Posted on 03/24/2026 1:11:58 PM PDT by Ciaphas Cain
KINGSLAND, Ga. (AP) — A Georgia judge granted a bond of just $1 for a murder charge faced by a woman accused by police of taking pills to induce an illegal abortion.
“I think that charge is extremely problematic,” Superior Court Judge Steven Blackerby said Monday during a bond hearing for Alexia Moore, according to The New York Times. “That is going to be a hard charge to convict upon.”
Blackerby set a total $2,001 bond for Moore, who spent nearly three weeks jailed in coastal Camden County. In addition to $1 for the murder charge, the judge ordered $1,000 bond amounts for each of two drug charges Moore faces.
Local police took the 31-year-old Moore into custody March 4 using an arrest warrant with language that echoes a Georgia law banning abortions after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected. That’s generally at about six weeks’ gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant.
Moore’s case is one of the first in Georgia of a woman being charged for terminating a pregnancy since the law was adopted in 2019.
The judge’s $1 bond raises questions about how a murder case against Moore might proceed.
(Excerpt) Read more at walb.com ...
One more out of control judge.
Both the mother who murdered her child and the judge are slaves of satan. I pray they will turn away from their sins and break free of their chains.
Was she white?
Who did she get the misipristone (sp?) and oxycodone from? Those are the ones who should be charged with murder.
This article makes it sound like she took the pills around 6 weeks gestation. She was actually 22-24 weeks pregnant so this was not an early abortion. 6 months, the dividing line between 2nd and 3rd trimester. The baby lived an hour after birth.
No, she’s a 31-year-old black woman. 22-24 weeks pregnant. The baby lived an hour after birth before dying.
Nothing Less than demonic
Another fag judge sticking it to Americans. Friggin Nazi Pig.
It’s scary to see the Godless Left
Mocking Almighty God in this nation
So the judge thinks he can make laws.
The judge’s line of reasoning went:
1) The baby is black and therefore will end up in prison
2) The mother has just saved the taxpayers the cost of that imprisonment
3) So, I will go easy on her
I meant the judge.
This judge needs to be removed from the case because he is obviously prejudiced against the case.
Kemp, an infamous anti-Trump Conservative-only-in-the-ABCNNBCBS/WSB reporting, only claims to be pro-life when he needs to be re-elected. Rats (now his anointed Sec of State, is even worse...Blackerby happens to be a white, rotund, good-ole-boy insider. (He was not appointed by Obama, Bush, nor Biden's autopen.
“You just KNOW that “they” are enjoying rubbing things like this in our faces.
One more out of control judge.”
____________________________________________________________
The purpose of a bail bond is to ensure a defendant’s return to court, not punishment. If the judge is confident the woman will return to court for her trial, there’s no reason to make them post an onerous bond.
“It’s scary to see the Godless Left
Mocking Almighty God in this nation”
____________________________________________________________
Much the same thing many people said about Thomas Jefferson two centuries ago.
😆😄😀🤣🤣
The judge is saying that Georgia law doesn’t criminalize a woman performing an abortion on herself based on a ruling regarding a prior law. This is the argument:
“(a) OCGA § 16-12-140(a) reads as follows: “Except as otherwise provided in Code Section 16-12-141,1 a person commits the offense of criminal abortion when he 2 administers any medicine, drugs, or other substance whatever to any woman or when he uses any instrument or other means whatever upon any woman with intent to produce a miscarriage or abortion.” (Emphasis supplied.) This statute is written in the third person, clearly indicating that at least two actors must be involved. “
Footnote 2 notes that the word “he” does not refer specifically to any gender; it includes women as well as men.
That was the legal precedent this judge based the decision on.
BUT the law was changed since then. I asked Grok about this and initially Grok said that the LIFE Act did not allow women to be prosecuted for performing abortions on themselves. So I asked Grok specifically. The question & answer below explain why this judge applied the wrong standard to this, by failing to recognize the difference between the language in this new abortion law and the language in the law that his preferred case precedent was based on (I apologize for the poor formatting; I just C&P’ed)
:
What specific language in this law specifies that the woman herself may perform an abortion on her child?
Searching the web
35 results
No specific language in Georgia’s HB 481 (the Living Infants Fairness and Equality / LIFE Act, codified primarily in O.C.G.A. § 16-12-141 and related sections) states or authorizes that the pregnant woman herself may perform an abortion on her unborn child (fetus).How the Law Defines and Restricts AbortionThe law defines “abortion” as:“the act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy with knowledge that termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of an unborn child.”
It then states the core prohibition:“No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if an unborn child has been determined ... to have a detectable human heartbeat.”
The language focuses on when an abortion may not be performed (after a detectable heartbeat, with narrow exceptions for medical emergency, medically futile pregnancy, or reported rape/incest before 20 weeks). It requires physicians to check for a heartbeat and imposes penalties primarily on providers (physicians, etc.) who violate the restrictions.No Explicit Permission for Self-Performed Abortion
The statute does not contain any clause saying “a pregnant woman may perform an abortion on herself,” “self-administration is permitted,” “self-managed abortion is allowed,” or similar language.
It does not carve out an explicit exemption for the pregnant woman from the definition of abortion or from criminal liability when she acts on herself.
The law’s restrictions and definitions apply to the act itself, and the personhood provisions (treating an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat as a “natural person” for certain purposes) have led to debates and at least one recent prosecution attempt involving a woman accused of self-inducing an abortion with pills.
Pre-Existing Law and InterpretationPrior to HB 481, Georgia’s criminal abortion statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-12-140) was interpreted by courts to criminalize acts performed on a woman by another person, but not the pregnant woman’s own actions against herself. HB 481 amended the definition of abortion and the restrictions in § 16-12-141 but did not add language explicitly shielding self-managed abortion or changing that prior interpretation in a protective way for the woman.In practice:
The law targets performance of abortions (especially by medical professionals) after a heartbeat is detectable.
There is no affirmative permission for self-induction.
Self-managed abortion (e.g., taking abortion pills obtained online or otherwise) after a detectable heartbeat can fall into a legally risky gray area, potentially exposing the woman to charges under broader homicide or other statutes, depending on prosecutorial discretion and ongoing court interpretations. Some prosecutors have pursued murder or related charges in self-managed cases post-HB 481.
Bottom LineHB 481 contains no language that specifically authorizes or protects a pregnant woman performing an abortion on herself or her child. It prohibits abortions (as defined) after a detectable heartbeat except in narrow cases and focuses enforcement on those who “perform” them, without granting an explicit safe harbor for self-administration.If you have a particular subsection or quote from the law you are referring to, feel free to share it, and I can analyze that exact text in context. For the most current application, consult the full codified statutes (O.C.G.A. Title 16, Chapter 12, Article 5) or a Georgia-licensed attorney, as enforcement and court interpretations continue to evolve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.