Georgia Is A** Backwards

Michael Scally MD

Doctor of Medicine
10+ Year Member
In GOP runoff, differences over IVF restrictions
In GOP runoff, differences over IVF restrictions - Health - msnbc.com

SHANNON McCAFFREY

ATLANTA — Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Karen Handel and Nathan Deal differ on whether they'd support efforts to limit fertility treatments in Georgia, an issue GOP legislators pushed just last year and is a priority for the state's largest anti-abortion group.

Handel, who underwent fertility treatments herself as she and her husband tried unsuccessfully to have children, said she would oppose any move to place restrictions on doctors and their patients.

"I could never look another family in the face and say that I was going to do something that would take away their ability — their hope — of having a child," the former secretary of state told The Associated Press.

Deal said he's open to some common sense limits, but they must be worked out in consultations with doctors.

"We should not be creating life that is then going to be used for other purposes whereby it's going to be destroyed," Deal said in an interview with the AP.

"I'm not going to tell you that you can just arbitrarily say this many embryos versus that many embryos," he said.

At issue are IVF procedures in which doctors routinely fertilize more embryos than they plan to use for a single treatment cycle in the interest of giving couples their best shot at having a baby.

Georgia Right to Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group, wants restrictions, arguing that the procedures can lead to the discarding of unused embryos, which they see as the destruction of life.

The group says parents undergoing the in vitro process should "limit the number of human embryos created in a single cycle to the number to be transferred in that cycle."

Doctors say that's often unrealistic.

Depending on the age and health of the patient, it may take several rounds of treatment — and multiple embryos — to get pregnant. IVF costs between $12,000 and $15,000 a cycle and often is not covered by health insurance.

Dr. Andrew Toledo, medical director of the Atlanta-based Reproductive Biology Associates, said the state should avoid a cookie cutter approach that puts parenthood out of reach to all but the wealthy.

"Not every couple and not every patient is the same," he said.

Toledo said he is willing to take Deal at his word that he would only make changes after getting input from doctors.

"So long as it's a meaningful consultation," he said.

But Toledo also worried that restrictions — or the threat of them — could prompt those in the biotech field to leave the state.

Renee Whitley, a co-chairwoman of the infertility group RESOLVE , said Deal has consistently supported so-called personhood amendments in Congress that would define life as beginning at the point of fertilization. And she expects he would do the same as governor.

Whitley noted that, in the past, medical experts in infertility have testified before the state Legislature only to have lawmakers push forward with restrictions anyway.

Deal has been endorsed by Georgia Right to Life. The group's executive director Nancy Stith issued a statement reiterating her support for Deal, without directly addressing the fertility issue.

"Nathan Deal agrees with our position statements and has pledged to uphold the sanctity of human life — demonstrated by signing our candidate affirmation form," Stith said in a statement.

In 2009, Georgia legislators considered a measure that would have placed first-in-the-nation restrictions on the number of embryos fertility doctors may implant. "The Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act" was inspired by the birth of octuplets in California. It would restrict the number of fertilized embryos a woman could create and implant through in-vitro treatments.

Several key state lawmakers said they supported the thinking behind the legislation but that it needed more study to avoid legal challenges.

The bill evolved into one that would have restricted embryonic stem cell research in Georgia. It passed the state Senate but failed to move in the House.

Former Gov. Roy Barnes, the Democratic nominee for governor, has called such legislation "crazy," saying it would harm Georgia's reputation and send cutting-edge companies packing to states where they won't have to worry about government restrictions.

Handel and Deal have each said they would not want to harm the state's ability to attract and keep high-paying biotech jobs.

"I don't think we ought to do anything that prohibits legitimate growth of business in our state," Deal said. "But by the same token, if it's done within the context of the sanctity of life and the protection of life, which I believe does begin at conception."
 
How does this make Ga ass backward?

Because they want to preserve life?

Don't get me wrong... I think there is a huge difference in terminating a baby ill conceived by two unfit parents (abortion) and terminating a science project...

One is trying to circumvent divine intervention... while the other is human tampering...
 
One is trying to circumvent divine intervention... while the other is human tampering...

Divine intervention according to who?

Please remember that religious beliefs are yours and yours only, and those of us who've chosen not to believe in a completely unsubstantiated system of ideas (be they Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, etc. - doesn't matter), would prefer not to have our consience or our bodies regulated according to the subjective moral whims of a few.
 
