Proposed Amendment 1 - What does it actually do?

[monkeylizard]

Here's what we'll be seeing on our November ballot:

Shall Article I, of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:
 

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.
â–¡ Yes
â–¡ No

 

It reads to me like it's giving carte blanche to the legislature to permit or restrict as it sees fit, so long as it doesn't run afoul of any SCOTUS decisions. Given our current legislature, that would seem a boon to the pro-life camp and a big setback for the pro-choice camp. If I'm reading it right, this seems short-sighted by the pro-life camp. The (R) party (presumably one which would enact pro-life legislation) has a very solid hold on both houses today. But it wasn't that long ago that the (D) party (presumably one which would enact pro-choice legislation) was in charge. But I also understand strike while the iron is hot. They may not get a better chance to enact sweeping legislation under a blue legislature for a  long time once this current climate changes.

 

It also feels a bit like playing dirty-pool because of the vagueness of the wording. Specifically the last part about the circumstances. It says they can enact legislation, not that they will  or must. I suspect it was phrased this way intentionally to get the undecided/moderates to vote for it, e.g. "It says right there that rape, incest, and the life of the mother will still be protected, so I'll vote yes."

 

What I'm looking for is some input on what the proposed amendment would actually do. I'd prefer not to beat the dead horse of pro/anti abortion, but I have a suspicion it will come up. I'm looking for more of the philosphical approach to government and what this amendment does to that. If the legislature is made through free and fair elections, then they should be representative of the will of the majority of the people. If the laws (or any issue, though in this case specifically abortion) swing one way or the other over time, then that is indicative of the will of the people changing. On the flip side, this amendment appears to give more power to the government than it currently has to regulate the people. If we were to  replace "abortion" in the amendment with "hand-load ammunition for personal use", does that change how we view this amendment?  Should it? Is this truly a single-issue item, or is it indicative of a larger move by the legislature to assume more power? Changing the constitution is a pretty big deal to me. Once it's in there, it could be hard to get it out if we voters find out we didn't get what we thought we were getting.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Again, please try to leave the pro/anti abortion out of it as much as possible. I'm really looking for some conversation on the legal language of the proposal and what it could actually mean long-term.

Edited October 6, 2014 by monkeylizard

[npgunner]

I too am confused and had the same question ... so I'll keep my eyes peeled for thoughts and opinions more trained in interpreting legal mumbo-jumbo

[Hozzie]

For me, it is just a backhanded way to try and ban abortion.  If you believe in banning abortion, vote 1.  If you don't, vote 2.  It's pretty well as simple as that.

 

They advertise it as a way to make sure the clinics are safe, etc, but that is just pandering to the ignorant who aren't smart enough to figure out the bigger picture goal.  

 

I don't believe in banning abortion, I just wish those who would like to would just be up front enough to say it and not try to disguise what they are trying to do.  

[Someotherguy]

A recent thread on the subject....

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/81668-vote-yes-on-1/

[Hershmeister]

Short summary:

The TN legislature has passed laws in the past which would have regulated and/or placed limits on certain abortion procedures. Court cases were filed, and the TN supreme court wiped the laws out due to State unconstitutionality. The dissenting judge remarked as follows:



"Plainly stated, the effect of the court's holding today is to remove from the people all power, except by constitutional amendment, to enact reasonable regulations of abortion,"



This served as inspiration to pro-life groups to put a Constitutional Amendment on this years general election.

The amendment does nothing on its own other than open the door for legislation to pass TN constitutioal muster. Of course, and law would still be subject to the Roe decision since the 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendment to the states, and that is the amendment in which the Scotus found the right to abortion under the penumbra of privacy.


One can reasonably expect to find a relaunch of the 2000 laws which were struck down, which include a mandated 3 day waiting period, and counseling, a prohibition of partial birth abortions, and probably also some new wrinkles that we have seen in some other states such as requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers and for abortion clinics physicians to have hospital admitting privileges.

There is no way a complete ban law would pass and even if it did, it would not hold up as it would be contrary to Roe in spite of the hype by the Pro Choice groups.

Again - no matter the law potentially passed, you can guarantee court cases will be filed.

http://www.dnj.com/story/news/2014/10/04/amendment-responds-state-supreme-court-ruling/16733781/

[monkeylizard]

A recent thread on the subject....

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/81668-vote-yes-on-1/

 

Thanks. Aside from the side-bar in there about pro vs anti, it pretty much confirmed what I thought.

[Oh Shoot]

Short summary:....

 

Quite good one too, IMO.

 

- OS