A bill proposing a near-total abortion ban causes an uproar at Georgia's Capitol
ATLANTA (AP) — A crowd of pro-abortion and anti-abortion protesters flooded a windowless Georgia Capitol hallway on Wednesday with chants and signs as lawmakers held a hearing on a bill that would ban almost all abortions.
Although the bill won't go anywhere this year because a deadline has passed for consideration by both chambers, the hearing by the House's Republican leadership gave anti-abortion activists a chance to speak out on an issue near and dear to their constituents.
Dozens milled about and shouted words of support or disdain for the proposal. Onlookers tried to squeeze into the hearing room as sheriff's deputies guarded the area. One man raised his voice above the noise and said, 'I'm so thankful that my mom gave me life' and did not 'sacrifice' her children.
Each time someone left the room after testifying, they were met with cheers from those on their side of the bill.
"Tens of thousands of babies made in the image of God continue to be murdered in our state every year, all within the bounds of the current law," said bill sponsor Rep. Emory Dunahoo, a Gillsville Republican. 'This bill simply ensures that those same laws protecting the lives of people after birth equally protect the lives of people before birth.'
The bill would make most abortions a crime from the point of fertilization, at which point one would be considered a person. That would expand Georgia's broad 'personhood' law, which gives rights such as tax breaks and child support to unborn children. At least five states have personhood laws.
Georgia already bans abortions after finding a 'detectable human heartbeat,' which can happen as early as six weeks into pregnancy when many women still don't know they are pregnant. Still, a flurry of religious leaders said the measure doesn't go far enough.
Some religious anti-abortion individuals were among the bill's opponents, though, saying it goes too far with criminalization.
Critics of the measure said it would bar women from lifesaving care during birth complications and in-vitro fertilization. Many voiced concern that women with miscarriages or dangerous health complications during birth would not get the care they need.
Rep. Shea Roberts, an Atlanta Democrat, recounted her own experience getting an abortion to save her life.
"It was one of the most devastating times in my life, and doctors told me that the dream of my child was going to die either inside of me or within minutes outside my body, and it would be suffering," Roberts said.
The bill would grant some exceptions, including in cases involving a 'spontaneous miscarriage' and procedures undertaken to save a mother's life "when accompanied by reasonable steps, if available, to save the life of her unborn child.'
But opponents say doctors would be too frightened by the proposal to provide that care even when necessary. They pointed to the cases — reported by the investigative journalism outlet ProPublica — of two women who died from delayed care tied to Georgia's abortion law after taking abortion pills.
Doctors also noted that Georgia already has some of the nation's highest maternal mortality rates, especially for Black women. Lawmakers should focus on helping them get more care, opponents said.
Doctors also said the bill sets the stage for the criminalization of in vitro fertilization and would force fertility clinics to close. The bill comes about a month after Georgia's House passed a bill with bipartisan support to protect the right to in vitro fertilization in the state. That measure was sponsored by Statesboro Republican Rep. Lehman Franklin, whose wife used IVF to conceive.
Despite concerns from several doctors, Dunahoo responded that the bill would not interfere with access to in vitro fertilization.
But Dr. Karenne Fru, who runs a fertility clinic that provides in-vitro fertilization, said the bill would put her out of work.
