# Georgia governor signs strictest abortion bill in nation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2019, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659 "2019-05-08T09:49:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/81 "2019-05-09T05:35:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > They are chickenshit questions, because you and I know that you’d prefer to fixate on knocking down a particular claim without debating the actual issue at hand. … The “actual issue at hand” is a bunch of misinformation and ignorance being spread by Slate about what the effects of the law. That’s what I “prefer to fixate on knocking down”: the ignorance of Dopers. > [@Ravenman](#): > > … So for consistency of arguments as long as you and I choose to participate on this board: your definition of the term “constitutional” relates only to one’s own reading and interpretation of the Constitution, without regard to precedent? > > So if my interpretation of a particular law is at odds with precedent, I’m free to say that my interpretation is better than the Supreme Court’s (at least until the Court rules specifically on my take on the issue) and you won’t challenge me on that? … You’re certainly free to share how you interpret it and if / why you think that interpretation is superior. Others are free to point out when your interpretation is at odds with precedent. > [@Ravenman](#): > > … The quality of your argument would be much inproved if you provided your own cite debunking Slate. Seeing as how you are asking people to support their assertions, you should support your own. You want a cite for something the law doesn’t say? I’ve already provided a direct link to the law. It does not say that women can be sentenced to death for having an abortion. ETA: ninja’d by UV, but that Slate article in the OP is still horseshit. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/82 "2019-05-09T06:12:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes. I generally consider the law an improvement over the status quo ante. Perhaps you could explain how an embryo/fetus/baby can be considered a natural person ONLY if it was conceived through consensual sex by too people who are not too closely related to marry each other. If rape or incest results in a pregnancy, that embryo/fetus/baby is not a natural person? This isn’t a gotcha. I think you thought you answered my question, but you did not. I didn’t ask if you thought this law was better than the status quo ante. I assumed you did. And it does not mean you oppose the law entirely if you don’t approve of one part of it. I’ve noted many times when others have criticized you for sidestepping questions. I’m giving you a chance to avoid doing so here. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/83 "2019-05-09T06:27:14Z")
It sounded to me like the classification of a fetus as a natural person conferred certain protections and incurred specific penalties if one were to cause death of such, whether the doctor who performs an abortion or a women who induces one. Is that not the case? I’m relieved to hear it, in that case. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/84 "2019-05-09T06:42:46Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I read the whole law. Nothing in there says it is illegal to leave the state to have an abortion, that habeas corpus will be available for unborn children, or that life imprisonment for the death penalty will be available punishments for women having abortions, or that a woman can be jailed for a miscarriage. > > The law leaves the current penalty for an illegal abortion intact: the doctor, not the woman can get 1 to 10 years in prison, same as before: > > [§ 16-12-140 - Criminal abortion :: 2014 Georgia Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-16/chapter-12/article-5/section-16-12-140/) > > The Slate article the OP quoted seems like a liberal horror list created by very bad misunderstandings of how the law works and not from anything in the text of the law itself. Again, I read the law. The sticking points arise from the law going to great lengths to declare that as soon as an embryo has a detectable heartbeat, it is a “natural person” and has the right to Equal Protection as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment. It even quotes the Fourteenth to make this very clear.Yet at the same time, the law denies equal protection to embryos/fetuses/unborn that were conceived as a result of rape or incest. So on the one hand, you have embryos who are entitled to a form of child support and who count as dependents for state income tax deductions, yet on the other hand, you have embryos (“natural persons”) who are denied equal protection due to circumstances beyond their–and in the case of rapes, the women’s–control. I also find it interesting that the law determines that personhood begins when a heartbeat is detectable, not when the heart actually begins to beat. That, of course, is a practical matter. Yet if the heartbeat is used as the determination of personhood, it would make sense to declare that natural personhood even earlier, at 3 weeks + 1 day. The issue of personhood is complex. The law both tries to simplify it and cover it completely and fails at both, as it was bound to do. