Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Legislature / Politics / Woods SJR127 Rolls Out of Senate Judiciary; Sen. Black Insists: 'I'm not trying to take someone's right to abortion away'
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:11 PM
"Surely we can agree on this. If we can't agree on this, I think the people of Tennessee need to start scratching their heads and asking, 'What are they thinking?' If anybody's daughter gets stage 3 breast cancer and she's pregnant and the doctor says you've got to make a choice here, that mother ought to be able to make that choice, as tragic as that entire circumstance is."If it ever makes it onto the Tennessee ballot, SJR127 will ask voters to amend the state constitution to strip away abortion rights. If it passes, abortion would remain legal in the state as long as Roe v. Wade stands, of course. But amending our constitution would nullify a 2000 Tennessee Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist. The court ruled the state constitution affords stronger protection for abortion rights than does the U.S. Constitution. This means that certain restrictions on abortion upheld by the nation's highest court can't be imposed in Tennessee. Pro-lifers want to fix that. The resolution's sponsor, Sen. Diane Black, insisted today she only seeks "commonsense restrictions" on abortion, presumably not ridiculous ones like Rep. Stacey Campfield's bill to make women obtain death certificates for their fetuses. Commonsense is the favorite word of pro-life legislators when they're talking about abortion. At one point, Black even went so far as to claim she's actually pro-choice. That's the way it sounded to me anyway. Here's what she said:
"I'm not trying to take someone's right to abortion away, although that's what many people will say. But that is not the purpose of this resolution."The debate went on and on, but no one offered the pure pro-choice argument until the end. Sen. Beverly Marrero spoke just for the record, not trying to persuade anyone, which says something about the mindset of our state Senate. Here's what she said:
I'd like to have the opportunity to say there is a different perspective. There are those of us who really do care for and respect a woman's right to make choices about her own body. ... I don't know of anything that's more private or more important than for a woman to be able to decide whether she would like to carry a baby under whatever circumstances. It seems to me that some of these decisions are very agonizing, very difficult for people to make. But it's a decision that should be made between a woman and her husband or her partner and her physician or the people who care about her. It seems to me unreasonable that the legislature should make this important decision for a woman. We have so many children in this state right now who are in state custody who are being taken care of because they were in abusive situations. If you force people to have babies who don't want or need babies, I can't even imagine how many abusive situations you're going to run into. Every child should be a wanted child. That is what a lot of us in the state of Tennessee sincerely believe, that a woman should make choice to have a child, to love that child and to take care of that child, and that is her right to make that decision. I oppose the state of Tennessee and the legislature making that decision for a woman. I applaud the fact that the constitution in the state of Tennessee guarantees a woman's right to privacy. Nothing is more private than what you do with your own body.
Comments (7)
Showing 1-7 of 7
It is increasingly amazing to me that the media cannot report the news without a slant. Can we not just report what happened in the legislature with regard to the bill? No. Apparently, we have to take sides on the issues as we report them.
Shame on you, Mr. Woods. Is it really too much to ask that you just report the facts? No wonder people are so confused and paranoid in our country. Look what we are subjected to when we just want to know the news.
Just for the record, rape and incest are such a small percentage of abortions performed in this country that they hardly deserve the heavy burden of all the browbeaten citizens who go along with whatever the media and Planned Parenthood tell them. And frankly, if you are raped, you have access to the "morning after pill" at the hospital when you get treated. Oh, and that same pill is widely available at physicians' offices for women/teens who are victimized in any manner. So, why again do we need abortions to be available to these women who make up less than 2% of all abortions performed in the US? Yeah, it isn't really about those unfortunate victims after all, is it?
like
dislike
You don't like abortion? Fine. Don't have one. But no one else should have to justify her decisions to you. And no one should have to display her private tragedies to complete strangers so that they can satisfy their prurient interests trying to decide if a woman "deserves" an abortion.
People are slanted against your side because your side is cruel, lies, and is more interested in making sure that women are properly punished for having sex than you are about really helping women who don't want babies to keep from getting pregnant and helping women who do want babies bring those pregnancies to term.
No one's being snookered by the media and Planned Parenthood. We can just all see you guys for who you are.
Not to call Angela hypocritical lying theofascist filth or anything, but when did the "right to life" movement start supporting the morning after pill?
I wish these people would fuck off once and for all.
I think it's important for people to realize that the abortion amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on. You can put all the restrictions up that you want, but with Obama appointing judges, Roe v. Wade won't be overturned any time soon. This is just political posturing for the Right to Life crowd and the Tennessee Republican Party knows it. It's not just the media and Planned Parenthood who try to "trick" and "confuse" people...the Right to Life people have used their own trickery through the years. They know damn well partial-birth abortion is a political term, not a medical procedure. If you asked someone on the street about partial-birth abortion, they wouldn't know where the term originated.
Furthermore, Angela is correct...rape and incest make up only a small percentage of abortions. It's also important to remember that Planned Parenthood's abortion services only make up 3% of the total services they provide worldwide. In 2005, only 18,140 women had abortions in Tennessee. Some people came to the state...other residents left the state, but the numbers prove that Planned Parenthood isn't a gangbusters business in Tennessee. We have a population of 6.1 million in this state, so that would make the abortion rate about 2.9%. However former Senator David "I'm Devine" Fowler and Bobbie "Beehive" Patray want you to believe that over a million people had abortions in Tennessee and were forced by gunpoint. I decided instead to go to a factual source for information.
"I'm not trying to take someone's right to abortion away, although that's what many people will say. But that is not the purpose of this resolution."
Of course not, Diane...you and Delores Gresham only used the issue to get a seat in the Senate and to get your buddies elected in the House. You wouldn't give a damn about it otherwise. You know as well as I do that the resolution as written would create a total ban if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned. I hope the resolution DOES pass, so you can quit using it as a "jump off" every two years. I wonder what you'd do if the residents voted it down like they did in South Dakota -- twice.
I happen to know two people who DID put their lives at risk. One had her baby and died shortly thereafter. The other had an abortion, but then went on to have three more children with her husband. If you REALLY cared about life, you would have considered the mother's life as well -- I don't care if it's only in .00000000001 percent of abortions. ANY life is worth saving -- not just the one you prefer.
Can we not just report what happened in the legislature with regard to the bill? No. Apparently, we have to take sides on the issues as we report them.
Someone missed the word "blog" in the URL, eh
Sorry this was not a Republican versus Democrat issue. Check out theh vote on the resolution.
Actions Taken on SJR0127
Adopted, Ayes 24, Nays 8
Senators voting aye were: Beavers, Black, Bunch, Burchett, Burks, Crowe, Faulk, Finney L, Gresham, Henry, Jackson, Johnson, Ketron, McNally, Norris, Overbey, Southerland, Stanley, Stewart, Tracy, Watson, Woodson, Yager, Mr. Speaker Ramsey -- 24.
Senators voting no were: Barnes, Berke, Ford, Harper, Haynes, Herron, Marrero, Tate -- 8.
If you read the ayes, you will see several democrats.