The so-called "right to life" movement is simply out of control. NONE of this has ANY place in legislation and law.
 
I have been trying to avoid any type of internet banter lately to take the high road and not lower my self to that level... however you two have struck a nerve that far too many times the good folks of this country have turned a deaf ear and blind eye to in an attempt to let you all "live your lives" yet you are now pushing YOUR beliefs and ideas onto myself and the other Christians of this country and the world.

After I graduated from college with a degree in science years ago, a colleague asked me... "With all of your education... you STILL believe in God?"... Well... Yes I do... Its called Faith....


Now let me get this right... the two of you believe there is no God correct?

I am assuming that you also believe in evolution and the "Big Bang Theory"... no?

While I think the show is an outstanding comedy... I must also say that the idea is also just that... comedic..

The theory doesn't hold water... think about this for a second, allow your feeble minds to open up and comprehend what you have begun to believe...

If you believe that an explosion happened millions of years ago and the matter, over millions of years, RANDOMLY collected and formed a planet such as ours, with land, water, an atmosphere, elements and all of the other intricacies that make the earth what it is from the tides and currents to the wind and rains... then I must question your judgement...

FURTHERMORE, you take it further with the belief that LIFE happened SPONTANEOUSLY, from a collection of mysterious elements... and again RANDOMLY began to morph into DIFFERENT species... again over millions of years, into what we have today...

You, (Even you Dr.Scally?) ACTUALLY believe that a species as complex as a human being all developed RANDOMLY... with NO DESIGN OR DIRECTION WHATSOEVER over the course of MILLIONS of years??? Our brains, hearts, muscles.. ALL OF THAT WITH NO PLAN OR DESIGN... Seriously?

That is like saying that I can put my cell phone in a room full of computers... and ONE DAY IN MILLIONS of years it will have come to life and morphed into a computer.... Highly doubtful and silly if you ask me....

Can I get a big pile of steel,rubber, glass, and wire to magically MORPH into an automobile after millions of years of sitting together? NO! it takes a design...

So then I ask you...WHY wouldn't there be a supreme architect of the universe? That certainly makes more sense to me... Someone or something designed the world and bodies we live in today... it certainly didn't happen by random chance.... Why is the thought of having one true God something that is so hard to fathom? Is it simply because you don't want the accountability that goes along with it?
 
That is like saying that I can put my cell phone in a room full of computers... and ONE DAY IN MILLIONS of years it will have come to life and morphed into a computer.... Highly doubtful and silly if you ask me....

Not exactly. There is a difference. Cell phones can not reproduce. The same with your automobile example - piles of steel and rubber can not reproduce.

And even if they could, there would be no impetus for change or mechanism for change.

When a living organism reproduces, it passes down it's genetic code. Sometimes, there are errors in the process and the code gets jumbled - this is called mutation. As such, there will be slight genetic differences between parents and their children.

Sometimes, these changes are beneficial to survival, and the children live long enough to pass down that beneficial change. When the changes are not beneficial to survival, it lessens the likelihood that the children will live long enough to pass on the mutation. This explains why most cases of sickle-celled anemia are with those of nationalities in which the disease malaria is common - because it offers protection from the disease, which enabled the first carrier of the mutation to live longer to pass on the mutation - and his children lived longer to pass on the mutation, and so on and so forth.

None of this can take place with cell phones or automobiles, because there's no place in the process that could jumble up their DNA.

Because of what I discussed above, it's really dishonest to imply that the mechanism of evolution is 'random'. It favors traits that help carriers live to child-bearing ages. When any mechanism favors one kind of trait over another, it is no longer random.

If you believe that an explosion happened millions of years ago and the matter, over millions of years, RANDOMLY collected and formed a planet such as ours, with land, water, an atmosphere, elements and all of the other intricacies that make the earth what it is from the tides and currents to the wind and rains... then I must question your judgement...

It's a fallacy to assume that just because something is random - which one could call the distribution of matter after the big bang - then it means the results can't be complex.

Imagine grabbing a handful of sand, and throwing it off of a cliff. The exact trajectory, speed, and air-time of each grain of sand is probably more complex than you or I could ever intentionally design in your lifetime. But it took no effort at all to simply throw the sand over the cliff and let the laws of physics take over - yet it still created an amazingly complex result.

