If you don’t live in Georgia, you might not know that the Georgia House has advanced a bill that would end abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is right at about six weeks.

This is much earlier than the 20 weeks most states use which comes from federal law.

The issue being debated in Georgia is that of personhood, i.e., exactly when does an unborn child stop being an extension of the mother and become its own sovereign entity with rights.  Georgia Republicans want that to be when a heartbeat is heard, the 20 week standard is based on when a fetus can react to stimuli and shows evidence of a pain response, 24 weeks is considered the minimum age for viability for a premature birth, so there are discernible cutoff points.

Wherever you fall on abortion, this is not an unreasonable debate to be had.

But this post isn’t about that, it is to set the stage for what is next.

A Georgia state Representative and nut job Dar’shun Kendrick has submitted her own bill as a counter to the abortion bill.

Pretty much her attitude can be summarized as if you want to regulate a woman’s body, we’ll regulate a man’s body.

Kendrick’s package of bills would require men to obtain permission from their partners to get a prescription for erectile dysfunction medicine, ban vasectomies and punish doctors who perform them, require men to pay child support beginning six weeks after a woman becomes pregnant, and make sex without a condom an aggravated assault crime.

Another bill would create a 24-hour waiting period for men who want to buy pornography or sex toys.

For the most part, this is a joke bill that will never gain traction.  So why am I bringing it up?

The name of her bill is the “Testicular ‘Bill of Rights.'”

Seriously.

Ggggooooodddd morning! Introducing my "testicular bill of rights" legislative package. You want some regulation of bodies and choice? Done! pic.twitter.com/5E8HBRSc9l

— Dar'shun Kendrick (@DarshunKendrick) March 11, 2019

This shows more insight into the mind of a Progressive than anything else.  Her “Bill of Rights” is an enumeration of restrictions.  She sees the phrase “Bill of Rights” as a list of impositions by government onto people.

This flips the very idea of a Bill of Rights upside down, and makes clear exactly how Progressives see the Bill of Rights, and is an insult to the very principles on which this country was founded.

I don’t care how tongue-in-cheek this was supposed to be, the words “Bill of Rights” should never be used to justify removal of freedoms.

To use some of the language of social justice “bitch, get the words ‘Bill of Rights’ out of your stupid mouth.”