Georgia Podcast Network

If this bill had been on our radar before this past weekend, you can bet that we would have brought it up on the edition of the Georgia Politics Podcast we recorded on Saturday.

The state House passed HB147 this week, a bill that will require doctors to force anyone seeking an abortion to first obtain an ultrasound or sonogram. Because forced medical procedures are the best way to teach someone a lesson, right? The bill is loaded with language that makes it clear that we as a state believe that most women are just too stupid to know what the hell they are doing when they seek an abortion.

[It is the purpose of this Act to:] reduce "the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed"

So, I take it there are a lot of cases where women get home from their abortion and say "Wait, does this mean I'm not pregnant anymore? I totally didn't consider that! What a devastating discovery!!!!" Seriously, I'd have a hard time believing that the decision to seek an abortion is one that isn't considered and agonized over pretty seriously already in 99.9% of all cases.

If this measure passes, one thing is clear. This new requirement will not address any of the circumstances that lead women to need abortions in the first place. It won't be a deterrent to unplanned pregnancy, it won't help better educate young men and women about sex, and it won't give a broader range of people access to contraception.

What it does achieve--besides increasing the cost of health care for everyone--is simply make the process more painful for anyone who has already decided to seek the procedure.

The woman shall at the conclusion of the ultrasound be offered the opportunity to view the fetal image <strong>and hear the fetal heartbeat</strong>. The active ultrasound image shall be of a quality consistent with standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the unborn child, and <strong>accurately portray the presence of external members and internal</strong> organs, including but not limited to the heartbeat, if present or viewable, of the unborn child.

What a ridiculous level of detail on this requirement, too. Why don't we make them sit in a room full of Precious Moments figurines and decide what they would have named the baby, too? "Make sure y'all make 'em look at the organs and hear the heartbeat, too! Really rub their noses in it to get the point across to these dumb whores." The carefully-chosen criteria for the ultrasound make it clear that this isn't about making informed medical decisions (the kind that are made every day under the care of competent doctors that don't require that legislation compel them to do so). This is about shaming women into reconsidering.

I meant to write a response to this post from the AJC Political Insider yesterday, but didn't get the time. The gist is:

• The "new" AT&T wants the go-ahead to pipe video over its phone lines to compete with cable and satellite companies. Legislation proposed by state Rep. Jeff Lewis would allow for that.
• AT&T wants to secure a franchise agreement with the state to bypass negotiating with each and every city and county as cable providers do now. Public access channels are created through these negotiations, so the likely outcome of this arrangement would be no public access channels on AT&T's network. And AT&T could save as much as $500 million by avoiding those negotiations and not having to create those channels.
• Federal regulations allow a $1 subscriber fee to be attached to such arrangements that would be donated to arts funding (it works this way in Texas). If the legislation were passed with such a stipulation, it's estimated that $12 million per year would go to arts programs. In this case, it would act as sort of a penalty fee to make up for not having to provide public access channels.
• AT&T is against that stipulation.
• AT&T is giving a total of $2.3 million in various amounts to Piedmont Park, the Atlanta History Center, and another organization (the entry doesn't identify the third party unless I'm just missing it). They hope this gift will demonstrate that such regulation isn't necessary.

The question at the core of this to me is what is the role of a public access channel now? Is it an outdated concept since anybody can put a video on Youtube or dozens of other Internet services for free? Or is it still a vital community function by allowing free access to anyone who wants it, particularly to people who can't afford their own equipment, and of keeping people in touch with their communities generally?

I can't say I've watched anything on public access since college, and then it was a show run by two guys who provided commentary on local semi-pro wrestling. I didn't even really keep up with what they were saying, I just thought they were funny. As you can probably guess, I was drunk 100 percent of the time I was watching them.

But that's totally anecdotal. I don't want to project and say that because it isn't particularly valuable to me that it isn't valuable to someone. If anyone can give better examples, I'd love to hear them.

The elitist in me would ask, from a community connectivity standpoint, what's the difference in a government requiring a public access channel or in just posting videos to a free web site? In both cases, there are economic entry barriers to consume that media. A TV costs $100 or more, and monthly service costs $40 or more. A computer with enough power to watch Internet videos can be bought for as little as $200, and monthly broadband Internet service costs about the same as a cable connection. That leaves the question of access to production equipment as the most compelling argument for it to me.

The other point I could name against the legislation is if Comcast and others have to negotiate for those rights locally, isn't that unfair to them? Why should AT&T get that $500 million gift and not Comcast?

The upside is that more competition in the cable/satellite TV market sounds really good to me. Comcast has been awful for me in both Tennessee and Georgia (anecdotal again, but I'm not the only one I've heard complaining), and I firmly believe it's because they're fat and lazy without any real competition to speak of.

Anyway, please help me flesh this out. I waffle all the time on media regulation issues (even net neutrality) because I can see both sides of the argument. Shorter version of pros and cons to me:

Pros

• More competition in cable/satellite television market = better service, cheaper prices
• Can possibly be done with some new guaranteed arts funding

Cons

• What about public access television?
• How can giving AT&T special treatment versus other providers be rationalized?