Another example of random complexity is simply rocks. We know how rocks are formed, how there are metamorphose, igneous, and sedimentary rocks. However, the exact combination and coordination of atoms in an igneous rock that form after a volcano eruption is more or less random. It is still incredibly complex. Think about it - what are the odds that all trillions of atoms in the rock would occupy the same exact place in relation to eachother if the eruption occured again? Take the number of atoms, take it to the power of itself, and 1 by it - then you're approaching the correct likelihood, and it's outrageously high.

Matter has to exist in a state- and the more matter there is, the more necessarily complex ANY result is going to be. That means, for all of the trillions of quadrillions of septillions of possibilities the universe had, absolutely all of them would be mind-bogglingly unlikely. That means that the fact that our universe is almost an impossibility doesn't mean anything.
 
Divine intervention according to who?

Please remember that religious beliefs are yours and yours only, and those of us who've chosen not to believe in a completely unsubstantiated system of ideas (be they Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, etc. - doesn't matter), would prefer not to have our consience or our bodies regulated according to the subjective moral whims of a few.

I don't want to argue whether there is or is not a God. Faith is a personal matter; it can be shared but never forced. What I would like to point out is the basis of diety in the "rights" which this thread concerns. The concept of unalienable rights is functional only in the presence of a supreme power. The power that assigns our rights is simply referred to as "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson was not a Christian, he was a deist. He simply believed that there was a God, whom he called Creator. Outside of endowment from a Creator, we are only bound by the laws of nature. Simply stated the strong may subjugate the weak. I'm a strong proponent of natural selection. I like the idea of manipulating those weaker than I for my benefit. I'm stronger than 90% of the people I meet, forcing my will would be much simpler for me than acknowledging the rights of another. I choose not to indulge my urges. I believe it to be wrong and that I am to try and live at peace with those around me. These beliefs are substantiated by my faith which I ask that you respect. My beliefs are the sole reason that I respect you and do not slander you and call you childish names and retort with juvenile quips. I find the "equalitarians" of today to be increasingly oppressive, quite oxymoronic.
 
Not exactly. There is a difference. Cell phones can not reproduce. The same with your automobile example - piles of steel and rubber can not reproduce.

You are exactly right... and the inert matter "created" or "distributed" by an explosion can not and will not reproduce...

And even if they could, there would be no impetus for change or mechanism for change.

When a living organism reproduces, it passes down it's genetic code. Sometimes, there are errors in the process and the code gets jumbled - this is called mutation. As such, there will be slight genetic differences between parents and their children.

Sometimes, these changes are beneficial to survival, and the children live long enough to pass down that beneficial change. When the changes are not beneficial to survival, it lessens the likelihood that the children will live long enough to pass on the mutation. This explains why most cases of sickle-celled anemia are with those of nationalities in which the disease malaria is common - because it offers protection from the disease, which enabled the first carrier of the mutation to live longer to pass on the mutation - and his children lived longer to pass on the mutation, and so on and so forth.

None of this can take place with cell phones or automobiles, because there's no place in the process that could jumble up their DNA.

I fully understand selective adaptation and don't need any "education" form the likes of you... I never said that a species cannot or will not change to be better suited for their environment, this is still proof of "Intelligent design"

It's a fallacy to assume that just because something is random - which one could call the distribution of matter after the big bang - then it means the results can't be complex.

Imagine grabbing a handful of sand, and throwing it off of a cliff. The exact trajectory, speed, and air-time of each grain of sand is probably more complex than you or I could ever intentionally design in your lifetime. But it took no effort at all to simply throw the sand over the cliff and let the laws of physics take over - yet it still created an amazingly complex result.

So with this theory and and the others you are trying to site... I can throw sand over a cliff for millions of years... and the laws of physics will take over and I will then have a very nice sand castle? Highly doubtful... I will have a big pile of sand....


Matter has to exist in a state- and the more matter there is, the more necessarily complex ANY result is going to be. That means, for all of the trillions of quadrillions of septillions of possibilities the universe had, absolutely all of them would be mind-bogglingly unlikely. That means that the fact that our universe is almost an impossibility doesn't mean anything.

