SJR127 is a resolution to amend the state constitution regarding abortion in Tennessee. In 2000, the Tennessee State Supreme Court struck down the commonsense abortion regulations on the books and expanded abortion rights in Tennessee beyond the right to an abortion granted in Roe v. Wade.
The resolution received bi-partisan support and passed 77 to 21. It must be passed again in the 107th General Assembly by 2/3rds majority vote before reaching the ballot in 2014 so the citizens of Tennessee may vote to amend the Constitution.
I am not surprised that pro-choice proponents try to frighten the public with their argument that SJR127 takes away a woman's right to an abortion or that young girls who have been raped by their fathers will be forced to bear their babies. An examination of the facts is in order. SJR127 allows the people acting through their elected officials the right granted to them by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Doe vs. Bolton case to regulate abortions all within federal constitutional limits. That is all.
This topic is very sensitive and there is much misinformation out there regarding what SJR 127 will and will not do. In an effort to promote the truth about SJR127, I have posted my remarks below I gave as sponsor of the resolution on the House floor that evening.
Floor remarks by SJR127 sponsor Rep. Debra Maggart
Monday, May 18, 2009
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SJR127 is a constitutional amendment that when passed will bring the Constitution of the State of Tennessee back to a position of neutrality regarding abortion.
Once again, SJR127 enjoys bi-partisan support.
SJR127 is intended to overturn the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee vs. Sundquist and will restore to the people of Tennessee acting through their elected state representatives and state senators, their rightful authority to regulate abortion, all within federal constitutional limits.
The commonsense regulations that included informed consent so that women making this very important decision would have important, solid information from their doctor and a period of time to reflect that were passed by the General Assembly—these commonsense protections were struck down by Planned Parenthood vs. Sundquist. The requirement that a second trimester abortion must be performed in a regulated hospital due to the danger of complications for the woman was also struck down because of Planned Parenthood vs. Sundquist. Enacting SJR 127 would also protect existing laws mandating parental consent.
SJR 127 does not outlaw or criminalize abortion. SJR127 simply restores the authority of the people acting through their elected officials, to legislate abortion.
The first sentence of the amendment brings the Constitution back to neutral on abortion.
The second sentence amplifies and clarifies that the people of Tennessee retain their right to act through their elected officials to determine the commonsense protections for women seeking an abortion.
SJR127’s language is clear and meets the Tennessee Supreme Court’s usage of the strict scrutiny standard. The language was carefully drafted by legal experts specializing in state constitutional law as it relates to the matter of abortion. That is why it is important not to amend this resolution—amendments will insert language in the resolution that cause confusion and could give a court an opportunity to create mischief. Amendments will also move us away from neutrality.
Because of Roe v. Wade, a woman may have an abortion for any reason; however, up until Planned Parenthood vs. Sundquist, Tennessee was allowed to regulate this major surgical procedure. SJR 127 simply returns to the people their voice through their legislature; their rightful authority to decide what laws should be enacted.
It is important to remember that in a democracy, the people, not judges, have the final word.
And with that explanation, Mr. Speaker, I move passage of SJR127.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment