HR 836 is likely to never make it out of committee, and is probably just flag waving by the resolution's sponsor, pandering to a specific constituency. It proposes to enshrine abortion rights into the state's constitution by way of an amendment. A well crafted amendment would probably pass, even in Georgia, but this resolution borders on nonsense.
The language is politically correct avoiding any mention of female, male, woman or man, referring instead to "individuals," dodging the wrath of the biological science deniers but somehow making it appear as if some issue is being avoided. The sponsor takes the most extreme position of unrestricted abortion. This avoids the "viability" battle line, which is constantly moving against the abortion supporters, also avoiding the arbitrary "this many weeks" restrictions. It makes you wonder what limit would be acceptable. Crowning? Cut the cord? Pass the APGAR? Should the state set the minimum score? Sound extreme? So does avoiding the discussion altogether.
One topic absent from all abortion rights advocacy is the notion of "Y-Rights." He (let's be biologically correct rather than politically correct) gets no say, certainly no supremacy, for example no one supporting abortion supports the right for the man to unilaterally determine the pregnancy must be terminated. Where is the Equal Rights Amendment when you need it? Or, if that's a right not available to Y-Guys, how about allowing them to permanently, completely and irrevocably terminate the relationship, without cost, penalty, or responsibility. It is, after all, the woman's choice.
Does this all sound ludicrous? Yes, it does. Why? Because it is. But right now that is where we are, with little but nonsense coming from pontificators on both sides of the issue, an issue that will not be resolved until they sit down, shut up and let adults discuss this like adults. Don't hold your breath.
Posts