I must say that your knowledge is impressive and you seem to be an intelligent person, and I commend you for that, However, you have just answered your own question... we cannot fathom all of the complexities and intricacies of our own bodies... much less the world, and even universe we live in...But HE WHO CREATED IT can... Why is it so hard for you to understand there IS something GREATER than YOU (us) out there? because you cant see him? Because no one has taken a picture of him? or because you simply do not want to believe?

This conversation can go on for years as it has done thus far. We must simply agree that we can disagree...

For me what will be the harm in believing? As for you... I hope for your benefit you are right... Because hell is no place I would want to be....
 
Divine intervention according to who?

Please remember that religious beliefs are yours and yours only, and those of us who've chosen not to believe in a completely unsubstantiated system of ideas (be they Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, etc. - doesn't matter), would prefer not to have our consience or our bodies regulated according to the subjective moral whims of a few.

So you are saying that Jesus Christ never lived? Never performed miracles? Never gave his life to save YOURS... And never rose from the dead?

Mighty bold words... Because those are pretty substantial to me...

But I suppose that i could hide my head in a hole and not read any history books and say that Hitler never existed and the Holocaust was a sham as well.... Simply because I didn't want to believe...

I am sorry you find this sad...
 
The concept of unalienable rights is functional only in the presence of a supreme power.

Not true. The declaration of independence is an expression of such ideas, but localized, and not the standard. Basic human rights can easily be derived without any deity or religion.

Second, allthough your beliefs may be "substantiated" by your faith, your faith itself has no basis in fact, and if its the only reason that you're not "manipulating those weaker than you for your benefit", well then you're basically a dick... *shrugs*
 
So you are saying that Jesus Christ never lived? Never performed miracles? Never gave his life to save YOURS... And never rose from the dead?

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. Jesus is a fraud. And you can kick and scream all you want but there is absolutely NO evidence in ANY history books of Christ's alleged miracles, and next to no evidence that he even walked the earth.

Whereas the historical record of Hitler and the Holocaust is not only abundant but actually factual, making your comparison absolutely insane. But, such seems the Christian way. Were you to actually be reasonable, I think you'd find your faith quite hard to defend...
 
Not true. The declaration of independence is an expression of such ideas, but localized, and not the standard. Basic human rights can easily be derived without any deity or religion.

Second, allthough your beliefs may be "substantiated" by your faith, your faith itself has no basis in fact, and if its the only reason that you're not "manipulating those weaker than you for your benefit", well then you're basically a dick... *shrugs*

My faith is substantiated by the life of and teachings of Jesus Christ... you are backwards...

He isn't a dick... he's being honest...

I assure you that I could easily manipulate your FAT ASS into doing whatever I TOLD you to do... Only substantiated by the fact that you would KNOW that I could and would whip your ass should you decide other wise... However I would choose NOT TO, and I am sure he would too, due to the bounds set by our FAITH!;)
 
Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. Jesus is a fraud. And you can kick and scream all you want but there is absolutely NO evidence in ANY history books of Christ's alleged miracles, and next to no evidence that he even walked the earth.

Whereas the historical record of Hitler and the Holocaust is not only abundant but actually factual, making your comparison absolutely insane. But, such seems the Christian way. Were you to actually be reasonable, I think you'd find your faith quite hard to defend...

What year is it?

When did we start counting years?

oh yes... a few years after JESUS ascended into heaven.... hence B.C. and A.D. That looks like proof to me... or is that a scam too?

Since when is the Bible not a history book? It isn't taught in classrooms ANYMORE because of people like you who don't want to believe there are any repercussion to your actions in this world... You don't want to believe because it is easier to live without a conscious...
 
This will be my last comment on the topic. I believe my point has been made abundantly clear and is yet to be properly refuted, and subsequently (and rather predictably) illustrated by your own responses.

IronCore, so far, in defending your faith/Christianity and in general, you've been insulting...

IronCore said:
The theory doesn't hold water... think about this for a second, allow your feeble minds to open up and comprehend what you have begun to believe...

...threatening...

IronCore said:
I assure you that I could easily manipulate your FAT ASS into doing whatever I TOLD you to do... Only substantiated by the fact that you would KNOW that I could and would whip your ass should you decide other wise...

...whimsically profane...

IronCore flips out...

...and others like you have suggested that they'd much prefer to subjugate the weak rather than tolerate them...

MAYO said:
I'm a strong proponent of natural selection. I like the idea of manipulating those weaker than I for my benefit.

Whereas I give MAYO a lot of credit for at least acknowledging the more unsavory aspects of his personality and admitting that because of his faith he restrains himself, you - IronCore - seem to have no such discretion. You seem perfectly willing to be everything horrible and wrong with religion, and then hide behind the saving grace of Jesus Christ, as if it gives you some sort of license to be so crude.

And this... my friends... is religion, for you.

A collection of lopsided hypocrites intent on bullying the world and pursuing their own twisted versions of purity by any means necessary and without any reason or prudence. And very unfortunately, for every humble, sincere, kind-hearted believer in the world, there are 100 like IronCore, ready and willing to shit on all who oppose his doctrine, despite his calling to do the exact opposite.

Matthew 7:15-24

Might want to give that a second read, sir. All the best.
 
Not true. The declaration of independence is an expression of such ideas, but localized, and not the standard. Basic human rights can easily be derived without any deity or religion.

Second, allthough your beliefs may be "substantiated" by your faith, your faith itself has no basis in fact, and if its the only reason that you're not "manipulating those weaker than you for your benefit", well then you're basically a dick... *shrugs*

I'm not a dick, just an animal with instincts and desires identical to yours. My faith has significant and substantial basis to me and that is what matters. As previously stated faith is a personal matter. You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot believe as I have no right to dictate your beliefs. I simply asked that you respect my right to believe. This thread asks that the reader respect a woman's right to choose while the current Political Discourse topic asks that the reader respects people of the same sex's right to enter into a marriage. You adamantly demand other people respect your rights, yet offer no respect to beliefs different than your own. You are no different than the lunatics screaming "god hates fags" or those at abortion clinics calling scared young girls "murderers." You deserve each other.
 
You are exactly right... and the inert matter "created" or "distributed" by an explosion can not and will not reproduce...

That is correct, and there are many attempted explanations for how life first appeared. Abiogenesis seems be getting a lot of attention, but by and large how the first cell first appeared billions of years ago is a subject that we don't know everything about.



I fully understand selective adaptation and don't need any "education" form the likes of you... I never said that a species cannot or will not change to be better suited for their environment, this is still proof of "Intelligent design"




So with this theory and and the others you are trying to site... I can throw sand over a cliff for millions of years... and the laws of physics will take over and I will then have a very nice sand castle? Highly doubtful... I will have a big pile of sand....

Interesting concept. What exactly about our universe would make you call it a 'sand castle' as opposed to a pile of sand? A pile of sand would still be roughly as complex as the sand castle, just less pretty.

In order to establish that we're a 'sand castle' universe as opposed to a 'pile of sand' universe, we'd need several other universes to compare it to.

I'm sure, even if you threw a pile of sand over a cliff, there would still - over millions of years - develop a tiny ecosystem within the pile of sand of sand crabs, parasites, and all of the things that you generally try not to bring back in your shoes from the beach.


I must say that your knowledge is impressive and you seem to be an intelligent person, and I commend you for that,

Thank you.

However, you have just answered your own question... we cannot fathom all of the complexities and intricacies of our own bodies... much less the world, and even universe we live in...But HE WHO CREATED IT can... Why is it so hard for you to understand there IS something GREATER than YOU (us) out there? because you cant see him? Because no one has taken a picture of him? or because you simply do not want to believe?

We don't have to understand the complexity of everything - as complex system can be created randomly. I'm just saying that if the dice had been cast a bit differently, it may have been another society of vertebrae with the capacity for critical thinking marveling at how *they* came to be out of the trillions of possibilities. :p

This conversation can go on for years as it has done thus far. We must simply agree that we can disagree...
For me what will be the harm in believing? As for you... I hope for your benefit you are right... Because hell is no place I would want to be....

Your faith is no harm to me, that's why I'd never attack it. If it seems like I have been then I apologize. I was just defending the explanation that I've researched and came to the conclusion that it's responsible for the variety of life on earth.

It's not uncommon for me to meet a Christian that came to the same conclusion as me. It's not anti-Christian, just allowing for a different interpretation of the bible.
 