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/85 "2019-05-09T07:40:51Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Assuming this makes it all the way to the top, this challenge to \*Roe \*is way premature. Conservatives hold only a 5-4 majority on SCOTUS and Roberts likes to vote with the liberals here and there. Very likely, this would be struck down and the Court would further affirm and solidify _Roe_. Conservatives shouldn’t be doing this unless they have a 6-3 or 7-2 majority. Speaking as a former pro-lifer, I think it’s put up or shut up time. Forty years is a long time to be sacrificing everything for a cause and failing. The GOP and the Federalist Society can either overturn Roe, which will weaken the part of their coalition that thought abortion would still be there for _them;_ or they can reveal that they’re just playing the churchgoing rubes. Either way, the Reagan-Bush GOP coalition loses _somebody._ I have a pretty good idea who is supposed to step in to replace the lost voters. I’m not sure which existing camp the GOP are cutting out in favor of the new race realist / neo-fascist constituency, but it may not matter. Get yourself enough stormtroopers, and you don’t \*need \*a majority anymore. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/86 "2019-05-09T08:33:36Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Again, I read the law. The sticking points arise from the law going to great lengths to declare that as soon as an embryo has a detectable heartbeat, it is a “natural person” and has the right to Equal Protection as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment. It even quotes the Fourteenth to make this very clear.Yet at the same time, the law denies equal protection to embryos/fetuses/unborn that were conceived as a result of rape or incest. So on the one hand, you have embryos who are entitled to a form of child support and who count as dependents for state income tax deductions, yet on the other hand, you have embryos (“natural persons”) who are denied equal protection due to circumstances beyond their–and in the case of rapes, the women’s–control. > > I also find it interesting that the law determines that personhood begins when a heartbeat is detectable, not when the heart actually begins to beat. That, of course, is a practical matter. Yet if the heartbeat is used as the determination of personhood, it would make sense to declare that natural personhood even earlier, at 3 weeks + 1 day. The issue of personhood is complex. The law both tries to simplify it and cover it completely and fails at both, as it was bound to do. Not quite accurate. If you re-read the law, it defines all unborn children/fetuses/embryos as “natural persons” and as part of Georgia law bestows the protections of the 14th amendment on them. It states that medical science has progressed since Roe and Casey that unborn children are “living persons” perhaps foreshadowing an eventual argument to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. But Georgia is bound by federal case law, most importantly Roe, and cannot take the logical conclusion of its personhood argument and say: no abortions. So it enacts a lesser scheme that it will argue in court complies with Roe and Casey. No abortions after a detectable heartbeat at all except for those listed reasons, and no abortions from heartbeat detection until 20 weeks except for rape and incest. Nothing says that statutes have to be internally consistent. I don’t see anything terribly wrong with a state, for example, granting personhood from the moment of fertilization yet also recognizing a woman’s right to choose and stating that abortion is still legal up to 36 weeks for any reason. It is not logically consistent, but it doesn’t need to be; it can be a recognition of competing values. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/87 "2019-05-09T10:36:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > it’s my understanding that Georgia law has generally prohibited abortions after a certain point in pregnancy (recently, 22 weeks), and yet, I’m unaware of a single case of a woman in Georgia who had a miscarriage after that point in her pregnancy being jailed for it. Moving that point forward to ~6 weeks (which is what HB 481 did) does not seem to me to pose any additional danger of women being jailed for miscarriages. Maybe it doesn’t, _if_ this is just a feel-good law to make the base happy and there is no intention of bothering to enforce it. Trouble is, there’s quite a difference between a pregnancy ending at 22+ weeks and one that ends at 8 weeks, in that the former is likely to have some medical records attached, i.e. the woman sought care from an OB/GYN at some point because she knew was pregnant and wanted the pregnancy to continue (i.e. she was not seeking to terminate it). I expect any reasonable law-enforcement officer who is told the woman miscarried will accept this on its face. Compare that to a woman who was 8 weeks pregnant and now isn’t. If there’s no positive indication that she wanted the pregnancy to continue, i.e. no prenatal medical appointments, can an law-enforcement officer demand she prove she _didn’t_ quietly get an abortion? Of course, that’s putting aside the larger issue of why this should be a law-enforcement issue at all. Heck, Georgia is a stand-your-ground state, which compels no duty to retreat on someone who, say, finds an unwanted trespasser on one’s land. I’m vaguely hoping a Georgia woman tries to apply this argument to the greater intrusion posed by an unwanted trespasser _in one’s body_, and then we’ll get to see just how much respect the state actually has for individual freedom. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/88 "2019-05-09T11:31:27Z")
