June 2, 2008

In this issue:


Breathing New Life into the Effort to De-Fund Planned Parenthood  

For years many Tennessee legislators have decried the fact that state tax dollars have gone to Planed Parenthood under the guise of women's health services.  But some quick creative thinking by Rep. Susan Lynn (R-Mt. Juliet) in the last days of Tennessee's legislative session may help dry up the dollars that go to Planned Parenthood.

Because federal law makes outright de-funding of Planned Parenthood almost impossible, Rep. Lynn and Senator Raymond Finney (R-Maryville) came up with a bill to try to divert the flow of funds to Planned Parenthood by giving priority to those funds to local health departments so that they could provide the services. And, local health departments don't perform abortions.

But knowing that passing a bill through the House's pro-choice health Subcommittee would be impossible (it's the Subcommittee that routinely kills SJR 127) , Rep. Lynn went to the old "legislative toolbox" to find another way.  Since she knew the legislature had to pass a budget, she went to work on adding an amendment to the budget directing the Department of Health to give priority to local health departments that wanted the funds for women's health services.  To their credit, House Finance Chair, Craig Fitzhugh (D-Ripley) and House Budget Subcommittee Chair, Harry Tindell (D-Knoxville) said that the issue was providing the service, not who or what entity provided the services.  So, when the amendment was adopted and the budget passed, Rep. Lynn proved the old adage, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Politics Doesn't Always Provide a "Next Time" for Traditional Values

By now we all know that four agenda-driven, activist judges declared same-sex marriage legal in California.  Some said, "Well that's just California."

But last Thursday, the general public learned that New York's governor had directed all state agencies to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

Since California does not have a residency requirement for a marriage to be performed, the Governor's edict opens the door for New Yorkers to travel to California, get married, and come home with a legal marriage under New York law.  In essence, New York has gay marriage with no act of their legislature or the people.  Not only that, gay rights activists in New York didn't even have to waste the time and money going through the Judiciary.

Proponents of real marriage in New York did not protect themselves by adopting a marriage amendment to its constitution.  Fortunately, Tennesseans did pass such an amendment in 2006.

During the campaign to pass Tennessee's marriage amendment, many opponents said an amendment was not necessary. Well, we saw in California what a court can do when there is only a statute on the books defining marriage as one man and one woman. And now we've seen what one Governor, as the "executor" of the laws, can do.

The point is:  when it comes to protecting fundamental values, we (and our legislators) need to remember that being pro-active is a good thing.  Sometimes you don't get a "next time." 

So next year if a bill is brought to prohibit elementary schools from providing materials to young children that are counter to the heterosexual policies underlying state law, such as Rep. Campfield brought this past session, don't necessarily believe it when members of the House K-12 Education Subcommittee say, as they said to him, "We don't need a law like that because we don't think pro-homosexual materials are being provided to our public school children." 

Even if these nay-sayers are correct now, the day is surely coming and once it's here, there may be no going back. On this and other proposals to protect Judeo-Christian values, there may not be an opportunity to "get it right next time."

David Fowler