AG Carr Declines Senator's Request for Legal Opinion on Abortion Legislation
“Because of the possibility of substantial legal fees associated with litigation surrounding the likely protracted defense of H.B. 481, it is important to understand your legal position as the chief legal officer of the State of Georgia,” Sen. Jen Jordan, D-Atlanta, said in a letter to Attorney General Chris Carr.
April 29, 2019 at 12:47 PM
5 minute read
With a challenge waiting to be filed in federal court, state Sen. Jen Jordan, D-Atlanta, asked Attorney General Chris Carr for a legal opinion on the abortion ban bill that now awaits Gov. Brian Kemp's signature. But she won't be getting it.
“Because of the possibility of substantial legal fees associated with litigation surrounding the likely protracted defense of H.B. 481, it is important to understand your legal position as the chief legal officer of the State of Georgia,” Jordan said in a letter to Carr dated April 23.
Jordan, a partner at Shamp Jordan Woodward in Atlanta, has made her own legal opinion known.
“We all know #HB481 is unconstitutional,” Jordan tweeted, along with a copy of the letter. “Voters across GA are concerned about the litigation cost & burden to taxpayers. The AG, the chief legal officer in our state, has a duty to present some info on this to the public. I've made a request & sincerely hope he responds.”
Carr did respond—but not in the way Jordan asked.
In answer to inquiries from the Daily Report, Carr's communications director on Friday shared a copy of a letter to Jordan from the state's chief deputy attorney general, Dennis Dunn.
Dunn noted the progress of the legislation, which supporters called the “heartbeat bill” because it outlaws abortion as soon as an embryonic pulsing sound can be detected by an transvaginal ultrasound—about six weeks. Opponents, including Jordan, argued that six weeks is too early for a heart to be formed—or for many women to know they're pregnant. Six weeks of pregnancy is only two weeks after the first missed period if a woman has a regular menstrual cycle, they said.
Gov. Brian Kemp has already made public statements in favor of the abortion ban but has not yet signed it. Director of Communications Candice Broce has said all new legislation is under review.
The deadline for the bill to be signed or to take effect without the governor's signature is May 12.
In his letter to Jordan, Dunn cited a Daily Report article about a pending legal challenge to the bill. That article quoted ACLU Georgia Legal Director Sean Young saying “see you in court” to the governor.
“Under 50 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Georgia's abortion ban is blatantly unconstitutional,” Young said in that April 15 report. “Every federal court that has heard a challenge to such a ban has struck it down.”
“The law goes into effect in January 2020,” Young added. “We fully expect to be filing a lawsuit well in advance of that date.”
After citing the article, Dunn told Jordan, “It is the constitutional and statutory duty of the Attorney General to defend statutes that are enacted by the General Assembly and signed into law. It is also the long-standing practice of this office not to opine on the constitutionality of either pending legislation or state statutes given those obligations that come with the office.”
Dunn closed by saying the AG would not be weighing in.
“Finally, given the threat of litigation on the very question that you have presented, it would be inappropriate for this office to provide the opinion you have requested,” Dunn said.
Pending litigation over the abortion ban is no surprise. The bill's sponsors said repeatedly they hoped it would be the law to prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. That wish has been echoed by anti-abortion legislators in other states that have passed similar bans.
Jordan told the Daily Report she had never made abortion rights a “pet issue,” trusting Supreme Court precedent. But she said this bill pushed her into standing up for women's privacy and choice.
Jordan gave an impassioned speech on the Georgia Senate floor in a lost effort to stop passage of the ban. A video of her speech went viral on YouTube. She told a deeply personal story of her own grief after eight miscarriages and contended that Georgia's new law could subject women to prosecution and prison not only for seeking an abortion but for losing a pregnancy naturally—and possibly even for lacking access to proper prenatal care.
As a result, Jordan the next week found herself on a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee panel sitting between anti-abortion activists. One recalled in vivid detail what she said was her own experience of surviving an attempted abortion. Another described in graphic detail the mechanics of late-term abortions, which are already restricted by federal precedent.
Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-California, had invited Jordan to Washington to testify before the committee this month. The topic in Washington was the 20-week abortion ban proposed by South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who now chairs the committee. Georgia already has a 20-week abortion ban, passed in 2012 and signed by Gov. Nathan Deal.
Jordan told the Senate that Georgia's 20-week abortion ban “has had a profound and deadly effect” for women. “Whether that is the intent or not, it is certainly the outcome,” Jordan said. “Since the passage of Georgia's 20-week ban in 2012, we have seen the maternal mortality rate double in Georgia. I do not believe this is a coincidence.”
Jordan made some of the same points in Washington as in Atlanta, saying that “no woman takes any of this lightly.”
As on the Georgia Senate floor, she said, “I wish they would just trust us to make the right decision with respect to our own lives and our own bodies and our children.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All40% Contingency: A New Ruling Just Cost This Plaintiff Team $827K in Legal Fees
6 minute read'David and Goliath' Dispute Between Software Developers Ends in $24M Settlement
Trending Stories
- 1SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Norton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over Ethnicity Score System
- 5KMPG Wants to Provide Legal Services in the US. Now All Eyes Are on Their Big Four Peers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250