Boycotting Georgia: Abortion Laws' Impact On Economy And Society

In 2019, Georgia passed the Life Act, which banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. This law was struck down by a judge in 2024, but the Georgia Supreme Court reinstated the ban while the state appeals the ruling. The law has prompted calls for boycotts of the state, particularly from the film and television industry, which has a significant presence in Georgia. However, there are concerns that a boycott would hurt residents of Georgia, including those who are most vulnerable as a result of the bill, and those whose livelihoods depend on the film industry. So, what will boycotting Georgia due to its abortion laws achieve?

The impact on the film industry

Georgia's film industry has been a major beneficiary of the state's attractive tax incentives for film and TV productions. However, the state's abortion laws have sparked controversy and calls for boycotts, which could have a significant impact on the film industry.

In 2019, Georgia passed the "Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act" or the LIFE Act, which bans abortions after the detection of embryonic cardiac activity, which typically occurs around six weeks into a pregnancy. This law has been widely criticised as it often takes women longer to realise they are pregnant. The law was temporarily blocked by a federal judge but came into force in 2022 after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

In response to the abortion law, there have been calls for film and TV productions to boycott Georgia, with some arguing that the state's tax incentives should not be used to fund productions that could indirectly support these laws. In 2019, several productions, including Amazon's *The Power* and *The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes*, considered boycotting the state, and some productions, such as *The Power*, decided to move to other locations. However, many productions have continued to film in Georgia, with the state offering various benefits, including its infrastructure and purpose-built studios.

The impact of boycotts on Georgia's film industry is difficult to predict. On the one hand, the state has a well-established film infrastructure, and productions may be reluctant to incur the costs and disruptions of relocating. On the other hand, the controversy surrounding the abortion laws could lead to increased public pressure on productions to boycott the state, especially with the issue of abortion rights gaining prominence in the lead-up to the November elections.

The potential impact of boycotts on Georgia's film industry highlights the complex interplay between politics and the entertainment industry. While productions may be drawn to Georgia for its tax incentives and infrastructure, they also need to consider the potential backlash from audiences and the impact of their presence in the state. As the debate around abortion rights continues to evolve, the film industry's relationship with Georgia will be an interesting aspect to monitor.

The inaccessibility of abortions for trans men

Georgia's abortion law has been a topic of contention, with a judge recently striking down the state's abortion ban, allowing abortions up to 22 weeks of pregnancy. This ruling has significant implications for abortion access in the South, where several Republican-controlled state legislatures have severely limited abortion procedures.

Now, focusing on the topic of "The inaccessibility of abortions for trans men":

Transgender men and non-binary individuals face unique challenges and barriers when it comes to accessing abortions. The issue of inaccessibility for this community stems from a combination of social, medical, legal, and psychological factors. Here are some key points to consider:

• Discrimination and Exclusion in Healthcare: Transgender men often encounter discrimination and exclusion when seeking reproductive care. Quinn Jackson, a trans primary care doctor, highlights the fear and challenges trans individuals face when accessing healthcare and abortion services, especially in restrictive areas. This discrimination can lead to trans men avoiding healthcare altogether or facing abuse and harassment for not conforming to gender expectations.
• Lack of Trans-Competent Providers: Finding competent and sensitive healthcare providers who are trained in trans care can be incredibly difficult. Many trans men have reported negative experiences with doctors, including a lack of pregnancy tests and discussions about HIV and PrEP. This lack of trans-competent providers further exacerbates the inaccessibility of abortions for this community.
• Financial Constraints and Travel Barriers: Trans men, especially those of color, often struggle with poverty and job discrimination, making it challenging to cover the financial costs of abortion procedures and travel to other states with more lenient abortion laws. The prospect of traveling long distances to find a trans-competent provider can be daunting and unsafe.
• Mental Health Concerns: The prospect of an unwanted pregnancy can severely impact the mental health of trans men, leading to gender dysphoria and even suicidal ideation. The fear of pregnancy and the psychological conflict of being pregnant while living as a man can be unbearable for many.
• Socio-cultural Factors: Trans men are more likely to experience homelessness, food insecurity, intimate partner violence, and adverse childhood experiences, all of which can influence their access to abortions and reproductive care. Additionally, they may face minority stress and higher risks of substance use, further complicating their ability to seek timely and safe abortions.
• Fertility Concerns and HRT: Transgender men who undergo hormone replacement therapy (HRT) may experience decreased fertility. However, HRT is not a reliable form of contraception, and trans men can still become pregnant, even with periods stopped. Unintended pregnancies can lead to difficult decisions and the consideration of self-induced abortions, as reported by some non-binary individuals.
• Legal and Political Barriers: With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, trans men in states with stringent abortion restrictions or bans, like those in the South, face significant legal barriers to accessing abortions. The concentration of trans people in these restrictive states further exacerbates the issue of inaccessibility.
• Abuse and Violence Targeting Trans People: The rise in violence and the introduction of anti-trans bills contribute to a climate of fear and danger for trans men seeking abortions. Jamison Green, a former president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, expresses concern about the compounding effects of racism, transphobia, and homophobia as trans and queer people of color seek abortions.
• Limited Safe Spaces: The coding of abortion procedures as "women-only" further alienates trans men and makes it more challenging for them to access these services. This coding influences insurance coverage and contributes to the overall lack of access and dire consequences for this vulnerable community.