In 2014 Georgia[tried to charge](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/10/woman-charged-with-murder-didnt-have-any-money-to-get-an-abortion-the-legal-way-brother-says/?utm_term=.c5d770599fa4) a woman for murder after a miscarriage in the 2nd trimester. She had taken some abortifacient pills. The prosecutor later determined that mothers were immune from punishment under the law of the time. The new law closes that loophole. Mothers are now liable for murder or manslaughter charges depending on whether someone else thinks their action caused the death of their fetus. Further, they are liable to civil action to some other party acting as parent who can recovery damages for the value of the lost “child”. So we’d allow, say, a rapist in jail to use the threat of lawsuit against a woman to force her to give birth to his child - which presumably she’d be on the hook for parental duties as well. This is what the law allows for. The scary thing is the law leaves a wide interpretation of how a mother would cause her own miscarriage. Someone seen having a glass of wine or a cigarette, or going for a jog, and then has an unrelated miscarriage later, could find themselves on the hook for a murder charge if a crazy mother-in-law pursues it. Keeping in mind that fetuses are now people, we now have the risk of a crazy mother-in-law and a non-medical prosecutor deciding whether a woman killed her child with a cigarette, a glass of wine, or vigorous exercise. Some will of course ask “where did this actually happen” and my response would be that it doesn’t matter. If the law allows a ridiculous and unconscionable outcome, then it’s a ridiculous and unconscionable law. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/89 "2019-05-09T12:21:40Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > In 2014 Georgia[tried to charge](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/10/woman-charged-with-murder-didnt-have-any-money-to-get-an-abortion-the-legal-way-brother-says/?utm_term=.c5d770599fa4) a woman for murder after a miscarriage in the 2nd trimester. She had taken some abortifacient pills. > > The prosecutor later determined that mothers were immune from punishment under the law of the time. The new law closes that loophole. Mothers are now liable for murder or manslaughter charges depending on whether someone else thinks their action caused the death of their fetus. > > Further, they are liable to civil action to some other party acting as parent who can recovery damages for the value of the lost “child”. So we’d allow, say, a rapist in jail to use the threat of lawsuit against a woman to force her to give birth to his child - which presumably she’d be on the hook for parental duties as well. This is what the law allows for. > > The scary thing is the law leaves a wide interpretation of how a mother would cause her own miscarriage. Someone seen having a glass of wine or a cigarette, or going for a jog, and then has an unrelated miscarriage later, could find themselves on the hook for a murder charge if a crazy mother-in-law pursues it. Keeping in mind that fetuses are now people, we now have the risk of a crazy mother-in-law and a non-medical prosecutor deciding whether a woman killed her child with a cigarette, a glass of wine, or vigorous exercise. > > Some will of course ask “where did this actually happen” and my response would be that it doesn’t matter. If the law allows a ridiculous and unconscionable outcome, then it’s a ridiculous and unconscionable law. There’s also the case of Christine Taylor, of Iowa, who was arrested and nearly prosecuted for falling down stairs. > **[Burlington woman will not be charged with feticide - Radio Iowa](https://www.radioiowa.com/2010/02/10/burlington-woman-will-not-be-charged-with-feticide/)** > > A Burlington woman who was accused of trying to illegally end her pregnancy will not be charged in the case. Twenty-two-year-old Christine Taylor of Burlington was charged with attempted feticide after police say she intentionally fell down the... But specific examples and cites aren’t really necessary because it’s basic common sense that these laws are part of a Taliban-ish movement to debase women by turning their bodies into potential crime scenes. Imagine a wife and husband having to go through the grief of coming back from a hospital after a miscarriage, and then have emotionless detectives asking them questions about whether they did anything to cause their baby’s death. FFS, there’s now a law in Texas that would make abortion capital murder and thus make mothers themselves subject to execution. [https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Thumbs-up-down-Pro-life-bill-and-the-13764311.php](https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Thumbs-up-down-Pro-life-bill-and-the-13764311.php) There’s a horse race among conservative states to see which legislature can introduce the most extreme anti-abortion bill. In all cases, abortion is a smokescreen for the real objective, which is to restore a kind of plutocratic society based on patriarchal and extremist values. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/90 "2019-05-09T12:52:48Z")
For the people claiming that the law doesn’t specifically punish the woman for having an abortion after the heartbeat is detected, can you address the personhood provisions of the law? It seems to me that if a fetus is a person with 14th amendment rights, then killing that person would come with punishment. Leaving the state to kill that person and then returning would also be punished. I’m not a lawyer. But, if the law defines a non-rape fetus as a person, then it doesn’t have to lay out all the rest of it – the other implications come along with personhood. **Ultravires** , regarding the rape and incest exception especially, can those fetuses be aborted any time? Are they never granted personhood? How about after birth? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/91 "2019-05-09T12:57:48Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > In 2014 Georgia[tried to charge](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/10/woman-charged-with-murder-didnt-have-any-money-to-get-an-abortion-the-legal-way-brother-says/?utm_term=.c5d770599fa4) a woman for murder after a miscarriage in the 2nd trimester. She had taken some abortifacient pills. … This has literally NOTHING to do with miscarriages. The woman didn’t even have a miscarriage, she had a live birth: > [@](#): > > Kenlissia Jones, 23, gave birth in a car on the way to the hospital after taking the drugs. The child died 30 minutes later, a family member said. