UPDATE from Nikema at 11:00am: SB 209 has been tabled!


A call to action from Georgia’s WIN List.

Abortion may be legal, you just won’t be able to get one in Georgia.

SB 209, a bill that would ban abortion in Georgia after 20 weeks, was a cause for significant concern as introduced. Now, with less than 24 hours notice, it has been replaced by an unconstitutional bill that would prohibit all abortions in any facility other than a hospital.

No other state has this law.

Nationally, 95% of all abortions are performed in private doctor’s offices, licensed surgical centers and clinics.  Most hospitals only provide abortions under emergency circumstances.  If the Senate has their way, abortion will be legal in Georgia, but good luck finding a facility that can perform one under this new law.

We urge you to attend the Senate Rules committee tomorrow morning, at 10:00 am in Room 450 where they will be voting on this sweeping legislation. This unprecedented maneuver was achieved with the first appearance of Senate “Hawks,” or Senators appointed by leadership to appear in committees to which they are not current members in order to change the outcome of a vote. We thought the “hawks” of the Georgia General Assembly had flown away with former House Speaker, Glenn Richardson. Apparently not.


23 Responses to The GAGOP’s war on women continues

  1. JMPrince says:

    Again the issue with the cups. And no don’t google it!

    Still More really innovative warfare on women here, now with GOP’s own ‘jackbooted thugs’ & pregnancy police! You can’t make this ‘stuff up! Via ThinkProgress & HR3 in the US House


    “GOP Anti-Abortion Bill Will Force IRS Agents To Audit Abortions Of Sexual Assault Victims
    The GOP’s H.R. 3, or the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortions Act, is quickly racking up a number of unprecedented offenses against a woman’s right to choose. Starting with the redefinition of rape, H.R. 3 also torpedoes the GOP anti-tax pledge by changing the tax code to raise taxes on women and small businesses that provide health insurance covering abortions. Now, as Mother Jones’s Nick Baumann reports, this tax code provision would turn the Internal Revenue Service into “abortion cops” who “investigate whether certain terminated pregnancies were the result of rape or incest.”


  2. innerredneckexposed says:

    OK just re-read the thread, no ad-homs actually.

    Also the Senate and the House don’t always, shall we say, enjoy being on the same page, let alone the same universe. They operate completely independently of each other (and it would be improper for one chamber to tell the other what to do), have different cultures, and usually don’t even like to acknowledge each other.

    But aside from all that JMP, you are almost sort of correct.

  3. JMPrince says:

    And lest we forget what the original issue prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks (SB 209) looks like way up there beyond the BS:

  4. JMPrince says:

    He uses & benefits from the Hawk system, no matter where it’s instituted. My language was imprecise. I WAS WRONG IN THAT. There. Print & Save IT.

    Now back to the issue that everyone ignores to play endlessly silly ad hominem attack games. Our specialty here. Women, recall the issue? How about the Hyde Amendment. Recall it. Brief, if inadequate review here:

    OK then. It’s the ‘amendment’ that ate the government. Eventually US AID had to comply with yes, ridiculous requirements that not even Surgically Needed & Necessary Abortions could ever be even discussed by those receiving funding from the gumminit. Ditto for Planned Parenthood. Ditto for literally dozens of other women’s organizations. They all have to comply with an ever increasing bizarre series of requirements ‘isolating’ their operations into parcels of what might be funded & what needs to be ‘separated’ and funded strictly privately. Literally 100’s of millions at stake & 100’s of people trying to comply with an ever increasing byzantine myriad of obscure legal requirements. All from one law that’s been then Politically Linked to nearly everything & every operation of the government. Health care reform nearly fell before the fealty to this special interest.

    Yet you & Ed can’t see how things are vitally connected even if they just cross the Hall. Again THE ISSUE is who benefits? Why? I still say Ralston USING the BENEFITS of the HAWKS IN THE SENATE is still USING the HAWKS. Again, as I said several times, a distinction w/o a difference. Still ‘Using the fruits of the poisoned tree’. Not too far removed here. Just a few feet. Yet a world away from the comprehensive world wide rigorous enforcement seen for the Hyde requirements. Perhaps they just do & understand politics better, right? Amazing, really.


