• Abortion
• Charter Schools

Pro-life measure reaches House floor for first time; 106th General Assembly overwhelmingly approves

The State House of Representatives took action on Senate Joint Resolution 127 this week for the first time in the constitutional amendment’s long history. The proposal, which passed, aims to restore to the people of Tennessee their rightful authority to regulate abortion through their elected representatives, with an overwhelming 77-21 vote.

The Republican sponsor of the amendment said that, “There exists a powerful and pivotal passage in our state’s constitution which states that power is inherent in the people,” while calling for bipartisanship on the measure so that Tennesseans would get the opportunity to voice their opinion through the referendum process. House and Senate Republicans have worked for many years to see passage of the measure, and have now cleared the first hurdle in letting Tennesseans decide this matter once and for all, instead of activist courts.

The constitutional amendment is in response to the 2001 Tennessee Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood vs Sundquist, when the court created a right to unregulated abortion. The decision also prohibited the Tennessee legislature from enacting regulations governing abortions, arguably making Tennessee the most liberal state in the nation with regards to abortion laws.

The provision has never cleared the hurdle of the Public Health Subcommittee in the House. Republicans have fought since 2001 to pass SJR 127, believing Tennesseans should be allowed to weigh in on the issue. Republicans have argued that in the past, the initial vote of six in a subcommittee silenced six million Tennesseans.

The provision has already passed the Senate with a 24-8 vote. Because it has now passed the 106th General Assembly by a simple majority, it must pass the 107th General Assembly by two-thirds before appearing on the ballot in 2014.

GOP fights for public charter school legislation despite Democratic opposition

After weeks of debate in both the House K-12 Education Subcommittee and the full House Education Committee, Democrats locked down against the Republican sponsored public charter school legislation that would have expanded educational opportunities for children across the state.

House Bill 2146, which has already passed the Senate, would expand public charter school enrollment to all “at-risk” students, giving more Tennessee students more educational opportunities than ever before. House Republicans blasted Democrats for putting party politics over solid policy that would improve the lives of thousands of Tennessee students.

House Democrats admitted taking a caucus position against the legislation, essentially forcing Democratic members of the Education Committee to lock down against the bill. Republicans were disappointed, saying that the measure is needed now more than ever, and is particularly critical in urban parts of the state such Davidson County. The Republican sponsor pledged to work with her colleagues on the Education Committee to reach an accord so that the legislation could be brought up before session adjourns for the year.

Public charter schools are public schools that are given flexibility to operate without the constraints of some of the rules and regulations normally imposed on traditional schools. In exchange for this flexibility, they are held accountable for performance through a charter, which is an agreement between the local education agency (LEA) and the charter school. It requires a strenuous approval process by the LEA and an equally tough renewal process of the charter every five years. Tennessee has stringent accountability measures that ensure the schools are performing well.

Tennessee now has 16 public charter schools, with six more opening in the fall. The state currently has one of the most restrictive public charter school laws in the nation.

In case you missed it…

• A proposal that would allow Tennesseans to ship wine directly to their homes was passed by the House this week with a 78-17-3 vote, after months of negotiations. Specifically, House Bill 1155 stipulates that Tennessee consumers may purchase up to one case of wine per month, or no more than three per year, through direct shipment from a winery to their home. Upon delivery, proof of legal drinking age must be shown.
  
  Supporters also say the bill has the potential to bring a large amount of revenue to the state, and can also create jobs and spur entrepreneurship. Budget analysts say the legislation will bring in roughly $4.6 million in the revenue the first year, and almost $10 million in subsequent years. Local governments stand to receive between $1.1 and $2.2 million per year.
• Tennessee joined eight other states this year in moving forward with resolutions to declare sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. House Joint Resolution 108 will be presented on the House floor next week. If it passes, it must travel through the Senate before being sent to the Governor for consideration.
• House Bill 1354, the “Sanctuary Cities” legislation, passed the Judiciary Committee this week and now moves to the Budget Subcommittee. A “sanctuary city” is a term given to a city in the United States that follows certain practices to protect illegal aliens. Thirty-eight cities in the U.S. have been recognized as sanctuary cities, but many sources have identified over 200 city or county governments nationwide as having practiced such policies. The bill aims to discourage any Tennessee city from declaring itself a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens, and aims to be a pre-emptive strike to guard against the adoptions of such policies by cities in the state.
• The House Health and Human Resources Committee has approved legislation to ban local governments or their boards from imposing requirements on restaurants to provide nutritional information on menus. House Bill 950 now faces the Government Operations Committee, and has already passed in the Senate.
  