In conclusion, the inaccessibility of abortions for trans men is a complex issue rooted in discrimination, healthcare exclusions, financial constraints, mental health concerns, socio-cultural factors, fertility concerns, legal barriers, and abuse targeting trans individuals. The recent rulings and political climate in states like Georgia have far-reaching implications for this vulnerable community, exacerbating the challenges they face in accessing safe and timely abortions.

The legal system's punishment of abortions as murder

In October 2024, a Georgia judge struck down the state's abortion ban, allowing abortions to be performed until the 22nd week of pregnancy. The law, known as the Life Act, was passed in 2019 and prohibited abortions after six weeks, which is often before many people know they are pregnant.

The punishment of abortions as murder can have serious consequences. In one case, a Texas man, Marcus Silva, sued three women for allegedly helping his ex-wife obtain abortion pills. He claimed that their actions qualified as murder under the state's homicide law and abortion ban, seeking $1 million in damages. While this case was eventually dropped, it highlights the potential for legal repercussions when abortions are treated as murder.

The debate surrounding abortions and murder often revolves around the definition of personhood and the rights of the fetus versus the rights of the mother. Those who view abortion as murder may argue that the fetus has human rights and should be protected by law. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates may argue that the mother has the right to abort due to the child's dependency on her body, although this argument can be challenged by comparing it to the dependency of other individuals post-birth.

The danger of miscarriages being treated as criminal

In 2024, Georgia's abortion ban was struck down by a judge, allowing abortions until 22 weeks into a pregnancy. This ruling could have a significant impact on abortion access in the US South, where several Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed laws severely limiting abortions.

One notable case is that of Marshae Jones from Alabama, who was indicted for manslaughter after losing her fetus when she was shot. Jones was held responsible for engaging in a fight while pregnant, while the person who shot her was not charged. Although the charges were eventually dropped due to public backlash and the efforts of activists and lawyers, Jones's case is not an isolated incident.

In several US states, laws and loopholes allow for the prosecution of women experiencing pregnancy loss. "Concealing a birth" or "concealing a death" are considered felonies or misdemeanors in multiple states, and women are often charged under these laws after a miscarriage or stillbirth. Additionally, some states have vague definitions of "fetal personhood," which can lead to arrests for behaviors that could potentially put a pregnancy at risk.

The criminalization of pregnancy loss has severe consequences and can deter women from seeking necessary medical attention. It also reinforces the notion of pregnant people as vessels rather than individuals with rights and autonomy. This issue disproportionately affects women of color, who already face higher rates of miscarriage and stillbirth and often have limited access to prenatal care.

The trend of treating miscarriages as a criminal matter raises serious ethical and legal questions. It underscores the complex dynamics surrounding reproductive rights, maternal health, and the role of the state in regulating pregnancy and women's bodies.

The effect on reproductive rights for people of colour

In 2022, Georgia passed the Life Act, banning abortions after six weeks – the point at which fetal cardiac electrical activity can first be detected, and often before many people know they are pregnant. This law disproportionately affects people of colour, particularly Black and Brown women, who are primarily poor and unable to access safe abortions.

In 2024, a Georgia judge, Robert McBurney, struck down the state's abortion ban, stating that it violated the state constitution and that "a legally competent person has absolute authority over her body and should brook no governmental interference". This ruling has the potential to increase access to abortion in the South, where several Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed laws severely limiting abortion access.

The criminalisation of abortion has a compounding impact on those who are already marginalised. Health services are generally less accessible to people on low incomes, refugees, migrants, LGBTI+ people, and racialised and Indigenous people. This means it is more difficult for some people to seek safe services in another country or access private care.

The SisterSong Women of Colour Reproductive Justice Collective, the lead plaintiff in the Georgia abortion case, stated that "every day the ban has been in place has been a day too long – and we have felt the dire consequences with the devastating and preventable deaths of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller", two women who died due to being unable to access legal abortions.

While the overturning of Georgia's abortion ban is a step towards protecting reproductive rights for people of colour, there is still a long way to go. Anti-abortion messaging has targeted Black women, using racially stigmatising messages claiming that abortion targets communities of colour as a form of genocide. Additionally, there is a lack of research on how the racialisation of the United States affects abortion stigma, and the unique experiences of people of colour in accessing abortions.

To truly protect reproductive rights for people of colour, it is essential to address the social, economic, and political inequalities that prevent people from marginalised communities from fully exercising their sexual and reproductive rights. This includes breaking down the barriers to accessing abortion, such as criminalisation, restrictive laws, social stigma, and economic and logistical difficulties.

Frequently asked questions