Update on SJ127, Constitutional amendment on abortion
Submitted by Eleanor A on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 20:58.
Here's a link to my earlier diary on the subject: Link...
Rumor now has it that supporters of the bill are going to try to circumvent the Public Health and Family Assistance Subcommittee of the House Health and Human Resources Committee and get the legislation straight to the floor in the House. The Senate vote is 9 AM tomorrow; House should follow shortly thereafter. More info as it develops. (Note: a "no" vote on the part of many Progressive Senators on the rape and incest exceptions could well be an attempt to force this issue to the fore, and paint SJ127 supporters for what they are: totally unreasonable on this issue. I suspect their next attempt may well be something like legislation to force felony murder charges for both doctors and women having abortions in TN...)
CALL THOSE LEGISLATORS and urge for a No vote! The *last* thing we need is Ron Ramsey catapulted into the Governor's mansion in 2010, after he's had a chance to be out on the stump demagogueing on this issue for the last couple of years.
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 22:08.
It's unfortunate that Eleanor A is distorting if not lying about what is going on here. SJR127 will go wherever Speaker Jimmy Naifeh wants it to go. Likely to the Subcommittee that is stacked with members of his choosing. This is where this common sense resolution usually dies at the hands of Naifeh appointees.
Secondly, Eleanor A is mistaken when she says this is unreasonable. It's only restores what is in the constitution that was stripped out by the courts. And, unless the voters of Tennessee approve this measure after being approved by both chambers this session and by a 2/3s majority of each chamber next session, it does nothing. If it passes all of these hoops, it still would do nothing unless the General Assembly passed laws. The intent is to merely add some common sense restrictions such as parental notification.
Submitted by Eleanor A on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 00:36.
Wow. Called a liar by "Anonymous." Isn't that sort of like, well, being called fat by Rush Limbaugh? (Or stupid by Bill O'Reilly, or any of his cadre of braying sycophants?)
Regardless of what Edward R. Murrow here says about SJ127, it is neither "common sense" nor anything but a trope by Tennessee Republicans to allow them to demagogue on the "values" issue once again. Well, and also a camels-nose-under-the-tent maneuver by the radical right to enable them to start up the horn-honking brigade on some issue like partial-birth abortion.
Tennessee Democrats will have only themselves to blame if they walk right into this trap yet again, after it cost us a Senate seat by the slimmest of margins in 2006.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 22:55.
It's only restores what is in the constitution that was stripped out by the courts.
Strict constitutionalism sounds really funny coming from those who whore the "unitary executive" theory of governance.
Is that you Hobbs? Why not log in?
I wish he would, but y'know, I am still awfully confused by this distinction between when he's working and when he's not.
I still think a colorful fez would be helpful.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or the funding thereof, except that government shall not interfere with or prevent a woman from ending a pregnancy when she is the victim of incest and has become pregnant as a result of such incest; when she is the victim of rape and has become pregnant as a result of such rape; or to save her life. The government shall not interfere with the decision of the family of a child rape victim to end that pregnancy. For the purpose of construing this section, rape and incest shall be defined as such terms are defined in the criminal laws of this state. No person shall perform a partial-birth abortion.
Um... where are these so-called "common sense restrictions" that are the supposed intent of this slice of tripe?
Now, who's distorting and lying? Hm?
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Submitted by Eleanor A on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 00:58.
Notice the partial-birth abortion wording, which is both 100% specific and incredibly controversial..."common sense," my aunt Tillie.
It's worth noting that it'll be really interesting if those new "rape or incest" provisions stay in. They haven't been included the last few years; it'll be fun to watch GOP leaders squirm as they're sandwiched between many moderate-right voters (including Republicans), who'll be outraged if there are no rape or incest provisions, and the rabid right, which will realize it's been taken for a ride when the purity of its hard-fought legislation is watered down.
This isn't really about this issue at all. I've been told personally by legislators of both parties that if it were up to them, this topic wouldn't be on the table. But they think it's an easy way to earn votes. It'd be nice if the far-righties would wake up and see how they're being exploited on this issue, in addition to several others.
