Tennessee Proposed Amendment 1 (No Abortion)

The Greater Fool

Illuminator
The Greater Fool
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
4,409
Location
Arizona
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...ast-tennessee/proposed-abortion-ban-tennessee
Article said:
This is the full language of the proposed amendment: "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or require 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." - See more at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...d-abortion-ban-tennessee#sthash.ozlIPoeJ.dpuf
Click to expand...

Great.

I hate this state.
 
Yup,

The authors of proposition seem to be a bit fuzzy on which direction the Supremacy clause flows.
 
plague311 said:
I can only imagine that it will be overturned or destroyed if appealed, wouldn't it? I wouldn't think it's constitutional by any means.
Click to expand...

On what basis could it be overturned?

This amendment doesn't invalidate or even conflict with Roe v. Wade. The federal guarantee of a right to abortion remains. All this does is remove any state right to abortion. So state courts could not rule, as some have in the case of gay marriage, to extend abortion rights beyond what the US constitution and/or federal law guarantees on the basis of state constitution, but the state would still be prohibited from violating Row v. Wade. And while this amendment may pave the way for more restrictive abortion laws (and I'm sure that's what its advocates intend), it doesn't do so itself. If subsequent laws are too restrictive, then they could still be overturned on the grounds of violating US constitutional rights, but that still wouldn't overturn this amendment.
 
Ziggurat said:
On what basis could it be overturned?

This amendment doesn't invalidate or even conflict with Roe v. Wade. The federal guarantee of a right to abortion remains. All this does is remove any state right to abortion.
Click to expand...

You're saying that the federal government declared something a right, but a state can make it illegal. Has this ever worked, in any state, for anything?
 
ehcks said:
You're saying that the federal government declared something a right, but a state can make it illegal. Has this ever worked, in any state, for anything?
Click to expand...

It can be used to harrass the hell out of people who can't afford lawyers, lawsuits, and waiting years to be heard by various courts.

If you make something difficult enough for people, they'll stop doing it, even if they technically "still can". Abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights...it's how you fight those things even after you've already technically lost. Discourage, delay, obstruct. You can drag out a losing battle for generations that way.
 
ehcks said:
You're saying that the federal government declared something a right, but a state can make it illegal. Has this ever worked, in any state, for anything?
Click to expand...

1)The federal government hasn't declared abortion a right. The Supreme Court said that the right falls under a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment and established law on privacy. There is no explicit law making abortion a right. 2)It works for many things. I have a constitutional right to free speech. But if I do this in a crowded theater and cause a panic, I will be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace.
 
ehcks said:
You're saying that the federal government declared something a right, but a state can make it illegal.
Click to expand...
He's not saying it, and neither is the proposed Amendment. Have you actually read either Zig's post or the proposal?

Has this ever worked, in any state, for anything?
Click to expand...
Has any state, including Tennessee, ever tried it?

I mean, California's minimum wage is higher than the Federal minimum wage. But there's no reason it has to be. And California could just as easily put it into the state constitution that the state's minimum wage could never exceed the federal minimum wage. That wouldn't make the federal wage illegal in California, nor would it allow California to set a minimum wage lower than the federal wage.

And it's the same thing here: This proposal aims to establish that, in Tennessee, the right to an abortion shall not extend any further than what is strictly recognized in the rulings of the Supreme Court (which makes sense, since we all agree that states don't have the authority to gainsay the court).
 
theprestige said:
He's not saying it, and neither is the proposed Amendment. Have you actually read either Zig's post or the proposal?


Has any state, including Tennessee, ever tried it?

And it's the same thing here: This proposal aims to establish that, in Tennessee, the right to an abortion shall not extend any further than what is strictly recognized in the rulings of the Supreme Court (which makes sense, since we all agree that states don't have the authority to gainsay the court).
Click to expand...

From the site:
Site said:
The politicians and organizations behind this amendment have clearly said they believe abortion should be illegal no matter what. On their website, they admit their true intentions by saying:

“The wording of this Amendment was carefully drafted by the nation’s top pro-life constitutional attorneys and organizations so that it would be compatible with what we are trying to accomplish.”
Click to expand...
more...
Site said:
If Amendment 1 passes, anti-abortion politicians are poised to pass the same draconian laws and regulations that have forced facilities providing abortion to close in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Virginia.
Click to expand...
 
ehcks said:
You're saying that the federal government declared something a right, but a state can make it illegal. Has this ever worked, in any state, for anything?
Click to expand...

No. You have badly misunderstood both me and the amendment. First off, the amendment doesn't make anything illegal. Second, while abortion must remain legal, there can be and already are restrictions and regulations on abortion. All this does is remove any state constitutional limits to such restrictions and regulations. Federal constitutional limits on restrictions and regulations will remain.
 
The article indicates that a lot of successful challenges of abortion law in TN derive from court decisions that find a right to privacy in the state constitution. This amendment specifically removes any right to privacy related to abortion, allowing previously overturned laws to be re-established, and new more restrictive laws to be enacted.

This is a big red bible thumping state, so there is little chance this amendment won't be passed and draconic laws passed.
 