  The concern is that some communities will impose different standards and significantly increase costs to small restaurant owners. In March, Davidson County’s Metro Board of Health voted to enact guidelines on providing nutritional information to customers for certain restaurants, even though Congress is considering the Federal LEAN Act. That act would implement a national standard generally accepted by restaurant owners to provide nutritional information to customers. Adopting a county-by-county approach to the disclosure of nutritional information increases costs to restaurants, many of whom are small business owners.

The week ahead…

• Monday, May 25, 2009: Holiday
• Tuesday, May 26, 2009
  • Calendar & Rules Committee, Legislative Plaza Room 16, TBA
  • House Session, House Chambers, 3:00 p.m.
• Wednesday, May 27, 2009
  • Budget Subcommittee, Legislative Plaza Room 16, 9:30 a.m.
  • Finance, Ways & Means, Legislative Plaza Room 16, 1:00 p.m.
  • Government Operations, Legislative Plaza Room 16, 3:00 p.m.
• Thursday, May 28, 2009
  • House Session, House Chambers, 9:00 a.m.

**TIMES AND ROOMS SUBJECT TO CHANGE**

• State Sovereignty
• Charter Schools
• SJR 127 (Abortion)
• Appropriations

State sovereignty resolution continues forward

Tennessee Joins 8 other states in reclaiming state sovereignty

Tennessee joined eight other states this year in moving forward with resolutions to declare sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This week, House Joint Resolution 108 cleared the committee system, and will now be scheduled for a vote on the House floor.

The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The resolutions have been filed in response to what many state lawmakers believe is an increased level of fiscal irresponsibility on the federal level, and over-reaching by the federal government. Republican lawmakers in Tennessee argued that the federal government has handed down a series of unfounded mandates and directives that are dangerously close to violating the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution.

The House is expected to take up House Joint Resolution 108 sometime next week.

Legislation to expand charter schools deferred for one week

Debate raged on in the House Education Committee this week, as the Republican-sponsored public charter school legislation, House Bill 2146, was presented. Once again, concerns centered on the issue of “cherry-picking” students in order to improve a public charter school’s ranking.

In addition to expanding eligibility to more students, the legislation clarifies funding and addresses rules for renewal of the public charter schools. Tennessee currently has one of the most restrictive public charter school laws in the nation. Charter schools are public schools that are given flexibility to operate without the constraints of some of the rules and regulations normally imposed on traditional schools. In exchange for this flexibility, they are held accountable for performance through a charter, which is an agreement between the local education agency (LEA) and the charter school. It requires a strenuous approval process by the LEA and an equally tough renewal process of the charter every five years.

Tennessee now has 15 public charter schools, with six more opening in the fall. Of those 22 schools, Nashville will have five, Chattanooga will have two, and Memphis will have 15. The Memphis City School System also is converting four schools to charters this fall.

Pro-life measure to be taken up next week on House floor for first time

Senate Joint Resolution 127, having completed its “second reading” on the House floor this week, continues its historic journey through the House, having never made it beyond the Public Health Subcommittee until this year. In previous years, Democrats have blocked the constitutional amendment in the subcommittee, a move that Republicans argued subverted the right of the people to vote on the measure. The constitutional amendment will finally be heard on the House floor next Monday evening, where House lawmakers are expected to vote on the measure.

The resolution would address an activist state Supreme Court decision in 2000 that struck down provisions in Tennessee law allowing women to receive “informed consent” information about the surgery and a requirement to wait 48 hours before they received an abortion. The court also ruled against a state requirement that all abortions after the first trimester be performed in a hospital. That ruling arguably made Tennessee more liberal than the courts required in Roe v. Wade and made the right to an abortion a “fundamental right” in Tennessee.

