Steven Kendrick’s campaign misstep of announcing the Regency Mall development came at a high price. Stacey Abram’s campaign recently made a Regency Mall size mistake that is making me wonder if Kendrick’s campaign manager is advising her.
On Sept. 23, Abrams claimed that “there is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”
The comments set off a firestorm of discussion nationwide. I predict Abrams’ comments won’t have her desired effect.
Few issues have divided this great country more than abortion. Sadly, the gruesome procedure has to be debated.
If you can’t figure out from my commentary, I am pro-life.
Abrams’ comments come from a place of ignorance. I have personally heard the heartbeat of all seven of my children – each around that six-week mark. To say that what I heard was not a heartbeat but rather manufactured is preposterous.
Who manufactured the heartbeat sound? The machine? The sonographer? The fairy godmother? No, it was not manufactured. It was created by almighty God and is thus precious and worth protecting.
Abrams, who is down in the poles, is banking on suburban women switching parties and voting Democratic. The campaign ads would make you believe that the majority of women are angry about the abortion law changes and therefore will reflect that in the polls.
It is my belief that this is a severe miscalculation and that traditionally Republican women who have children will not be switching parties. Abrams’ comments make it clear that she is an activist rather than a civil servant. She has made her intentions known that she wants to step on the back of Georgia to launch a national campaign for the presidency.
Women who have had children and heard those precious heartbeats at six weeks need seriously to consider Abrams’ comments and what they mean for the fight for life.
At the center of the debate is the Georgia heartbeat bill. Abrams’ campaign has consumed the airwaves with constant advertisements blasting Kemp and the bill making untrue statements that grossly mischaracterize the points in the bill.
I had a recent conversation with a local elected official who disagreed with me on what was in the bill. So, I went back and read the bills text a few times to make sure I was on solid ground.
The text of the bill is below. I want to encourage everyone to read it if you have not already and make a decision for yourself what it does and does not say.
The bill does not criminalize abortions for women who have a medical condition. Legitimate medical issues usually result in a miscarriage, but in the event it does not, and the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, the law does not stop an abortion. It certainly does not put the mother at risk of being prosecuted. It does, however, require the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor.
It does state that deliberately aborting a baby who does have a heartbeat after six weeks for a non-medical emergency related reason is considered homicide.
Below are a few relevant sections taken directly out of the bill. What you will find is that the bill is based on science, something Abrams has discarded.
- It is the responsibility of the legislative branch of the state to appropriately balance the competing life and health interests of the unborn child with the life, health, and privacy interests of the pregnant mother
- The American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Management Guidelines (2015) provides that “ultrasonography” that detects a human heartbeat “is the preferred modality to determine the presence of a ‘viable’ intrauterine gestation”; With the broad availability of ultrasound technology to physicians, nurses, and sonographers throughout the state, the ability of medical practitioners to detect the presence of the fetal heartbeat has become the standard in establishing the viability of a pregnancy;
- The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA, 1981) affirms that a consistent human heartbeat, independent of life support, is a core determining factor in establishing the legal presence of human life in a full range of circumstances, for the young and old alike;
- No abortion is authorized or shall be performed the unborn child has been determined to have a human heartbeat unless the pregnancy is diagnosed as medically futile, as such term is defined in Code Section 31-9B-1, or except when, in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to:(A) Necessary to avert the death of the pregnant woman or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. No such condition shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the pregnant woman or that the pregnant woman will purposefully engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function; or (B) Necessary to preserve the life of an unborn child; or (C) Because of a pregnancy with an unborn child of 20 weeks or less gestational age that resulted from rape or incest in which an official police report has been filed alleging the offense of rape or incest.
- Any woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this Code section may recover in a civil action from the person who engaged in such violation all damages available to her under Georgia law for any torts.
In promoting activism over science, Abrams has discounted what for many mothers is the first time they will hear their child’s heartbeat. Hopefully, those same women will recognize Abram’s lunacy and issue a strong rebuke at the polls thus discouraging Abrams from running for higher office. Perhaps Georgia can test just how many votes it will take for Abrams to concede the election this cycle.
