Georgia bill to protect access to IVF treatment moves forward
Bipartisan Support for IVF Protections: Georgia lawmakers unanimously passed House Bill 428 (172-0), aiming to secure access to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) in state law.
Focused Legislation: Bill sponsor Rep. Lehman Franklin kept the measure narrowly focused on protecting IVF, avoiding broader reproductive debates to ensure bipartisan backing.
Response to Alabama Ruling: The bill follows an Alabama Supreme Court decision that halted some IVF treatments, creating legal uncertainty after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
ATLANTA - Georgia lawmakers from both parties took a major step toward safeguarding access to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, passing House Bill 428 with unanimous support. The measure cleared the state House on Wednesday with a 172-0 vote, according to Georgia Recorder.
What we know
The bipartisan bill seeks to enshrine access to IVF in Georgia law, ensuring that residents can continue to pursue fertility treatments without additional legal obstacles.
What they're saying
State Rep. Lehman Franklin, a Republican and the bill's lead sponsor, emphasized the legislation's narrow focus on protecting IVF as it currently exists. He said broader debates on related issues should be handled separately to maintain bipartisan support.
Franklin, who is expecting his first child with his wife after years of trying and undergoing multiple rounds of IVF, framed the bill as a personal and necessary safeguard for families seeking fertility treatments.
The legislation comes in response to recent developments in Alabama, where the state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are legally considered children, leading some clinics to halt IVF procedures. That decision followed the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, which has prompted legal uncertainty over reproductive healthcare across the country.
What's next
House Bill 428 now moves to the Georgia Senate for consideration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
The Texas House OK'd GOP-favored redistricting. California intends to counter with map of its own
The national redistricting battle enters its next phase Thursday as California Democrats are scheduled to pass a new congressional map that creates five winnable seats for their party, a direct counter to the Texas House's approval of a new map to create more conservative-leaning seats in that state. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has engineered the high-risk strategy in response to President Donald Trump's own brinkmanship. Trump pushed Texas Republicans to reopen the legislative maps they passed in 2021 to squeeze out up to five new GOP seats to help the party stave off a midterm defeat. Unlike in Texas, where passage by the Republican-controlled state Senate and signature by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott are now all that's needed to make the maps official, California faces a more uncertain route. Democrats must use their legislative supermajority to pass the map by a two-third margin. Then they must schedule a special election in November for voters to approve the map that Newsom must sign by Friday to meet ballot deadlines. The added complexity is because California has a voter-approved independent commission that Newsom himself backed before Trump's latest redistricting maneuver. Only the state's voters can override the map that commission approved in 2021. But Newsom said extraordinary steps are required to counter Texas and other Republican-led states that Trump is pushing to revise maps. 'This is a new Democratic Party, this is a new day, this is new energy out there all across this country,' Newsom said Wednesday on a call with reporters. 'And we're going to fight fire with fire.' Texas Democratic lawmakers, vastly outnumbered in that state's legislature, delayed approval of the new map by 15 days by fleeing Texas earlier this month in protest. They were assigned round-the-clock police monitoring upon their return to ensure they attended Wednesday's session. That session ended with an 88-52 party-line vote approving the map after more than eight hours of debate. Democrats have also vowed to challenge the new Texas map in court and complained that Republicans made the political power move before passing legislation responding to deadly floods that swept the state last month. A battle for the US House control waged via redistricting In a sign of Democrats' stiffening redistricting resolve, former President Barack Obama on Tuesday night backed Newsom's bid to redraw the California map, saying it was a necessary step to stave off the GOP's Texas move. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach,' Obama said during a fundraiser for the Democratic Party's main redistricting arm. The incumbent president's party usually loses congressional seats in the midterm election, and the GOP currently controls the House of Representatives by a mere three votes. Trump is going beyond Texas in his push to remake the map. He's pushed Republican leaders in conservative states like Indiana and Missouri to also try to create new Republican seats. Ohio Republicans were already revising their map before Texas moved. Democrats, meanwhile, are mulling reopening Maryland's and New York's maps as well. However, more Democratic-run states have commission systems like California's or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, can't draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval. The struggle for — and against — Texas redistricting Texas Republicans openly said they were acting in their party's interest. State Rep. Todd Hunter, who wrote the legislation formally creating the new map, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed politicians to redraw districts for nakedly partisan purposes. There was little that outnumbered Democrats could do other than fume and threaten a lawsuit to block the map. Because the Supreme Court has blessed purely partisan gerrymandering, the only way opponents can stop the new Texas map would be by arguing it violates the Voting Rights Act requirement to keep minority communities together so they can select representatives of their choice. House Republicans' frustration at the Democrats' flight and ability to delay the vote was palpable during the Wednesday vote. House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced as debate started that doors to the chamber were locked and any member leaving was required to have a permission slip. The doors were only unlocked after final passage more than eight hours later. Republicans issued civil arrest warrants to bring the Democrats back after they left the state Aug. 3, and Abbott asked the state Supreme Court to oust several Democrats from office. The lawmakers also face a fine of $500 for every day they were absent. ___ Riccardi reported from Denver. John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, and Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, contributed to this report.
