Northeast Tennessee Right to Life

Tennessee Faces Uphill Battle to Reinstate Pro-Life Legislation

Bill Summary:
As a result of a terrible ruling by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2000, Tennessee now boasts a broader, "more fundamental" right to abortion than that interpreted under Roe v. Wade or the Federal Constitution. Consequently even the most basic, common-sense protections such as informed consent for women seeking abortion, a 48 hour waiting period and a hospitalization requirement for second trimester abortions have been struck down as violating the newly identified "right to abortion" within the Tennessee Constititution.

SJR 127 would allow Tennesseans to decide for themselves whether or not a broader right to abortion exists in the state constitution and as a result, allow for the restoration of these protective state laws.

The amendment resolution is sponsored by state Senator David Fowler (R-Signal Mountain) and state Representative Mike Turner (D-Nashville) and reads "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or the funding thereof."

SJR 127 enjoys the sponsorship of 17 of 33 state senators and 54 of 99 state representatives.


Saturday, May 8, 2004  

“Democrats know how to deal with this; they’ll load

it down with weakening amendments, and then

bury it in some obscure subcommittee.”

Pro-Abortion columnist Larry Daughtrey on SJR 127

The Tennessean, Sunday, Feb. 29, 2004

“We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there…

We gonna do what they say can’t be done...”

Jerry Reed, “East Bound and Down”

Monday, May 10, 2004

Pro-Abortion Democrats Kill SJR 127
Pro-Life Tennesseans Vow to "Remember in November"

“We are disappointed to lose but even more disheartened that Jimmy Naifeh doesn’t trust the people of Tennessee with their own Constitution. We will be back next session to begin again—and we trust that some of those who voted against us will not.”
Brian Harris, president
Tennessee Right to Life

Pro-Life Rep. Diane Black (R-Gallatin) was joined on Monday by 43 Republicans and 9 democrats in a heroic effort to pull SJR 127 from an obscure health sub-committee. Sadly, however, their courage was not enough to overcome the influence and power exerted by both pro-abortion house leadership and the governor’s office which strongly opposed placing the amendment on the ballot during the 2006 governor’s race.

The motion to ‘call SJR 127 from committee’ required 66 votes. Following stirring pro-life floor speeches by Rep. Black and Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville), the question was called and the vote taken. When the count was made, the tally was 53-36, 13 votes short to move SJR 127 to the floor for debate. Only 1 republican, retiring Rep. Joe Kent of Memphis joined with pro-abortion democrats to kill the pro-life resolution. Tragically, 2010 is now the earliest that another amendment resolution can be placed on the ballot for public approval. Until then, no meaningful pro-life protections can be enacted or enforced as constitutional under Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist.

Click Here to Thank Rep. Diane Black
for Her Courageous Leadership

 
Note from Brian Harris and Tennessee Right to Life:

A grateful organization thanks the hundreds of pro-life Tennesseans who poured themselves into the months long effort to pass SJR 127. In most political battles, there are winners and losers. But in this struggle, the cause of life wins, despite the setback on this resolution.

With your public witness to the sanctity of human life, you have demonstrated that Tennessee’s pro-life movement simply will not accept the wrong decision which claims a “constitutional right to abortion” in the state constitution. Every time the proponents of abortion are forced to defend the indefensible, the side of life and truth are guaranteed to prevail.

Through your commitment and efforts on SJR 127, you continue to demonstrate that the constitution belongs to the people and that we aren’t content to let radical pro-abortion judges “rule us out” on determining the state’s public policy on abortion.

Yes, we lost the vote this round but we’ve laid a foundation upon which to build an even stronger, ever more effective statewide pro-life organization which can accomplish all that needs to be done to restore protection to human life in our state.

Who could have imagined that we would be able to fill every committee room, blitz entire legislative districts, even coordinate a statewide television and radio media campaign in support of SJR 127?

The best is yet to come! Today was not our day—but our day is coming. Because it is a matter of the heart, we will not rest as long as the injustice of Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist stands as the law of the land in Tennessee.

Finally, grow not weary in doing good because a harvest of good and righteousness is waiting--- waiting for people like you and me to gather it in and bring it home in victory.

Thank you for what you’ve done—and for all that we’re about to do together to ensure that next January, a working pro-life majority replaces those who stood against life and SJR 127 today.

Toward that Goal,
Brian Harris, President
Tennessee Right to Life

Research Using Embryonic Stem Cells Sacrifices The Weak for the Benefit of the Strong 

When the Nazi atrocities were being brought to light, the world was horrified by a photo of a man in a white laboratory coat carrying the limp body of a teen-age boy whose blood had been drained for an experiment that was reportedly conducted to facilitate treatment of soldiers suffering from battle wounds.

The thought of sacrificing the weaker for the benefit of the stronger was considered unspeakably arrogant and inhumane. Yet today, we have people clamoring for a policy that in principle is no different from taking the lifeblood from a young boy’s body to treat a wounded soldier.  That policy is support for embryonic stem cell research to find cures for diseases that afflict the general population.

A confused public is being bombarded with extravagant claims about the promise of miracle cures, with political invective that suggests the current administration is blocking all stem cell research, and raises fears that scientists who can unlock the secrets of stem cell therapy will migrate to countries that will permit embryonic stem cell research. 

The constant media clamor prevents the public from understanding that funding for research using adult stem cells is continuing and that such research has already demonstrated some promising results, and that research using existing lines of embryonic stem cells, although not funded, is not prohibited. Only the creation of new stem cell lines by killing more embryos is not supported.      This is the crux of the dispute.  Advocates have claimed that the quantity of stem cells available from existing lines is inadequate and have recently advanced an argument that the existing lines have been contaminated by methods used to cultivate the growth of additional stem cells. 

The majority of those clamoring for support for stem cell research do not appreciate the parallel between snuffing out the life of a teenager to use his blood and snuffing out the life of an embryo to use its stem cells. The principle is the same.  The difference is the degree of development of the human being to be sacrificed.

The pressure for government support for embryonic stem cell research is coming from laboratories and scientists who anticipate huge research grants and pharmaceutical houses that envision great profits from the results.  The public is not being told that stem cell research that does not destroy life is being allowed and supported, and that significant progress has been in treatment of spinal injuries. And the public is not being told that no cures using embryonic stem cells have been demonstrated. 

The media gives voice to the clamor of those who have a vested interest in such research and political opportunists who use the confusion to blast the administration as being insensitive to human suffering that could be relieved by embryonic stem cell research.

Protection of embryos is dismissed as a bothersome offshoot of the abortion dispute or an element of religious fundamentalism.  Many pro-abortionists have used the call for stem cell research to salve consciences that are uneasy about abortion to claim something good can come from abortion.

Some attempt to avoid the pro-life argument against creating embryos solely for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells by proposing that cells from frozen embryos that are surplus from in vitro fertilization efforts be used.  They remain uninformed about the success of the results of adoption and implantation of such embryos demonstrated by the Snowflake Embryo Adoption Program.

In a novel approach, some have recently attempted to circumvent the objections of groups that respect life, by advancing a claim that a new technique enables the harvesting stem cells from fertilized eggs without creating embryos.  With this biological nonsense they hope to appeal to a population that lacks basic understanding of the origin of life.

Others who claim to be Christian insist the Bible says nothing about abortion.  The word abortion may not be mentioned, but there are many passages that attest to the point at which life is created in the womb.

Those who refuse to read the Bible, however, could learn from any biology textbook the basic fact that a new life is created at the moment of conception.  A simple reading of the Declaration of Independence will provide information that a core principle of our United States is that all human beings are endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the creator.

The final question is will we be so blinded to the basic humanity of embryos by our desire for miracle cures that we ignore the core concept of American liberty, that every human being deserves the right to life, and subscribe to the Nazi concept of sacrificing the weakest for the benefit of the stronger?