Family Action Council of Tennessee

Don’t eat the fish – Debate on SJR 127 offers a feast of red herrings

Last Thursday Senate Joint Resolution 127 passed an important hurdle. SJR 127 is the proposed amendment to our state Constitution that would return decision-making authority over abortion policy to the legislature, taking it back from the state Supreme Court that usurped that historical authority with its decision in 2000 in the case of Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist.

None of the amendments offered by either “side” completely take the legislature out of the question

Much has been said by opponents of the proposed Constitutional amendment about its affect on abortion in Tennessee, currently a virtually unregulated practice. A red herring has been raised about the impact of the Resolution on abortions in the case of rape and incest or where necessary to save the life of the mother. Opponents have tried to paint everyone who votes for the Resolution as being against abortion in these three “hard cases” as if voting for the Resolution means you are voting to ban abortions in these cases. That is just not true.

Interestingly, a strong opponent of SJR 127, Sen. Jim Kyle (D-Memphis) asked a question that, unknowingly, made clear the fact that the issue has nothing to do with rape, incest or the life of the mother.

Senator Kyle’s illuminating question came in response to debate over a pro-life friendly amendment offered by one of his Democratic colleagues, Senator Douglas Henry (Nashville). To address any concerns that the double talk and political posturing over rape and incest might confuse the public about what the Resolution actually did, Senator Henry offered an amendment that made clear that abortions were not being outlawed by the terms of the Resolution and that the people, through their representatives, had the authority to enact abortion policy, specifically noting they had the authority to make policies regarding rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.

The issue presented by SJR 127 and, more particularly, the various hostile amendments offered by Senator Roy Herron (D-Dresden) and Sen. Beverly Marrero (D-Nashville) make clear that the key issue is not rape or incest, but whether abortion policy should be made by a majority of five unelected people on our state Supreme Court or by representatives elected by and accountable to the people. That is really the crux of the issue. Once that issue is decided, every other issue – whether to allow some or all abortions – will fall into place.

But a question by Senator Jim Kyle (D-Memphis) highlighted the fact that the question – who do we want to govern us - is really the heart of the issue. Senator Henry’s amendment said the people, through their representatives could make laws regarding abortion “where necessary to save the life of the mother.”

Senator Kyle, a lawyer, asked Senator Henry, “What does ‘where necessary to save the life of the mother’ mean?” Senator Henry’s common sense response was that it means “where necessary to save the life of the mother.”

Here’s the point this exchange highlighted. Senator Kyle is concerned that what he thinks is a situation in which abortion is “necessary” to save the life of the mother may not be the same as for Senator Henry.

Some one must decide for our society the answer to the question Senator Kyle asked. And there are only two governmental bodies in Tennessee that could possible answer societal issues – the legislature or the judiciary. So the question is, “Should the unelected members of the Supreme Court make that decision for the people or should the people through their representatives make that decision?”

But here is the tricky part. Presumably Senator Kyle’s point is that, in these cases, women alone should make these policy decisions. But here he is mistaken. None of the amendments offered by either “side” completely take the legislature out of the question (THIS pullout goes in the main part to hopefully lead to a click to the link). The amendments offered by opponents of the Resolution, Senators Herron and Marrero, purport to “Constitutionalize” certain rights such as when abortion is necessary to “save the life of the mother.”

This sounds like it takes the legislature out of the equation. But it does not. Regardless of whose amendment is adopted, the legislature can, if it so chooses, try to determine the parameters for what constitutes a threat to “the life of the mother.” For example, under the Herron-Marrero amendments, the legislature could say that unless certain conditions exist, the life of a mother is not considered in jeopardy and abortion is therefore prohibited.

Nothing in the Herron-Marrero amendment forbids the legislature from trying to determine when the “life of the mother” abortion right exists. Of course, the same attempt could be made under Senator Henry’s amendment.

So if the legislature can still enact laws regardless of whose amendment is adopted, what’s the difference? If both amendments allow for the legislature to try to define what conditions are necessary for a “mother’s life” to be at issue in the abortion decision, why the fuss and fight?

Here’s why: what is at issue is different understandings of how we, as a people, should be governed. Senator Henry’s amendment says that these decisions should be made by the people through an elected and accountable legislature. Senators Herron and Marrero, and those who vote for their amendments, are saying these decisions should be made by unelected judges.

This becomes important because neither the legislature nor the judiciary is exempt from making mistakes. If you don’t think the judiciary makes mistakes, then you have forgotten about the Dred Scott case. The “error” in that case didn’t get corrected until after we had a civil war!

The point is that when the judiciary makes a mistake and either goes further than the people would have approved or don’t go far enough, the people are without any effective or immediate remedy.

Yes, the people could vote against retaining a sitting Supreme Court justice. But so what? The Court’s decision is still there and unchanged. Point in fact - none of the majority of the judges who “manufactured” the right of abortion in 2000 in the Planned Parenthood case are still on the bench – but we’re still fighting over what they said.