The provision has already passed the Senate with a 24-8 vote. If passed this year by the 106th General Assembly by a simple majority, it must pass the 107th General Assembly by two-thirds before appearing on the ballot in 2014.

House to begin debate on appropriations bill next week; technical corrections also scheduled for presentation

As the nation faces an economic slump, Tennessee’s State Funding Board recently returned dismal revenue projections for next year. In response, the Administration acknowledged that cuts and reductions cannot be ruled out to solve a pressing budget issue. The General Assembly will begin next week to review the appropriations bill, which funds the bulk of state government, and the technical corrections bill.

House Republicans said this week they would remain vigilant on dissecting the technical corrections bill, after discovering a provision in last year’s legislation that would have done away with Family Owned Non-Corporate Entities (FONCEs).

In case you missed it…

• A House panel has approved a measure that directs the Select Oversight Committee on Education to study the authorization of cyber-based charter schools in Tennessee and to report back to the General Assembly by January 15, 2010. Cyber schools have gained in popularity over the last several years as yet another educational option. Cyber schools primarily use a computer-based curriculum and accountability methods via Internet access. House Republicans believe the public cyber charter option is an attractive alternative for untraditional students or those with home-based needs. House Bill 1525 will now be heard in the House Finance, Ways and Means Committee.
• House Bill 250 passed out of the House Judiciary Committee this week, and aims to discourage underage drinking. The bill creates a misdemeanor offense of knowingly allowing a minor to drink or possess alcohol. The bill also contains a provision for failing to stop a minor from drinking.
• The House Judiciary Committee approved the Republican-sponsored House Bill 1762, which aims to protect parental rights. The bill, which was debated for nearly four hours after Democrats attempted to block the measure, requires doctors and hospitals treating minor children to release the results of medical tests and procedures performed to the child’s parents upon request.

The week ahead…

• Charter Schools
• SJR 127 (Abortion)
• Gun rights
• State Sovereignty

Legislation to expand charter schools moves out of K-12 Education Subcommittee

After dedicating several subcommittee meetings to the discussion of charter school legislation, the K-12 Education Subcommittee moved House Bill 2146 to the full Education Committee, where it will be presented next week. The subcommittee discussed at length this week the pros and cons of expanding eligibility to charter schools. In addition to expanding eligibility to more students, the legislation clarifies funding and addresses rules for renewal of the public charter schools. Tennessee currently has one of the most restrictive public charter school laws in the nation.

Charter schools are public schools that are given flexibility to operate without the constraints of some of the rules and regulations normally imposed on traditional schools. In exchange for this flexibility, they are held accountable for performance through a charter, which is an agreement between the local education agency (LEA) and the charter school. It requires a strenuous approval process by the LEA and an equally tough renewal process of the charter every five years. Many of the speakers that testified before the committee praised Tennessee’s stringent accountability measures, that ensure the schools are performing well.

A report released last year by Tennessee’s Comptroller’s Office titled “Tennessee’s Charter Schools: Issues of Innovation and Sustainability,” found student eligibility restrictions and limited facilities funding may compromise the long-term viability of individual charter schools and recommended many of the changes included in the bill. The report recommended that the General Assembly consider making eligibility for charter school enrollment less restrictive and consider more precisely defining state and local charter school facilities funding responsibilities. In addition, the report recommended that the state should also identify charter schools’ best practices and implement a system for disseminating that information to traditional schools. Tennessee now has 15 public charter schools, with six more opening in the fall. Of those 22 schools, Nashville will have five, Chattanooga will have two, and Memphis will have 15. The Memphis City School System also is converting four schools to charters this fall.

Pro-life measure makes historic trip to the House floor

Senate Joint Resolution 127 continues its historic journey through the House, having never made it beyond the Public Health Subcommittee until this year. In previous years, Democrats have blocked the constitutional amendment in the subcommittee, a move that Republicans argued subverted the right of the people to vote on the measure. This week, the amendment cleared  the Finance, Ways and Means Committee after Secretary of State Tre Hargett stated in a memo that his office will absorb the cost within their existing budget so that the legislature does not have to allocate funds in a time of budget shortfall. On Thursday, SJR 127 moved out of the Calendar and Rules Committee, and is scheduled for a floor vote in the House on Monday evening.