  5. griftdrift says:

    You said

    “Gee, one of the first promises made by Speaker Ralston was to ‘do away with the Hawk system’. It was an unprecedented imposition of dictatorial authority over the legislative process. And now he’s gone back on his word to try and ram through something unconstitutional.”

    Please explain how the Speaker of the House tried to ram something through the Senate

  6. JMPrince says:

    I’m wrong plenty of times Grift. Now tell me who’s doing this & why, and why you imagine that the House is in no way connected to it all. It’s all part of the process how they move bills. You look at the cups and go That One, There! I say the entire games rigged. It’s the same game, slightly different venue. But we both expend calories scratching our heads over the details. Which are an open question. JMP

  7. griftdrift says:

    You said something that was absolutely, 100% dead wrong. Are you the Fonz? Is it physically impossible for you to say “I was wrong”?

  8. JMPrince says:

    It’s like this ‘The Speaker announced today that he’ll not commit to moving any legislation forward in the House that’s a product of any ‘Hawk system’ coming from the Senate.’ “I made a firm commitment to the people of Georgia upon becoming Speaker, and I meant what I said then & now. There will be no tolerance for any anti-democratic Hawk system in this House. Now & for as long as I’m Speaker. It circumvents the usual legislative process and is unneeded and unwarranted to move legislation.”

    As simple as that. Either it is or it isn’t part of the system. Either you’ve got the Cancer or you don’t. Either you treat it or not. Either you enjoy the fruits of same, or not. His call.

  9. griftdrift says:

    The rationalization. Strong it is in this one.

  10. JMPrince says:

    And again, because no one will likely read it, let alone understand the issues involved, we present from yes, “The Yale Law Journal Online”:
    “A Procedural Rule and a Substantive Problem: Legislative Hawks and the Concentration of Power in Georgia’s Speaker of the House”.


    This power is exercised on behalf of Someone. For a certain reason. Who or what is that someone? Who benefits from it? Why & When? Those are the central questions here. Not which cup you or the rubes imagine the ball is under. JMP

  11. JMPrince says:

    Not a conspiracy theory at all Grift. Follow the bounding ball. Speaker makes a Great Deal in interviews to all & sundry Before the start of the session, ‘it’s a new day’ ‘I disagreed vehemently with what Richardson did & we will do differently. I will commit to dismantling the Hawk system as soon as possible!’ Very strong words & a seemingly strong commitment that garnered no small amount of ‘good faith & feelings’ by the media at least.

    And then Lo & Behold, It comes back! But on the Opposite side of the Capitol. Tres Confusing! Not really. Either you’ve got Hawks or you don’t. Either you believe in proper Due Process in the Leg or you don’t. So your claim that Hawks in the system, but on the opposite side of the Capitol has Nothing whatsoever to do with a.) the GOP Leadership b.) the House Leadership and/or c.) a small only partially hidden cabal of GOP Senate leadership or d.) all 3 of the above?

    What’s the bottom line here? How did they get there? Who allowed it, how were they allowed, who instructed them? That might be nice to know. But for the moment? Again a distinction w/o much of a difference. They were allowed by the joint Rethug Leadership. I’ve seen or heard No complaints from Ralston on that score. That’s the dog that did not bark. If his word means anything? Then we’d be hearing from him, right? JMP

  12. griftdrift says:

    If saying there’s no distinction between the two separate chambers of the state legislature is what is needed to continue to support your conspiracy theory….carry on.

  13. JMPrince says:

    Grift, they’re joined at the hip here. And there’s a 1-2 punch with the ‘follow on’ legislation here. A distinction w/o much difference.

  14. griftdrift says:

    You said Ralston. That’s House. The maneuver here was in the Senate. Don’t let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

  15. JMPrince says:

    Grift , No I don’t think CCagle is actually running the show in the Senate, there’s plenty of hidden hands here.

  16. griftdrift says:

    This is the Senate. Not the House

  17. JMPrince says:

    Gee, one of the first promises made by Speaker Ralston was to ‘do away with the Hawk system’. It was an unprecedented imposition of dictatorial authority over the legislative process. And now he’s gone back on his word to try and ram through something unconstitutional. Lovely. Rethuglicans. Always.

  18. Jules says:

    Sweet baby Jesus on a breadstick…

    Really? Cause we’re already one of the hardest states to access provider care anyway if you live in GA! I was speaking to someone today who used to staff a national abortion crisis hotline, and she told me Georgia had the worst reputation out every state.