'My whole life is doing God's work. He said go forth and procreate,' said Fru, her voice shaking. 'I'm doing that. Please, just let me continue to do that. I cannot go to jail because I want to help people become parents.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RIDE disability rights case settlement disrupts R.I. House final budget preparations
The Rhode Island Department of Education's Westminster Street entrance in Providence is shown. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) The Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) may soon have to pay $1.86 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the state had failed to provide special education services for students with disabilities between the ages of 21 and 22. That news presented a last minute complication for the Rhode Island House Committee on Finance's fiscal 2026 state budget preparations Tuesday. 'We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget,' House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters at a press briefing on the $14.33 billion spending plan that began after 9 p.m. Tuesday night. He cited a figure of nearly $2 million needed because of an adverse ruling against RIDE, but details were unavailable at the time. The case of K.L. v. Rhode Island Board of Education is close to a settlement, Victor Morente, a RIDE spokesperson, confirmed via email on Wednesday morning. He said officials were still drafting a 'tentative' agreement that is still subject to approval from Rhode Island District Court as well as the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, RIDE's governing body. The settlement comes nearly seven years after a federal appeals court ruled that RIDE shortchanged students with disabilities in the 2010s. The class action suit began in 2014 with a single plaintiff: A Warwick parent filing on behalf of their daughter, a Rhode Island student on the autism spectrum who also had ADHD and severe anxiety. But the student, named K.L. in the lawsuit, aged out of state-sponsored educational accommodations at age 21, before she could finish her high school diploma — something she should have been eligible to receive until age 22 under federal disability laws, her attorneys argued. K.L. had an individualized education program (IEP), which tailors learning for students with disabilities and helps to address their needs. These support programs are the roadmaps to ensure local schools education agencies supply students with a free and 'appropriate' public education per mandates derived from the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Students 'who were over 21 and under 22 as of February 10, 2012, or turned 21 before July 1, 2019,' Morente wrote, would be eligible for relief under the draft settlement if they did not receive their high school diploma and aged out of support services under previous Rhode Island law. When the case came before the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, it ruled in favor of RIDE by determining that 'public education' under the federal law would not include adult learning for students with disabilities over age 21. The class members then took their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, which vacated the lower court's judgment. We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget. – House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi during a press briefing Tuesday Senior Judge Kermit Victor Lipez wrote in the first circuit's October 2018 majority opinion that the lower court had relied on too 'narrow' a definition of public education. 'At present, if a 21-year-old student in Rhode Island does not complete high school for a non-disability related reason — say, because she was previously incarcerated — the state will provide her the services needed to attain a secondary-school level of academic proficiency and a route to obtain a high-school level degree,' Lipez wrote. 'However, if the same 21-year-old does not complete high school due to a qualifying disability, the state currently does not offer her ability-appropriate services to attain the same level of educational achievement.' That imbalance violated disability law, the First Circuit decided, and the court boomeranged the case back to the District of Rhode Island for the two parties to determine remedies for class members. Sonja Deyoe, the attorney representing class members since the suit's inception, wrote in an email Wednesday that the First Circuit ruling was pivotal for disability rights in Rhode Island. 'The law previously had limited that education until the age of 21,' Deyoe wrote. 'This was a major change for disabled individuals in Rhode Island.' The First Circuit's ruling predates current RIDE leadership, and in August 2019, then-new education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green issued a memo instructing how state education officials should comply with the ruling. 'It is now clear that if they have not already done so, school districts … must comply with the recent First Circuit decision and should make services available and give careful consideration to the cost of prospective compliance,' Infante-Green wrote, adding that it was still unclear 'how appropriate remedies will be provided to those eligible class members.' Deyoe echoed that sentiment, saying that determining damages under the lawsuit 'did span a very long time,' with both parties trying to avoid forcing a legal decision as to whether individual class members could receive relief for damages. 'Whether individualized compensatory education damages could be awarded to the individual class members was always disputed by the RI Department of Education,' Deyoe said. The settlement also needs to be approved by the members of the class, Deyoe said. The currently draft spares class members from having to undergo individual trials to determine compensational education benefits. 'We are very hopeful the settlement will be approved, but the class members always have the opportunity to object and the Court may approve the settlement only with certain changes,' Deyoe wrote. 'We cannot predict that yet…While all of this took a long time to achieve, we do believe this is a good resolution for the class members.' The funding source to resolve the settlement was not immediately available from RIDE or the House on Wednesday. But Shekarchi detailed in a statement over email that the sudden news had cost the House some time on Tuesday. 'After the budget is posted for consideration by the House Finance Committee 48 hours in advance, there are always a number of policy decisions, options and calculations that must be finalized,' wrote the Speaker. 'The notification of a $1.86 million additional expense on the morning of the budget adoption certainly complicated the final process.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Senate passes budget giving Browns $600 million, tax cut to wealthy, more public school money
Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.) The Ohio Senate has passed a $60 billion state biennial operating budget, which includes a tax cut for the wealthy, some increased public education funding, and $600 million in funding to the Cleveland Browns for their new stadium. The total budget is expected to be around $200 billion once federal dollars come in. Ohio House Bill 96 was voted on mainly along party lines, 23-10. State Sen. Bill Blessing, R-Colerain Township, joined the Democrats to vote no. The senators increased the amount of money going to public schools from the Ohio House's proposal. The Senate budget gives public schools about $100 million more than the House. Although they follow most of the Ohio House's proposed budget, which only gives schools about $226 million of an increase for school funding, the Senate changed the funding 'guarantee' amount. Right now, some districts have guarantees that a portion of their funding will not be reduced, even if their enrollment goes down This $100 million added back would only go to high-performing or 'improving' districts. However, to be fully funded based on statistics from the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) from 2021, schools would need an additional $666-800 million, compared to the $226 million given by the House. Still, the Senate's version is closer to the FSFP than the House's. 'We're following the funding scheme that was put together in the first place,' Senate Finance Chair Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, said. 'Our bill is the closest way to get there.' They also raised the House proposal's cap on districts' rainy day funds to 50%, instead of 30%. This would mean that the schools would have to refund anything above that back to the taxpayer to provide property tax relief. 'The priority is not, obviously, in fully funding education, investing in our children and our future,' Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said. The Senate's budget proposal still includes $600 million for a new Cleveland Browns stadium in Brook Park. However, the funding structure differs from what the Browns proposed and what the House approved earlier this year. The House proposed borrowing $600 million by issuing bonds and repaying the debt, with interest, over 25 years, at a cost of about $1 billion. The Senate is proposing a $600 million grant for the stadium using unclaimed funds. That's other people's money that the state is holding, from things like forgotten bank accounts, rent, or utility deposits or uncashed insurance policies. The Ohio Department of Commerce's website states the state is sitting on $4.8 billion in unclaimed funds. Asked about the possibility of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoing that provision, Cirino noted that DeWine said publicly he did not like the debt arrangement of the House for the $600 million. DeWine himself had proposed raising gambling taxes. 'I'm pretty confident and feel good that the governor and the House will look at our approach to it,' Cirino said. Ohio Democratic lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to the project. 'If they could find that money for the Browns and their stadium's move to Brook Park, why didn't they decide to use those funds for the schools?' Antonio asked. The budget also includes a 2.75% flat income tax. There are three income tax brackets in Ohio. Those making up to $26,000 do not need to pay state income tax. Ohioans earning between $26,000 and $100,000 pay a tax of 2.75%. Those making more than $100,000 have to pay 3.5%. State data reveals that this flat tax could result in a loss of about $1.1 billion in the General Revenue Fund. 'The dollars that we're foregoing in the flat tax are already incorporated into our overall spending,' Cirino said. Funding for schools, Medicaid, libraries, lead abatement, food banks, and child care face funding decreases from the current status or from the governor's budget. Asked about these cuts these cuts to social services for lower-income people while giving a tax cut to the state's highest earners, Cirino said Republicans think it's going to be good for the economy. 'It's going to be good for attracting people,' Cirino responded. Antonio disagreed. 'It's a gift to the wealthiest among us on the backs of the poorest and lowest-income and middle-class folks in the state of Ohio,' she said. Senate Republicans propose giving $20,000 to top high school students to encourage them to stay in the state for their higher education. The Governor's Merit Scholarship was passed in the House budget. Already existing, the House language would extend the proposal that gives the top 5% of each graduating high school class $5,000 a year to attend a public or private school in Ohio. But the Senate version reduces the scholarship to the top 2% of students. The money would also have strings attached. The scholarship recipients would be required to reside in Ohio for three years after graduation. There would be an 'expectation' that the money would be returned if they leave within the three years. Now, the Senate and House leaders will enter a conference committee, a closed-door negotiation period to create a final budget. Once a decision is made, both chambers must pass the combined bill. If it passes through both sides, it will be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for review. In the past, he issued dozens of line-item vetoes on operating budgets. Line-item vetoing is the ability for the governor to pick and choose which policies within a larger piece of legislation get to stay or must go. The deadline for the budget to be passed is July 1. Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