Honestly, I think that this shouldn't be allowed to stand if passed. If they are continually being able to do things like this then how much harder would it be to prohibit same sex or interracial marriage? How much harder would it be for them to permit workplace discrimination on the basis of... Well, any criteria you care to mention?

I know this sounds like a slippery slope fallacy, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility and I can see even worse coming down the chute.
 
Mudcat said:
Honestly, I think that this shouldn't be allowed to stand if passed. If they are continually being able to do things like this then how much harder would it be to prohibit same sex or interracial marriage?
Click to expand...

Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in many places, but won't be for much longer because public opinion is shifting towards it. And interracial marriage bans are both politically unpopular now and wouldn't survive even a minute of federal judicial review, regardless of what state courts and state constitutions said.

This really won't have any impact beyond abortion.

I know this sounds like a slippery slope fallacy
Click to expand...

Because it is.

but it isn't outside the realm of possibility and I can see even worse coming down the chute.
Click to expand...

If worse things come down the chute, it won't be because of this amendment.
 
Ziggurat said:
Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in many places, but won't be for much longer because public opinion is shifting towards it. And interracial marriage bans are both politically unpopular now and wouldn't survive even a minute of federal judicial review, regardless of what state courts and state constitutions said.
Click to expand...

These two issues may seem like a closed book, but in some circles it isn't and you know that. So do you seriously think that some state wouldn't implement an Admendment similar to the one proposed to limit either or both?

Ziggurat said:
This really won't have any impact beyond abortion.
Click to expand...

One should hope. But you severely underestimate how far reaching the consequences of this Admendment could get.
 
Mudcat said:
These two issues may seem like a closed book, but in some circles it isn't and you know that. So do you seriously think that some state wouldn't implement an Admendment similar to the one proposed to limit either or both?
Click to expand...

You are confused. As I said, this amendment doesn't ban anything. Nor does it claim to, nor can it, supersede federal law. So similar amendments on other issues wouldn't either, and if they did, they wouldn't be similar, and this amendment wouldn't be relevant as a precedent.

Interracial marriage bans would never survive federal scrutiny. It doesn't matter what the states try to do, they cannot and will not be able to. So even if you're scared that they would try (and I think that's paranoia on your part: "some circles" doesn't suffice), it won't really matter, they would fail.

And on the question of same-sex marriage, again, that's already the case: many states don't accept same-sex marriage. You may not like it, but the problem isn't that things are going to hell in a handbasket, it's that they aren't improving as fast as you want them too.

One should hope. But you severely underestimate how far reaching the consequences of this Admendment could get.
Click to expand...

No, I don't underestimate it. I really, really don't. Because, again, this DOES NOT conflict with or supersede federal law.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are confused. As I said, this amendment doesn't ban anything. Nor does it claim to, nor can it, supersede federal law. So similar amendments on other issues wouldn't either, and if they did, they wouldn't be similar, and this amendment wouldn't be relevant as a precedent.
Click to expand...

It doesn't ban anything but it does open the door on draconian laws to implement unreasonable restrictions, the ultimate goal is to make it to where something (in this case, abortion) unavailable in the state in question. You seriously don't think these same people, or someone similar, wouldn't put forward a similar Admendment to obstruct gay/interracial marriages, et cetera?

Ziggurat said:
You may not like it, but the problem isn't that things are going to hell in a handbasket, it's that they aren't improving as fast as you want them too.
Click to expand...

Is it improving at a rate you find satisfactory? I find it hard to believe that we, as a society, are even still having thiese discussions.

Ziggurat said:
Because, again, this DOES NOT conflict with or supersede federal law.
Click to expand...

And that's part of the problem, is my point.
 
Mudcat said:
It doesn't ban anything but it does open the door on draconian laws to implement unreasonable restrictions, the ultimate goal is to make it to where something (in this case, abortion) unavailable in the state in question. You seriously don't think these same people, or someone similar, wouldn't put forward a similar Admendment to obstruct gay/interracial marriages, et cetera?
Click to expand...

You still don't get it.

To the extent that any such future laws are possible, it will only be because federal law and the US constitution allow it. The existence of this amendment changes nothing in that regard. But federal law and the constitution will not allow restrictions for interracial marriage, so that's a complete non-issue. It's not a matter of what I think people will try, it's a matter of what's possible, and what you're worried about simply isn't possible.

And in regards to obstructing gay marriage, once again, that's already the case. Gay marriage is already obstructed, and that's how it's always been until very recently. This changes nothing.

Is it improving at a rate you find satisfactory?
Click to expand...

On the issue of gay marriage, yes, as a matter of fact, I am satisfied with the rate at which it's changing, which, from a historical perspective, is incredibly rapidly. Society is more gay-friendly than it has ever been, and it keeps getting more and more gay-friendly over time. So why are you so scared?

And that's part of the problem, is my point.
Click to expand...

If your problem is that federal law provides insufficient protection, then that's what you should have said. But this state amendment doesn't do anything to change that.
 
Ziggurat said:
So why are you so scared?
Click to expand...

Not so much scared as concerned about the implications of such a law. I see it as a run around the constitution and civil rights laws that could have potentionally far reaching consequences and not just for people seeking abortions. I think those concerns are well-founded because there are still people who think their religions give them the right to interfere with the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom