Georgia Ends Abortion With ‘Heartbeat’ Law
Federal Court Finds It Is Constitutional
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, finding that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right and left abortion laws up to individual states, there was considerable clamor by pro-abortion activists about potentially stalling state decisions through legal wrangling. So far, their ability to stop states from representing their constituents has been limited.
Georgia’s Heartbeat bill was actually passed by the Georgia General Assembly into law 2019, but it was blocked in 2020 when the US District Court ruled that the bill was unconstitutional. Everything changed after the Supreme Court decision in June. The law makes abortions illegal after a baby forms a heartbeat, usually at six weeks (babies also form brains and synapse activity at 6-8 weeks), and it matches with similar laws in Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma and many other states.
The law was vindicated by a federal appeals court this week when a three-judge panel ruled that the Supreme Court decision on the Dobbs case negated pro-abortion arguments of constitutionality. The appeals court added that “no clear right to abortion exists within the constitution” and that the state of Georgia is free to prohibit the practice.
Three exceptions are written into the law:
- First, if a pregnancy occurs due to rape or incest it can be terminated as long as a police report is filed documenting the crime.
- Second, if it is determined that the pregnancy presents a serious risk to the life of the mother.
- Third, if there is a medical condition which naturally renders the fetus unviable.
The law also defines a “natural person” to include unborn children, granting personhood to babies still in the womb.
After 50 years of Roe v. Wade the practice has been well ingrained into our culture in medical terms, yet, the conflict over the Supreme Court decision in 1973 has never lost any momentum and it has never been fully accepted as legitimate. Around half of Americans say that abortion should be legal, but only under limited circumstances according to polls.
This was the root argument that abortion advocates made in 1973 after the decision on Roe v. Wade – That abortion would be legal, but with numerous limitations. Planned Parenthood worked extensively to reduce such limitations from state to state through a hailstorm of lawsuits until abortion was widely held to be a primary solution to any and all pregnancy concerns
With a large number of contraception options in play today, the “stigma” of motherhood out of wedlock non-existent, as well as adoption foundations and charities in place, the notion of using abortion as a form of contraception has lost legitimacy. Now, as the Georgia case shows, the decision is once again back in state hands and voter hands.
(TLB) published this article from ZeroHedge as compiled and written by Tyler Durden
Header featured image (edited) credit: Gavel/(Source: Gray News)
Emphasis added by (TLB) editors
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.