Indianapolis Star
14 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump isn't Indiana lawmakers' boss. They should tell him so on redistricting.
When I was hired to run the state's mental health and addiction work, my daughter was 4 years old, and boy was she confused. 'Are you the governor?' she asked. 'No, I'm not the governor, but I work for him.' That made sense for a moment. But then came the follow-up: 'Doesn't everyone in Indiana work for the Governor?' No, I explained, the governor actually works for all of us. 'Oh, okay,' she said. Then she thought a little longer and asked about the president. 'Does the governor work for the president?' 'No,' I said. 'The governor serves the people of Indiana. And this particular president, well, he sort of works for himself.' Eventually she got it, though during my time at the state she would still complain about people littering and ask why I didn't do something about it. But, in general, she understood: I worked for Gov. Eric Holcomb, and he worked for the people of Indiana. We often collaborated with the federal government, but they were not our bosses. Why do I bring up this story, besides the fact that it's adorable (which, honestly, might be reason enough)? Because I'd like to remind our Republican state legislators that Donald Trump is not, in fact, their boss. The backdrop for this, of course, is the ongoing pressure campaign from the Trump administration on red states to redraw districts mid-decade in a bid to secure a GOP House majority in 2026. Governor Braun and Indiana's legislative leaders clearly don't want to participate, but they haven't ruled it out. Indiana is already heavily gerrymandered. Republicans hold 78% (7 of 9) U.S. House seats in a state where they usually get about 60% of the vote. National attention is focused on flipping Rep. Frank Mrvan's seat in Northwest Indiana, and maybe even Rep. André Carson's in Indianapolis, despite both incumbents winning reelection by healthy margins in 2022 and 2024. Of course, gerrymandering happens in red, blue, and purple states alike. It's a kind of tolerated cheating, part of the 'unwritten rules' of politics. But like in baseball, the system's balance depends on everyone knowing which lines not to cross. What makes this redistricting push especially dangerous is that it represents the final form of the worst political trend of the last 10-15 years: the nationalization of state and local politics. The gravitational pull of Washington has hollowed out the traditional role of governors and legislatures as problem-solvers for their own states. Instead, every fight gets reframed as a proxy war in the national culture struggle. The 2024 Indiana GOP gubernatorial primary is a perfect example. That race was dominated by national, culture-war coded topics: the 'war on woke,' virtue signaling about trans athletes, or border enforcement in a state that is hundreds of miles from the closest border. That is why Trump's allies think they can dictate Indiana's maps. But resistance, right now, would be timely, brave, and necessary pushback against this insidious trend and a chance to remind voters that Indiana's leaders should answer to Indiana, not to a fading national figure. The unwritten rule of American politics has been that districts are redrawn after every decennial census, in a manner that may advance partisan goals. It's actually a fairly elegant agreement: count the people, draw districts, and redo it after the next count. This norm keeps the system from being brutalized by a would-be dictator in pursuit of raw power, while acknowledging the reality that political actors will pursue political goals. Our legislators understand this, which is why they don't want to do it. Here's the thing, and it is really the only thing that matters: they don't have to do it. This decision belongs entirely to Indiana's legislature. Like I told my daughter: Donald Trump is not their boss. The only tool MAGA has is political pressure, and if you take a closer look, there's a decent case for not bending the knee. Very soon, Trump will be a lame-duck president, likely presiding over a recession. And like an aging NFL wide receiver (remember the Andre Johnson year with the Colts, woof), his decline will probably be sudden and striking, not gradual. If you're an elected Republican, this is exactly the moment to create daylight between yourself and Trump. You have a clear moral case, and a strong practical one, since this amounts to threatening decades of statewide dominance for maybe one more congressional seat. Yes, they can threaten to primary you, but can they really primary all of you? That's a bluff worth calling, because they cannot be allowed to win this one. Yes, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. Yes, Trump's opponents have cried fascism so often that many people have tuned out. But, if you remember your Aesop, the real danger of crying wolf is that sometimes the wolf actually shows up. Here's hoping that the Indiana legislature holds the line.