I'm not a dick, just an animal with instincts and desires identical to yours. My faith has significant and substantial basis to me and that is what matters. As previously stated faith is a personal matter. You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot believe as I have no right to dictate your beliefs. I simply asked that you respect my right to believe. This thread asks that the reader respect a woman's right to choose while the current Political Discourse topic asks that the reader respects people of the same sex's right to enter into a marriage. You adamantly demand other people respect your rights, yet offer no respect to beliefs different than your own. You are no different than the lunatics screaming "god hates fags" or those at abortion clinics calling scared young girls "murderers." You deserve each other.

I like you MAYO, but for some reason we have trouble understanding each other. Its not so much that we disagree, but that we seem to misinterpret each other. I'm sure in time we'll figure it out.
 
In GOP runoff, differences over IVF restrictions
In GOP runoff, differences over IVF restrictions - Health - msnbc.com

SHANNON McCAFFREY

ATLANTA — Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Karen Handel and Nathan Deal differ on whether they'd support efforts to limit fertility treatments in Georgia, an issue GOP legislators pushed just last year and is a priority for the state's largest anti-abortion group.

Handel, who underwent fertility treatments herself as she and her husband tried unsuccessfully to have children, said she would oppose any move to place restrictions on doctors and their patients.

"I could never look another family in the face and say that I was going to do something that would take away their ability — their hope — of having a child," the former secretary of state told The Associated Press.

Deal said he's open to some common sense limits, but they must be worked out in consultations with doctors.

"We should not be creating life that is then going to be used for other purposes whereby it's going to be destroyed," Deal said in an interview with the AP.

"I'm not going to tell you that you can just arbitrarily say this many embryos versus that many embryos," he said.

At issue are IVF procedures in which doctors routinely fertilize more embryos than they plan to use for a single treatment cycle in the interest of giving couples their best shot at having a baby.

Georgia Right to Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group, wants restrictions, arguing that the procedures can lead to the discarding of unused embryos, which they see as the destruction of life.

The group says parents undergoing the in vitro process should "limit the number of human embryos created in a single cycle to the number to be transferred in that cycle."

Doctors say that's often unrealistic.

Depending on the age and health of the patient, it may take several rounds of treatment — and multiple embryos — to get pregnant. IVF costs between $12,000 and $15,000 a cycle and often is not covered by health insurance.

Dr. Andrew Toledo, medical director of the Atlanta-based Reproductive Biology Associates, said the state should avoid a cookie cutter approach that puts parenthood out of reach to all but the wealthy.

"Not every couple and not every patient is the same," he said.

Toledo said he is willing to take Deal at his word that he would only make changes after getting input from doctors.

"So long as it's a meaningful consultation," he said.

But Toledo also worried that restrictions — or the threat of them — could prompt those in the biotech field to leave the state.

Renee Whitley, a co-chairwoman of the infertility group RESOLVE , said Deal has consistently supported so-called personhood amendments in Congress that would define life as beginning at the point of fertilization. And she expects he would do the same as governor.

Whitley noted that, in the past, medical experts in infertility have testified before the state Legislature only to have lawmakers push forward with restrictions anyway.

Deal has been endorsed by Georgia Right to Life. The group's executive director Nancy Stith issued a statement reiterating her support for Deal, without directly addressing the fertility issue.

"Nathan Deal agrees with our position statements and has pledged to uphold the sanctity of human life — demonstrated by signing our candidate affirmation form," Stith said in a statement.

In 2009, Georgia legislators considered a measure that would have placed first-in-the-nation restrictions on the number of embryos fertility doctors may implant. "The Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act" was inspired by the birth of octuplets in California. It would restrict the number of fertilized embryos a woman could create and implant through in-vitro treatments.

Several key state lawmakers said they supported the thinking behind the legislation but that it needed more study to avoid legal challenges.

The bill evolved into one that would have restricted embryonic stem cell research in Georgia. It passed the state Senate but failed to move in the House.

Former Gov. Roy Barnes, the Democratic nominee for governor, has called such legislation "crazy," saying it would harm Georgia's reputation and send cutting-edge companies packing to states where they won't have to worry about government restrictions.

Handel and Deal have each said they would not want to harm the state's ability to attract and keep high-paying biotech jobs.

"I don't think we ought to do anything that prohibits legitimate growth of business in our state," Deal said. "But by the same token, if it's done within the context of the sanctity of life and the protection of life, which I believe does begin at conception."

here we go... more religion in politics...
 
Back
Top