The constitutional amendment is in response to the 2001 Tennessee Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood vs Sundquist, when the court created a right to unregulated abortion. The decision also prohibited the Tennessee legislature from enacting regulations governing abortions, arguably making Tennessee the most liberal in the nation with regards to abortion laws.

The provision has already passed the Senate with a 24-8 vote. If passed this year by the 106th General Assembly by a simple majority, it must pass the 107th General Assembly by two-thirds before appearing on the ballot in 2014.

Legislation to protect lawful gun owners approved by House

After hours of debate in various committees, legislation to protect lawful gun owners passed with little discussion on the House floor Monday night. House Bill 959 will exempt the handgun carry permit list from the Open Records Act, but will carry no penalty for entities that do publish the list due to concerns about First Amendment violations.

Tennesseans became outraged when the Commercial Appeal, a Memphis-based newspaper, published the handgun carry permit database in an easily searchable format on their website. Republicans criticized the paper, calling the action ‘irresponsible’ and ‘dangerous.’ The House GOP contended that in addition to printing a list that would make it easier for criminals to steal weapons, non-gun owners were also at risk because it would be easy for criminals to use the database to find homes that likely did not have a firearm.

The Senate companion bill has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is headed to the Senate floor for a vote.

Resolution to reclaim state sovereignty is discussed in Civil Practice subcommittee

As the federal government continues to assert dominance over state budgetary issues, a growing number of states are attempting to pass resolutions reclaiming their state sovereignty. The House took the first step in approving such a resolution, House Joint Resolution 108, with the Civil Practice and Procedure Subcommittee overwhelmingly passing the Republican-sponsored measure.

The Senate has already approved another version, Senate Joint Resolution 311, with a unanimous vote. Republicans say the resolutions are designed to send Congress a message that the federal government continues to disregard the clear and concise constitutional powers granted to them with regard to the states. The resolutions point out that it was the states that granted certain limited power to the federal government, not the other way around. Republicans argue that currently, states are treated as agents of the federal government.

The House version will face the full House Judiciary Committee next week.

In case you missed it…

• House Bill 2357, a measure proposed by House Republicans to save the legislature money, passed the House unanimously this week. The bill has already passed the Senate, and is now on its way to the Governor’s desk. The legislation would eliminate the Legislative Record, a weekly printed book that contains a summary of every bill filed, since the Record is available in a more accurate, up-to-date format on the legislature’s website. The bill allows for only one book to be published at the end of the year, potentially saving the legislature roughly $90,000.
• The Republican-sponsored “Education Pays” proposal passed unanimously on the House floor Monday night. “Education Pays” seeks to encourage student academic achievement through awarding cash rewards. An “Education Pays reward” is a reward of cash or other thing of value given to students or the parent or guardian of a student or both in recognition of academic achievement. The bill authorizes funding of an Education Pays pilot program through private funds.
• House Bill 431 was passed by the House this week, and seeks to expand the recognition of homeschoolers’ diplomas. The bill requires that diplomas issued by home schools be recognized by all state and local governmental entities as having the same rights and privileges of diplomas issued by public school systems. Debate over the bill raged on the House floor for over an hour, after which a motion was made that the Calendar and Rules Committee would set a time to limit debate. After holding a brief committee meeting during a recess on the House floor, House Bill 431 eventually passed with a 61-27 vote.

The week ahead…

• Charter Schools
  
• SJR 127 (Abortion)
  
• Crime
• Swine Flu
  

House panel discusses possible charter school changes

The House Education committee discussed at length this week the pros and cons of several bills that seek to expand eligibility for public charter schools. In addition, the legislation discussed also clarifies funding and addresses rules for renewal of the public charter schools.Tennessee currently has one of the most restrictive public charter school laws in the nation.

