| |
Tennessee Planned Parenthood Takes Pro-Life Amendment 1 to Court
|
|
| |
Brian Harris Apr 5, 2016 | 4:20PM Nashville, TN
On Tuesday morning, the trial began. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood activists are arguing that the state's long-established process for counting votes and ratifying amendments to the state constitution somehow violated the rights of pro-abortion voters who opposed pro-life Amendment 1.
Unable to win at the ballot box on November 4, 2014, Planned Parenthood Board Chair Tracey George waited just 3 days before filing her legal challenge to overturn the outcome of the election. They claim violation of federal rights, disenfranchisement, and a "fundamentally unfair" system. And, most critically, the pro-abortion activists demand that Amendment 1-and the votes of pro-life Tennesseans-be thrown out.
Your prayers are needed now to defend the hard-won victory on Amendment 1 and to protect Tennessee's abortion-vulnerable women, girls, and unborn children.
The office of the Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery has worked hard and has made legal defense of Amendment 1 a priority. His team will argue that the pro-abortion claims lack textual or historical basis and that the process for ratifying an amendment in Tennessee is constitutional and consistent. Chief Judge Kevin Sharp will hear arguments and make a ruling that will truly have life and death implications for the unborn.
Should Amendment 1 be struck down, Tennessee will once again be known as an abortion destination with an ever-increasing number of out-of-state abortions due to lack of regulation at the facilities. Newly-passed protections enacted by our pro-life Legislature and Governor would be struck down without the possibility of passing others. Abortion would again be a so-called fundamental right in the Tennessee Constitution.
|
|
|
Top
|
| |
Hillary Clinton on Abortion: "The Unborn Person Doesn't Have Constitutional Rights"
|
|
| |
NOTE: When I heard this headline 'Freudian slip' was all I could think about. She (properly) called the baby a PERSON, then went on to say they had no rights.
Steven Ertelt Apr 3, 2016 | 10:51AM Washington, DC
In a new interview today, pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton couldn't have made her radical abortion views more clear. Clinton said unborn children simply do not have any Constitutional rights, which would include the right to life.
"The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," Clinton said, adding that "the woman's right to make decisions" is the be all and end all when it comes to abortion.
Weekly Standard writer Shosanna Weissman was surprised that Clinton used the term "person" since most abortion advocates never refer to unborn children with any reference to their humanity.
Most notable perhaps is Clinton's use of "person." Oftentimes, when talking about a woman's right to choose, pro-choicers will use terminology that suggests the unborn is not a person or human, but a "fetus."
See video HERE |
|
|
Top
|
| |
21-Year-Old Student Hangs Herself After Terrible Grief Following Her Abortion
|
|
| |
Micaiah Bilger Apr 4, 2016 | 3:46PM London, England
Three weeks after her abortion, 21-year-old Jade Rees played a popular song about an unborn baby on her phone, then took a rope and hung herself at her home in England.
The Sun reports Rees had an abortion after her unborn child's father dumped her for another woman. Before she committed suicide on Nov. 3, 2015, she left a handwritten note for her parents, saying that she was struggling because of her abortion. She wrote a second note to her 2-year-old son. "He means everything to me," she wrote.
An inquest into her death is on-going. Rees reportedly had been struggling with eating disorders and depression for years. According to the court hearing, Rees felt "upset and distressed" after aborting her unborn child.
She attempted suicide once before but was unsuccessful, and her parents took her to a psychiatrist for help, according to the court. The report continues:
Initially she took an overdose of tablets although she had not told anybody or pursued any medical treatment.
Then 48 hours later she took another overdose and was taken by her father to the Royal Oldham Hospital's A&E department.
Jade stayed in hospital for two days before being discharged.
Dr Easodhavidhya Elango, a trainee psychiatric specialist, told the inquest how she had come to know Jade, following her visit to the Royal Oldham Hospital.
She said: "She told me about the abortion she had just three weeks earlier, and how the split from her ex-partner had been very distressing for her. She told me she believed he had a new girlfriend and was struggling to come to terms with it
"She denied having any past medical history or any form of psychotic illness. When I asked her about this, she said 'For God's sake, I have a son to look after'.
"She told me she regretted taking the overdose, and promised to keep herself safe."
|
|
|
Top
|
| NOTE: If someone forwarded this email to you and you would like to receive more like this, click HERE to Register. For more information about Tennessee Eagle Forum, go HERE. |
|
Forward this email to a friend
| |
|
|
Admendment 1 Lawsuit Explained
FROM OUR FRIENDS AT FAMILY ACTION COUNCIL OF TN:
If you have not heard, a lawsuit has been filed in federal court to have the vote on Amendment 1 declared invalid as a violation of the state constitution. The plaintiffs think the Amendment was invalidly adopted because votes were counted toward its passage even if the voter did not cast a vote in the governor's election. The following will explain how vacuous that argument is and what I expect will be the course of proceedings. I don't think the plaintiffs will prevail.
The Argument
The argument is that the following provision in the state constitution requires only votes cast in the gubernatorial election to be counted in deciding if a state constitutional amendment is adopted:
"[I]t shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people at the next general election in which a governor is to be chosen. And if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for governor, voting in their favor, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Constitution."
The Argument's Validity
This argument is wholly without merit for the following reasons.
Any analysis must begin with the fact that the state constitution begins with the clear statement that all power is "in the people" (Article 1, section 1; and we'll talk at a later time about the theological implications of that statement), and that it is the "people" who have "an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."
You will note that the beginning of the document, which should legally frame the interpretation of all that follows, puts power to "alter" or "reform" the constitution in the hands of "the people," not in "the majority of all the citizens of the state voting for governor," a subset of all the people.
As a matter of legal interpretation, a document should be interpreted as a whole and each provision read in the context of all other provisions. Had the people who wrote Article 1 thought the power over the constitution rested only in the hands of those who voted in the governor's race, then they certainly knew how to say it that way. (NOTE: The 1870 constitution referred to voting for "representatives," but the word was changed to "governor" in 1953; however, because the sentence structure remained the same as in 1870, the analysis proceeds as a reflection of "Framers," since the concept was theirs.) They didn't. And that becomes important later as we look at the absurdities that could result based on how people might vote in elections.
|
|
|