Joe, SPOT ON! YES! This is why I subscribe to Theaugustapress.com. Send us a Link to Give-a-tip, like at a restaurant, for Great Service, so we can Donate $ to thank the writers and you!
Mr. Edge, thanks for your honesty and compassion concerning the lives of unborn children. Abortion is a hot issue nationwide, and Stacey Abrams will surely continue to rally for women’s rights and their decisions about unborn babies. Her commentary about the fetal heartbeat is a bit wonky and untruthful, but she does represent a huge contingent of women (and men) in Georgia who stand firm in their beliefs that all women should have the legal right to control their bodies without governmental interference. I fully understand both sides of the issue, and I must admit, I am torn between the two. I will have to resolve my personal issues quietly and try my best not to piss off my friends and acquaintances. But, no matter where my soul-searching leads me, I will NEVER vote for Stacey Abrams.
Well stated my friend. I am with you.
Women do have control over their bodies… they can keep their legs closed if they aren’t willing to end up with a baby… or use the myriad of birth control options that are free at Planned Parenthood (or they used to be). (Unless criminal activity/life of the mother in Real medical emergencies not made up ones).
Thanks for sharing the link to the Bill and encouraging everyone to dig into the details.
I was listening to a webcast by a former black Baptist pastor who converted to Catholicism. He made the point that at the current abortion rate among black women, the goals of Margaret Sanger and other eugenics promoters would soon be achieved. Couple that with the homicide rate among young black men that is exacerbated by liberal policies, black women voters are caught between the rock and the hard place when deciding whether to support Stacey Abrams on solely a racial or gender basis. Young, white, liberal feminists will vote for her in droves.
Tedd, your last sentence is exactly right. Those folks are who she was speaking to when she said that nonsense.
The issue, after all the emotional appeal is dispensed with, is purely a moral one. One either believes that human life is sacrosanct or it is not. One cannot rationally support the killing of the unborn and simultaneously oppose the execution of criminals or the application of euthanasia, unless one rejects common morality as the determining factor. The use of abortion as “after the fact” birth control is onerous & reprehensible in the extreme, as well as completely unnecessary except where the pregnancy arises from criminal activity or where medical exigencies require it. Birth control is widely, cheaply and easily available to anyone who will but use it.
Mr. Williams is right on, especially concerning birth control. I’ve often wondered why both sides of such an emotional issue cannot come together to avoid abortion by easily preventing pregnancy from the get go. But I have an additional question: How can one rationally support the execution of criminals and simultaneously oppose the killing of the unborn? Legality has replaced morality in our country. Can it be fixed? I’m not sure it can be.
Very simple answer. The death penalty is designed to preserve life. Abortion is ending a life to no fault of the unborn regardless of the circumstances by which the pregnancy occurred. The death penalty is “pro-life” in that it discourages murder. Areas with the death penalty have lower murder rates than those which do not. It may seem contradictory on the surface, but the death penalty is designed to preserve life not end it.
This logic works for me. If more criminals saw their fellow criminals executed, they’d be less inclined to take or ruin a life. The same logic works for killing people in a war to protect your fellow citizens and your freedom, aka a “just war”.
Excellent article. I’d like her to explain exactly how the sound is manufactured? All this time and all anyone had to do was ask Stacy Abrams. The only thing manufactured here is her qualifications for any position. I can think of a few, but I’ll be nice and refrain.
JOE, “you go to the Head-Of-The Class”, rivaling Sylvia! Your reply to Mr. Capers was absolute Truth! Copied/pasted, below: The death penalty is designed to preserve life.
Abortion is ending a life to no fault of the unborn regardless of the circumstances by which the pregnancy occurred.
The death penalty is “pro-life” in that it discourages murder. Areas with the death penalty have lower murder rates than those which do not. It may seem contradictory on the surface, but the death penalty is designed to preserve life not end it.
We need laws to preserve life, and have a Death Penalty that does not require decades of reviews and re-trials, but in heinous cases, swift punishment, -only a couple of speedy appeals. THANK YOU, for your catching Capers comment and SPOT ON reply. How can I give theAugustaPress.com a monetary-tip, for someone who goes “the 2nd mile”?