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/92 "2019-05-09T13:04:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The “actual issue at hand” is a bunch of misinformation and ignorance being spread by Slate about what the effects of the law. That’s what I “prefer to fixate on knocking down”: the ignorance of Dopers. The issue at hand is not your jihad against liberals. The issue at hand is an abortion law, and whether it it good or not. Cherry-picking a couple arguments and pretending that if you disprove one, every other argument that the other side has thrown out is wrong is a chickenshit debate. > [@](#): > > You’re certainly free to share how you interpret it and if / why you think that interpretation is superior. Others are free to point out when your interpretation is at odds with precedent. So when I ask whether you will be consistent with how you assess the constitutionality of laws, you are asserting that you will pick and choose how you will answer that question? Just trying to be clear here. > [@](#): > > You want a cite for something the law doesn’t say? I’ve already provided a direct link to the law. It does not say that women can be sentenced to death for having an abortion. > > ETA: ninja’d by UV, but that Slate article in the OP is still horseshit. There’s millions of lawyers in this country, and I’m sure you can find a reputable expert who explains in some detail that your reading of the law is correct. Instead, we just have you repeating that you read the law, and that Slate is incorrect. You ask others for cites all the time; you should provide cites that your reading is correct. You may be right, who knows? But you have provided no reason whatsoever for anyone to listen to your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/93 "2019-05-09T13:05:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This has literally NOTHING to do with miscarriages. Well, except for the part where she took medication that could cause a miscarriage and then miscarried. Pfffft… _details_. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/94 "2019-05-09T13:05:56Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > … Leaving the state to kill that person and then returning would also be punished. … IANAL either, but let’s start with this argument because it’s been repeated several times and I think it’s obviously wrong. Georgia doesn’t have a law against leaving the state to murder a person. If you traveled to New York with a two-year-old in tow, which every state in the Union recognizes as a person, and then murdered that two-year-old in New York, Georgia could not prosecute you for the murder. New York would have to do that. That same logic would apply to an unborn child, except that New York would not prosecute you for it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/95 "2019-05-09T13:07:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, except for the part where she took medication that could cause a miscarriage and then miscarried. Pfffft… _details_. She did not “miscarry”. She had a live birth. It’s in the article. I quoted that bit of the article. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/96 "2019-05-09T13:21:27Z")
To throw another stone into the river, would a couple thawing out unwanted frozen embryos be considered “murder”? ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/97 "2019-05-09T13:24:53Z")
So let me see if I understand, Bob needs a kidney, his identical twin brother Doug is a perfect match. Even though it’s a relatively safe medical procedure, and a grown man’s, life, (and the shape of his family’s future!), hangs in the balance, Doug’s rock solid body autonomy insures without question, that no one, not even the state, can force him to give his kidney. His right to body autonomy extends beyond his lifetime and applies even to his corpse. He has to consent for his organs to be taken. But if Bob impregnates Anne, at six weeks in, quite possibly before she knows she’s pregnant, she has lost all right to body autonomy? She now has no say in any medical risk her body undergoes, or the shape of her family and future? So, doesn’t it come down to: do all people have full body autonomy? Or just men? ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/98 "2019-05-09T13:35:39Z")
And let’s not forget that Doug ruined Bob’s kidneys when he stabbed him in the back. Yet the state still cannot make him give up a kidney. And this would also apply to testicles: If Doug castrated Bob, the state still could not make him give Bob a testicle. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/99 "2019-05-09T13:35:52Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > So, doesn’t it come down to: do all people have full body autonomy? Or just men? Per Trump and many of his supporters, just men, quite obviously. From pussy grabbing to jailing women for doing certain things to their bodies, it’s quite clear how this administration and many of its supporters view women. They’re okay with women not being in control of their bodies. This is what they want. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659/100 "2019-05-09T13:41:35Z")
I always ask the anti-abortion folks I talk to if they would like to go back to the world like it was before abortion was legal. When men could beat their wives and children, use “I couldn’t help myself” as an excuse for rape, sexually harass women, fire a pregnant single woman, yada, yada, yada. So far, nobody has answered yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-governor-signs-strictest-abortion-bill-in-nation/833659.md?page=6)