?

    I am no lawyer but it seems not to be as cut and dry as you make it. This is the problem with the right and the left at times they think their issues are bigger than the constitution.

    The issue is not about being pro-life or not this is an issue of if this bill is unconstitutional.

  30. GOPeach says:

    Maybe I should just not stand up for the murder of unborn chidren… let all the liberals have at it… then eventually….. my TAX $$$ will be use to eliminate all the liberals.

  31. GOPeach says:

    Mr. Speaker –

    You are a lawyer. You know that the taking of innocent and defenseless life is never justified.

    Abortion is murder and is condemned by a civil society as morally reprehensible homicide.

    Read that BILL H. B. 563 and get it over with…

    What in the world are you afraid of??????

    Read that bill and MOVE ON!!!!

  32. GOPeach says:

    I mean HB 536…

    FIVE …..THIRTY ……SIX!

    HOUSE BILL FIVE …..THIRTY ……SIX!

    Personhood Bill…. Are we “people” when we breathe air???

    Explain this…

  33. John Konop says:

    FROM BILL SIMON.

    This is another interesting constitutional issue.

    The Consequences of “Personhood” Being Bestowed Onto A Zygote-Addendum

    Hey, sorry, but I gotta add a #6 to my previous list of what happens if the Human Life Amendment were to get on the ballot and pass by a majority.

    Bob Mayzes responded to my comments I sent out last night with several comments, one of which I thought was very thought-provoking. AND, one that the Liberals might actually consider very carefully. This is what Bob wrote me:

    “The Human Life Amendment purpose is to protect all human life from conception until natural death. It is not just about protecting unborn babies, but about protecting lives of the sick and aged from being purged by a society concerned about cost and convenience. The Human Life Amendment says that our State considers human life unique and worthy of legal protections.”

    Based on this comment from Bob, I hereby amend and add a #6 to the “What Happens if This Ill-Conceived Amendment Were To Pass a Ballot Vote” as follows:

    6) Since a state constitutional amendment is the paramount source of law for the state, all laws in conflict with the amendment will, eventually, be repealed. One only needs to take the ruling last week from the Georgia Supreme Court who found that yes, taking money previously collected under the auspice of educational purposes and using it for TAD redevelopment was, in fact, a violation of the state constitution. This, despite the fact that the practice had been going on for more than 10 years.

    So if the intention of the life amendment is to be interpreted as Bob Mayzes claims it is, then the death penalty for crimes in this state will cease as an available punishment. No more putting to death violators of any act, no matter how heinous. Why? Because all of the laws must abide by the constitution..and, if you put into the constitution that all life must be protected, then all life must be protected, even the lives of the 4 men who might rape someone’s 12-year-old daughter for 10 hours, and then slice her throat and leave her to bleed.

    Now, to you Democrats who hate the death penalty, you should consider getting onboard and pumping-up support of this ballot initiative. You can abolish the death penalty in this state if this ballot gets passed.

    To sum-up, laws have consequences…and, laws written by complete morons (e.g., Rep. Martin Scott who is carrying this bill for the large group of PETA-wannabes that call themselves “GRTL”)…and passed by a larger group of morons (e.g., Martin Scott’s fellow representatives and senators who want to vote in favor of this resolution) tends to produce pretty asinine results.

    Oh…one other thing: A zygote IS “human”, but is it a human being? You see, in much the same way as if you were to find a human arm lying by the side of the road (and that arm contains all of the genes of a human being), do we consider that arm to BE a “human being” merely because it has the aspects of a human?

    Carry on…

    http://politicalvine.com/politicalrumors/

  34. Tekneek says:

    As far as “…getting things right with God…” goes, I’m sure the God I was told about as a child in Baptist churches could take of this without human intervention.

    I like the idea of preventing hospitals and insurance companies from deciding who gets to die, which DOES happen in this state. Unfortunately, there are just way too many unintended consequences that may come from this, so I could not even begin to support the bill in its current form.

  35. jsm says:

    So if the intention of the life amendment is to be interpreted as Bob Mayzes claims it is, then the death penalty for crimes in this state will cease as an available punishment.

    Everyone currently has the right to protection of his or her life until he or she commits a heinous crime. Once found guilty of the crime, many rights are lost. The human rights legislation would not change this.

    Moral legislation? No such thing.

    I agree. Morality cannot be legislated. This is an issue of protection of life, and the argument rests on varying beliefs regarding the moment that life begins.

  36. Bill Simon says:

    JSM,

    You miss the point. This is NOT “legislation.” This will become a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment supercedes any and all laws that are in conflict with it.

  37. jsm says:

    You’re right, Bill. I didn’t make the distinction. However, adding a little clause about the due process of law to the amendment shouldn’t be all that difficult.

  38. Tekneek says:

    GOPeach – You don’t support this? I gathered that you did. If you don’t see a point in it, then I guess we don’t need it. 🙂

Comments are closed.