Since “getting rid of” the offending judge or judges doesn’t do anything, the people are left with the torturous process of amending the constitution, the same process in which we have been engaged for six years now. The amendment process can take many, many years and all the while the Court’s “error” is perpetuated.

But, Senator Henry understands that when the legislature makes policy the people have an effective and timely remedy. As the voters did nationally with the U.S. Congress in 1994 and again in 2006, they can turn the party in power out of office if the “mistake” is of sufficient concern. They can certainly vote out those who vote for the “mistake.” And the legislature, with a majority of each Chamber “seeing the error of their way” can “correct” the mistake the very next legislative session.

So, yes, all this talk about rape and incest really are, at root, red herrings to the important question - who do we want to govern us. For those who want to be governed by those they can run against and vote out of office, then to find out which legislators disagree with them, they just need to notice who votes for the Herron-Marrero amendments. And remember their names next election.

“A broken and contrite heart, thou will not despise.” Psalm 51:17

For 12 years I served in the state Senate. I witnessed many things, some not so good. I saw colleagues being escorted to a federal courthouse to be indicted for bribery and extortion. I saw people cheat on their spouses, drink too much, I could go on. In short, I saw what every other person who ventures outside their home has seen in the often too frail humanity of our lives.

...last Thursday the state House Chamber was turned into a special place, devoid for a moment of politics.

I have also seen good things. Some really good things. When a legislator’s parent died or a child was harmed, the political business of the day took a backseat to prayer and concern. I’ve seen legislators rise above politics to work together to do some important things. But, last Thursday, I saw something that transcended those good things.

Even as God, by His presence, turned the rocky ground around a burning bush into Holy ground, last Thursday the state House Chamber was turned into a special place, devoid for a moment of politics. God was there and His presence was evidenced by the words of one who two months ago many would not have considered a vessel for such a thing. But that is the way of God. “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.” (I Corinthians 1:27)

Last Thursday, Representative Rob Briley, who was last seen on television at the end of a troubled journey that moved my eyes to tears, showed the world what a broken and contrite heart looks like. He admitted to all who would listen that he was an alcoholic and had broken trust with his constituency and his colleagues. But that was not all. He bore witness to the power of prayer and how God can take a person who has come to the end of himself out from a miry pit and set his feet upon a Rock – Him. And he acknowledged that this “faith without works was dead” and he had a lot of work to do.

There are perhaps few in the General Assembly whose political and legal philosophy are as different from mine as that of Representative Briley. Last Thursday did not change that fact. But those differences have not been the hallmark of our relationship. I pray they never will. And on Thursday, it was apparent that we had common ground. While the problems of our lives manifested themselves in different ways, we have each reached a grace-filled point in our lives in which we recognized that we were our own problem – not something or someone else, that we often sought answers to our problems in ways that will not satisfy, and that God alone is a unchanging resting place from which flow a Living Water that will heal our wounds and satisfy our souls.

I don’t know where Representative Briley is on this new journey. I know from experience that holding political office will present its own unique challenges. But he has started at the only place where it can begin.

Solomon said that reverence of God is beginning of wisdom. And that wisdom produces the broken and contrite heart that God will not despise. All of what Representative Briley has done cannot be undone; many consequences will remain. But let us not despise that which God himself does not despise. Let us extend our hands and on his behalf, bend our knees. None of us have reached home yet.

What’s Up Doc? Abortion doctors on the decline

The Tennessean reported last week that a study byThe Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, shows that Tennessee had fewer abortion providers in 2005 than it had in 1992. As might be expected, Planned Parenthood was concerned that fewer doctors meant more women would “turn to unsafe abortions.”

RU 486…knows no geographical boundaries

However, it might mean that more doctors are finding abortion a grisly procedure and don’t want the blood of innocent children on their hands. (If you don’t know how most abortions are done and have a strong heart and stomach, read how our United States Supreme Court described the procedure). We also know that the number of abortions being performed in Tennessee and nationally is dropping. This decrease may mean that there is just less demand so, the supply of abortion providers (doctors willing to perform abortions) is dwindling.

On the other hand, it may mean that abortions are being done by taking RU-486 instead of surgically. RU 486 was so important to the abortion community because they knew the number of abortionist was declining. And most abortionists are in urban areas. 94 percent of Tennessee’s counties don’t have an abortion provider. RU 486, on the other hand, knows no geographical boundaries and can be dispensed at the local pharmacy. These facts are why politics, rather than the efficacy of the research, was the determining factor in the FDA’s decision to approve the drug. And it is also why, notwithstanding a number of deaths associated with the drug, Planned Parenthood fought so hard against legislation last year to inform women about the dangers of the drug, proving the point that Planned Parenthood’s primary concern is abortion, not women’s health.

If you’re votin’, this link’s worth notin’

Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve been asked about voter guides for the Presidential primary, voting in which is currently taking place in Tennessee. We’ve looked high and low for what seemed to be the most comprehensive and best documented on out there, and if you’re interested, here it is. It’s not the research of The Family Action Council of Tennessee, but our experience with The Family Research Council on other matters has been positive. Of course, nothing beats watching the debates and doing your own research. Happy voting!