| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Tennessee Senate Joins Anti-Abortion Movement |
| 2006-03-09 |
| The state Senate on Thursday passed a proposal to amend the Tennessee Constitution so that it doesn't guarantee a woman's right to an abortion. The 24-9 vote was the first step of many toward officially amending the state constitution. The measure would go before voters if the General Assembly approves it twice over the next two years. The state Supreme Court has ruled that the Tennessee Constitution grants women a greater right to abortion than the U.S. Constitution. Abortion rights supporters are attacking the measure as a stepping stone to prohibiting all abortions in Tennessee if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the landmark abortion decision in Roe v. Wade. "The resolution is an all-out attack on the women of Tennessee and seeks to rob women of their right to make choices about their own health, safety and personal welfare," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee. Sen. David Fowler, a Republican sponsor of the bill, proposed a similar resolution last year that cleared the Senate but stalled in a House committee. "I regret this will cast me as being hardhearted, unsympathetic and unkind but that's not who I am," Fowler said. Tennessee has a long process for amending its constitution, requiring approval by both chambers in session of the General Assembly, two-thirds approval by both chambers in the next session, and then approval by voters. Several states are considering restrictions on abortion that eventually could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. South Dakota's governor signed a law Monday that would prohibit all abortions except those necessary to save a mother's life. Some opponents of abortion rights hope the additions of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito will make the court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, although a majority of the court still appears to support the 1973 ruling. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #3 I don't like the idea of amending the constitution will all of this stuff. Agree it is because the stupid judiciary isn't doing their job and following the law, but I think it is a bad idea in the long run. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-09 22:56 |
| #2 What you are witnessing is probably less to do with the actual procedure and more to do with what Jefferson wrote over two hundred years ago about "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". Methinks the unelected judiciary is about to inherit the consequeces of ignoring the consent of the governed. |
| Posted by: Croque Gravise4518 2006-03-09 19:21 |
| #1 I have mixed feelings about this, based on James Taranto's "Roe Effect." He postulates that Libs are aborting themselves out of existence. Is it wrong to want that process to continue? |
| Posted by: Iblis 2006-03-09 17:58 |