Nashville's Online Source for Daily News
Search Site
House panel kills anti-abortion amendment
House Democrats, outraged at what they saw as Republicans’ partisan politics, shot down a proposed constitutional amendment today to remove any guarantees for abortion in the state constitution.
The Democrat-dominated Public Health and Family Assistance Subcommittee voted 6-3 to kill the anti-abortion constitutional amendment. The full Senate had already approved the measure.
The House has effectively killed the Republican-driven constitutional amendment every two years, dating back to 2002.
Democrats on the panel, who have traditionally opposed the amendment, unleashed their misgivings at the Republican sponsor, Rep. Dolores Gresham (R-Somerville), for denying a Democrat’s request to be added as a co-sponsor.
Monday, Rep. Nathan Vaughn, a pro-life Democrat from Kingsport, asked to be added as a co-sponsor but Gresham denied his request.
Rep. Joe Armstrong (D-Knoxville) called Gresham’s denial “discrimination” against a pro-life supporter just because Vaughn was a Democrat.
“It’s about partisan politics and not about the issue,” Armstrong said, noting the amendment came up every election year.
Gresham said she would have allowed Vaughn and other pro-life Democrats to be added as co-sponsors if the amendment reached the House floor.
Gresham said the people of the state of Tennessee deserved to have a chance to vote through a referendum about whether they wanted the anti-abortion amendment written into the constitution.
“If they think they’re upset, I’m upset,” Gresham said afterward. “To think that they would turn around to the citizens of this state and say, ‘no, you cannot vote. I won’t let you.’ That’s an outrage.”
The proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 127, would write into the constitution the following: “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Technorati
Mailing list sign-up
4728 Highway 49 W, Springfield
Price: $389,000
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 4/4
109 One Mile Lane, Smyrna
Price: $0
Bedrooms/Bathrooms: 0/0
View More Homes
This amendment is stupid. Thank goodness that the House committee did the right thing. Now, perhaps the Gen. Ass. can do something useful & progressive.Abortion is an individual's right. It becomes less & less likely that any Supreme Court, considering how often it's been re-inforced, will ever overturn Roe v. Wade. To do so would mean answering too many succeeding decisions. What we must do is provide broad sex & contraception education & ensure that abortion is treated like any other medical procedure, that every woman--rich or poor--who needs one can get one.
Why are the Democrats so afraid to let the people vote on abortion? We were trusted with the lottery. Abortion kills another human being - that is important enough to vote on.
I think it is a stupid amendment, as again, it is WRONG to use the constitution to TAKE AWAY something from the people. This is a tactic used by those that don’t want something challenged in court. If it is in the constitution, then the court really doesn’t have any say in it. It is very telling that the sponsor now calls it an “anti-abortion” bill, when previously from the Senate it was just “wording” to remove the state funded guarantee. At least they are being honest from the House side. Stupid, but honest.We have a representative government, we don’t need to make everything a vote to the public, constitutionally or otherwise. We have the legislature make the laws we need, or think we need, and they are deemed correct or not correct by the executive and/or judicial branch. See how easy that is?
Lou, I agree with you about this amendment & about the usefulness of representative democracy, though I'd love to see more popular democracy.No, LIG, abortion doesn't kill another human being, but those hundred years when abortion was illegal--THAT killed human beings.
There is no such thing as a right to kill your children. Pro-life laws actually expand rights, the rights of those in the womb to simply live. The word abortion is never mentioned in the TN Constitution. Right now the law in TN is abortion on demand for any reason, up to the moment of birth. SJR127 would allow the people to decide - not a few judges. And most people are reasonable and think killing a baby a few inches from birth is wrong. We need SJR127 to stop that - so I guess it's not so stupid after all.
You're right, LIG, killing children is wrong. I trust that you have tried to stop the bresident from doing so. The invasion of Iraq has killed thousands of children.You are incorrect, however, about the abortion laws in Tennessee. A woman due to deliver on, say, June 1st, cannot blithely have an abortion on May 31st. That is illegal throughout the country.As to words, the word "appendectomy" doesn't appear in the Tennessee Constitution either, and it, too, is a medical procedure. Would you like us to outlaw your appendectomy, because we are protect the potential life of your appendix? If not, then tell me what is your right to make your own choice about having an appendectomy?
MJB you are incorrect. A woman can indeed have an abortion up to the moment of giving birth. Please cite the law that restricts her. There is none. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton allow abortion on demand up to the moment of birth. Keep babbling about "rights" and "choices" but tell me this, if these rights and choices are so correct why don't they apply after birth? Why can't you kill your children anytime you wish? After all, that's your individual right somehow?
No, Lig, Roe v. Wade says that the state has a strong interest in the third trimester, which is when abortions can be made illegal: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State... may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary... for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." Tennessee has such laws.Now, please answer my question, and I'll be happy to answer yours. By what right can you have an appendectomy?
MJB – It is doubtful that you will be able to get an answer from someone who appears to lack independent thinking capabilities. But, you are sure to get plenty of parroted brochure answers to set you on the right course!!!!!!!!Why think when you don’t have too? Just let somebody else make all the decisions for you! Life is just so much easier that way!!!
Lou, it's Wednesday morning, and, so far, your prediction is correct. You can see the reason that L.I.G. won't answer my question. The problem w/ the argument to criminalize abortion is that if one ever acknowledges an individual's right over her own body, then one must grant a woman's right to an abortion.