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 10:34.
Hobbs doesn't log in because he knows his opinion is out of step with what Tennesseans think on the subject. The most recent polling (MTSU Poll, Fall 2007) shows that three out of four Tennesseans believe that abortion should be legal at least in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.
Hobbs and the extremist of his ilk want a complete ban on abortion, and this amendment is the first step in that process. Tennesseans should ask these extremists why they believe that rapists should be able to force their victims to have their children. Tennesseans should ask these extremists why they believe that a father that rapes his daughter has the right to force her to bear his grandchildren. Tennesseans should ask these extremists why they believe that the government has the right to impose death sentences on women whose pregnancies go wrong.
BTW, I didn't attach my name to this comment because I can't seem to find where I add it.
It's unfortunate that Eleanor A is distorting if not lying about what is going on here. SJR127 will go wherever Speaker Jimmy Naifeh wants it to go. Likely to the Subcommittee that is stacked with members of his choosing. This is where this common sense resolution usually dies at the hands of Naifeh appointees.
Secondly, Eleanor A is mistaken when she says this is unreasonable. It's only restores what is in the constitution that was stripped out by the courts. And, unless the voters of Tennessee approve this measure after being approved by both chambers this session and by a 2/3s majority of each chamber next session, it does nothing. If it passes all of these hoops, it still would do nothing unless the General Assembly passed laws. The intent is to merely add some common sense restrictions such as parental notification.
Wow. Called a liar by "Anonymous." Isn't that sort of like, well, being called fat by Rush Limbaugh? (Or stupid by Bill O'Reilly, or any of his cadre of braying sycophants?)
Regardless of what Edward R. Murrow here says about SJ127, it is neither "common sense" nor anything but a trope by Tennessee Republicans to allow them to demagogue on the "values" issue once again. Well, and also a camels-nose-under-the-tent maneuver by the radical right to enable them to start up the horn-honking brigade on some issue like partial-birth abortion.
Tennessee Democrats will have only themselves to blame if they walk right into this trap yet again, after it cost us a Senate seat by the slimmest of margins in 2006.
Is that you Hobbs? Why not log in?
Strict constitutionalism sounds really funny coming from those who whore the "unitary executive" theory of governance.
I wish he would, but y'know, I am still awfully confused by this distinction between when he's working and when he's not.
I still think a colorful fez would be helpful.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
P.S.
Here's the text of the proposed amendment:
Link...
Um... where are these so-called "common sense restrictions" that are the supposed intent of this slice of tripe?
Now, who's distorting and lying? Hm?
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Notice the partial-birth abortion wording, which is both 100% specific and incredibly controversial..."common sense," my aunt Tillie.
It's worth noting that it'll be really interesting if those new "rape or incest" provisions stay in. They haven't been included the last few years; it'll be fun to watch GOP leaders squirm as they're sandwiched between many moderate-right voters (including Republicans), who'll be outraged if there are no rape or incest provisions, and the rabid right, which will realize it's been taken for a ride when the purity of its hard-fought legislation is watered down.
This isn't really about this issue at all. I've been told personally by legislators of both parties that if it were up to them, this topic wouldn't be on the table. But they think it's an easy way to earn votes. It'd be nice if the far-righties would wake up and see how they're being exploited on this issue, in addition to several others.
Hobbs doesn't log in because he knows his opinion is out of step with what Tennesseans think on the subject. The most recent polling (MTSU Poll, Fall 2007) shows that three out of four Tennesseans believe that abortion should be legal at least in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.
Hobbs and the extremist of his ilk want a complete ban on abortion, and this amendment is the first step in that process. Tennesseans should ask these extremists why they believe that rapists should be able to force their victims to have their children. Tennesseans should ask these extremists why they believe that a father that rapes his daughter has the right to force her to bear his grandchildren. Tennesseans should ask these extremists why they believe that the government has the right to impose death sentences on women whose pregnancies go wrong.
BTW, I didn't attach my name to this comment because I can't seem to find where I add it.