Attorneys representing the State of Georgia were in court earlier this week fighting against the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) bid to make the temporary ban against Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill permanent.
Signed into legislation last year, Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill was one of many signed into law in various states. These bills prevent abortion after the heartbeat of the preborn baby is detected, which is about the sixth week of pregnancy. Georgia’s bill also redefined personhood to include preborn babies and embryos.
However, most of the laws were immediately challenged by pro-abortion activists and placed under an immediate injunction.
The vote and signing of the bill was especially contentious in Georgia, where Hollywood has a massive presence and studio productions, including the Avengers films. Several celebrities, including Alyssa Milano, J.J. Abrams, Jordan Peele and others, spoke out against the legislation. Some said that they would no longer film in Georgia if it were to become law.
According to a report from Hollywood publication Deadline, the attorneys arguing the case for Georgia did not put up much of a fight when it came to the labeling of the bill as unconstitutional. This is somewhat disappointing, as a case could be eventually be argued before the Supreme Court of the United States and aspects of, or perhaps the entirety of, Roe v. Wade could be overturned, but the state has put forth a lot of effort to redefine personhood to include preborn babies, at all stages of development.
“Regardless of the validity of the Act’s limitations on abortion, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the Court should enjoin a number of provisions … that relate to child support, tax benefits, population determinations, and other matters unrelated to abortion. The Court should enter judgment for Defendants on all provisions of the Act not specifically found unconstitutional,” attorneys for the state said.
“If the Court finds any provision of the Act to be unconstitutional, the relief ordered should be limited to that specific provision, and all other provisions of the Act not challenged or found unconstitutional should be severed and allowed to take effect,” the attorneys argued.
The ACLU is representing SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, which is challenging the bill.
ACLU staff attorney Elizabeth Watson, who is with the Reproductive Freedom Project, said, “It would ban abortion by making fetuses or embryos persons … It would result in abortion being de facto banned. With personhood, you’re treating [a fetus] like a child, making it eligible for child support like you would a child. It’s about treating a fetus like a person to ban abortion.
Why shouldn’t we treat a preborn baby as a human being worthy of support and protection? The ACLU argues that this would result in the doctors having the legal liability of “two people” and is somehow a hinderance to the provision of medicine. It isn’t.
If a physician is working with a pregnant patient in a trauma situation like a car crash, they will do everything they can to save the life of the preborn baby and the mother. A surgeon doing a procedure on a pregnant woman would not deliberately endanger a preborn baby’s life at the expense of the mother unless absolutely necessary.
Physicians value the lives of their patients, including preborn babies; abortionists don’t.
Pro-abortion advocates, like the ACLU and SisterSong, are only concerned about any law that infringes the abortionists’ ability to end a preborn baby’s life, not that it may result in physicians having an increased liability.
Hopefully, the court in this instance will see through the ACLU’s lies.
Photo from Shutterstock