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Fiscal cliff looms as public media braces for Trump cuts
Supporters of public media on Capitol Hill and beyond are scrambling to find solutions to address a fiscal cliff that public media is staring down this fall following cuts directed by President Trump and executed by his allies in Congress. Senators on both sides of the aisle say they were working to protect local stations after Congress cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-funded body that said it will shut down as a result. At the same time, public media leaders are looking for ways to blunt the blow for stations most at risk, but have warned that filling the gaps could be next to impossible. 'Nobody can replace $600 million a year,' Tim Isgitt, CEO of the Public Media Company, said Tuesday. 'CPB was the largest funder of local news and information in this country, and no, philanthropy can't make up that gap.' Isgitt's organization is the driving force behind a philanthropic effort, known as the Public Media Bridge Fund, which has raised more than $26 million for stations at risk of shuttering in wake of the CPB cuts. 'For these at-risk stations, CPB typically sends about $55 million a year, just to these 115 that we've identified,' Isgitt told The Hill. He said the goal is to raise about $100 million over two years to help cover that gap for these stations, while exploring ways for them to become 'more sustainable over time,' including finding other sources of revenue or reducing expenditures. In total, a group of philanthropic organizations including The Knight Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Schmidt Family Foundation, all longtime backers of public media, pledged to commit nearly $37 million this week to provide immediate relief to public media stations at risk of closure following federal funding cuts. 'Local public media stations are trusted community anchors that connect people to vital news, culture and civic life,' Maribel Pérez Wadsworth, president and CEO of Knight Foundation said in a statement. 'This is an urgent moment that calls for bold action.' Public broadcasting stations have also seen a boost in donations in response to the cuts, with reports showing tens of millions of dollars in increased support in recent months. But advocates for public media say much more is needed to fill a more than $500 million hole for the coming fiscal year. Some say the void left by the closure of local public media stations would pose a risk to public safety and quality of life, particularly in rural communities. 'Like many people, I learned to read and count because of public media. It's the lifeblood of so many localities,' said Pete Loge, who teaches communications and media at George Washington University. 'Trump is a really good big national theatre and spectacle … the irony is a move like this is made to seem like it's attacking liberals, but it's actually harming a lot of Republican constituents.' The CPB said earlier this month it would begin an 'orderly wind-down of its operations' after the GOP-led Congress approved about $1 billion in cuts to the corporation, or combined funding previously made available for the organization for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. It also said this week that it 'no longer can absorb costs and manage the Next Generation Warning System (NGWS) grant program' as a result of the cuts to its operating costs. CPB partnered with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to implement the program. Congress currently has until Sept. 30 to pass legislation to keep the government funded into fiscal 2026, which begins Oct. 1, or risk its first government shutdown in years. Some on Capitol Hill are hopeful that lawmakers could still pull out a bipartisan fix to protect local stations, mainly in rural areas, that rely on funding from the federal government to operate. 'I think that the discussion around their decisions really was focused on national programming and concerns that people had about NPR and PBS, and I think that really what got missed in that whole discussion was the impact that this rescission was going to have on local stations,' Kate Riley, the president and chief executive officer for America's Public Television Stations (APTS), said. 'We've talked to a wide range of members, including many Republicans, who strongly support their local stations and recognize the essential role that their local stations provide in serving their community and their constituents, and are realizing now that this broad rescission has had some unintended consequences on their local stations,' Riley said. Funding for CPB was notably excluded in the annual funding bill for the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services that was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee last month. The CPB said it marked the first time in more than five decades the funding had been left out. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bill, suggested funding for local stations could find bipartisan support in Congress, separate from the administration's efforts to dismantle CPB. 'A priority for most of the Republicans who have announced their support or their opposition to defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is that they have many small rural stations' Baldwin told The Hill. 'Their capacity to do private fundraising is very limited if you serve a very, you know, rural population with a small population, but they need it for emergency alerts and educational programming and local news. And so, I think that's where we're going to be able to come together.' But for some stations, the time crunch is tighter. NPR said multiple stations began their fiscal 2026 budget in July. Isgitt also noted that November, when many public stations would typically receive funding from CPB, will also be a critical time for other outlets. 'I don't know what cash flow or assets look like for every one of these stations, but you can be assured that, in the months after November, several stations will begin to fail, and then more will fail, and more will fail after that,' he said. 'It's going to happen. This is a cash-strapped industry.' Republicans said they had worked out a deal with the administration aimed at helping shield tribal stations from the cuts by repurposing other funds for the effort. But Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior appropriator, has raised questions about the funding and noted that many stations in her state, which has a significant indigenous population, could still fall through the cracks because they aren't considered tribally-owned or serving tribal land. 'I have to figure out a way to maintain not just the tribal stations, because half of those stations are not tribal,' Murkowski told The Hill. 'They're pretty dang important, and so, yeah, I got to find a way. I don't know what the path is, but I'm working on it.' Native Public Media CEO Loris Tiller said the organization conducted a recent poll of 19 tribal stations so far that all said anywhere from 40-100 percent of their annual budget came from CPB funds. 'We also asked them whether staff layoffs will be necessary, and you can see that the majority of them are affirmative in that response,' Taylor said, while also adding she still doesn't have many answers about the administration's side deal with Senate Republicans to protect tribal stations. 'We just haven't heard anything about that. I don't know if it's moving,' Taylor said. 'I don't know where the money's coming from. The details haven't been forthcoming.' Advocates have also raised concerns about public stations at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) they say are at risk in wake of the CPB cuts. About a dozen NPR members are affiliated with HBCUs. Cuts to public media have long been on the wishlist of President Trump and conservatives more generally. The president earlier this year sent a special request to Congress to secure the cuts without Democratic support. Upon passage of the legislation, Trump cheered the measure on social media for cutting 'atrocious NPR and Public Broadcasting.' Many Republicans in both chambers share the same view, often singling out NPR and PBS, which receive some funding from CPB, for what they allege is political bias. About one percent of NPR's current operating budget comes directly from the federal government, compared to 15 percent for PBS, multiple outlets report. In the previous fiscal year, NPR received upwards of $13 million from CPB, the corporation's grants and allocations data shows. More than $70 million went to PBS, based in Arlington. At a hearing on Capitol Hill earlier this year, the CEOs of NPR and PBS faced an intense grilling from angry lawmakers over their editorial decision making and funding models. Other lawmakers have argued public media has been outpaced by major changes to the media ecosystem and the emergence of alternative news platforms. 'Because of technology today, I don't think there's a role for public radio anymore,' Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) said during a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing in March. In a statement after the Senate passed cuts to the CPB, PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said the moves 'goes against the will of the American people, the vast majority of whom trust PBS and believe we provide excellent value to their communities.' 'These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas,' she said. 'Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead.'
