I applaud you for removing the sections that would have seriously hampered a woman’s ability to become a mother. However I have serious concern with the following passage: 19-7-64.
(a) A living in vitro human embryo is a biological human being who is not the property of any person or entity. The fertility physician and the medical facility that employs the physician owe a high duty of care to the living in vitro human embryo. Any contractual provision identifying the living in vitro embryo as the property of any party shall be null and void. The in vitro human embryo shall not be intentionally destroyed for any purpose by any person or entity or through the actions of such person or entity.
This is not a bid to start Stem cell research however to make sure you understand the cost involved in maintaining frozen embryos. Is it the states intention to pay for the storage? Or to force clinics to raise the price of treatment to include storage fee therefore making it further out of reach for everyday citizens. I would hope this is not intent to further curtail a woman’s right to chose. Although the realities are the next statement does provide and answer to the aforementioned question: (b) an in vitro human embryo that fails to show any sign of life over a 36 hour period outside a state of cryopreservation shall be considered no longer living.
Beware that this exit strategy will be used frequently. Also, considering you have cohorts that intend to cut corporate taxes and implement taxes on groceries. I would strongly advise that setting up barriers to prevent new bio medicine from coming to Georgia in the will hurt our wallets more and less our religious bias.