Charter schools are public schools that are given flexibility to operate without the constraints of some of the rules and regulations normally imposed on traditional schools. In exchange for this flexibility, they are held accountable for performance through a charter, which is an agreement between the local education agency (LEA) and the charter school. It requires a strenuous approval process by the LEA and an equally tough renewal process of the charter every five years. Many of the speakers that testified before the committee praised Tennessee’s stringent accountability measures, that ensure the schools are performing well.

A report released last year by Tennessee’s Comptroller’s Office titled “Tennessee’s Charter Schools: Issues of Innovation and Sustainability,” found student eligibility restrictions and limited facilities funding may compromise the long-term viability of individual charter schools and recommended many of the changes included in the bills. The report recommended that the General Assembly consider making eligibility for charter school enrollment less restrictive and consider more precisely defining state and local charter school facilities funding responsibilities. In addition, the report recommended that the state should also identify charter schools’ best practices and implement a system for disseminating that information to traditional schools.

The bills that are currently before the committee address four main components of the public charter school law:

• Eligibility — Currently, public charter school enrollment is limited primarily to failing students and those from failing schools. This legislation permits “at-risk” children (as defined by free and reduced-price lunch) to attend charter schools in those systems that have 12,000 or more students.
• Caps — Currently public charter schools are limited to 50 statewide, with a cap of 20 in Memphis. This bill says that converted charter schools do not count against the cap, clarifying in law what the Attorney General has already opined.
• Renewal process – Currently, the charter agreement between the LEA and the charter school is renewed every five years. This measure would change the renewal period from five to ten years, as well as establishes the required documentation needed during the renewal process.
• Funding – Currently a public charter school receives the per pupil expenditure of state and local dollars. Although it mentions appropriate federal dollars, interpretations vary from one LEA to the next. This legislation defines the state and local charter school facilities funding responsibilities and clarifies the LEAs must allocate all appropriate federal funds, including Title I and ESEA funds, to the charter schools.

Tennessee now has 15 public charter schools, with six more opening in the fall. Of those 22 schools, Nashville will have five, Chattanooga will have two, and Memphis will have 15. The Memphis City School System also is converting four schools to charters this fall.

SJR 127 clears another hurdle; in Finance next week

Senate Joint Resolution 127 cleared another hurdle this week, facing little opposition in the Budget Subcommittee. The constitutional amendment carries a $20,000 price tag for the cost incurred to put notice in newspapers across the state that the amendment will be on the ballot. committee members were given a memo from Secretary of State Tre Hargett stating that his office will absorb the cost within their existing budget so that the legislature does not have to allocate funds in a time of budget shortfall. The move is not unprecedented; in 2006, former Secretary of State Riley Darnell paid the same amount for an amendment proposal to define marriage to go on the ballot.

The constitutional amendment is in response to the 2001 Tennessee Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood vs Sundquist, when the court created a right to unregulated abortion. The decision also prohibited the Tennessee legislature from enacting any regulations governing abortions, arguably making Tennessee the most liberal in the nation with regards to abortion laws.

Although the constitutional amendment has achieved passage in the Senate before, it has never cleared the hurdle of the Public Health Subcommittee in the House.

Republicans have argued for several years that SJR 127 would simply allow the people of the state to weigh in on the issue. The sponsor said there was a “powerful and pivotal passage in our state’s constitution which stated that power was inherent in the people,” and argued that in the past, the initial vote of six in a subcommittee silenced six million Tennesseans.

If passed this year by the 106th General Assembly by a simple majority, it must pass the 107th General Assembly by two-thirds before appearing on the ballot in 2014.

Republicans initiatives get tough on crime

Three Republican sponsored crime bills passed out of the House Judiciary committee this week, and are now headed to the Budget Subcommittee. Despite having fiscal notes, the sponsors said the measures are desperately needed for the safety of Tennesseans to keep violent repeat offenders off the street.

House Bill 241 aims to keep violent offenders incarcerated longer than they are currently required. If passed, someone convicted of aggravated robbery—whether it is a first offense or not—would be require to serve no less than 85 percent of their sentence. House Bill 525 broadens the offense of first degree felony murder to include the killing of another person while committing domestic abuse if there was a past pattern of abuse of the victim or of another member of the victim’s family. In the same vein, House Bill 526 increases the penalty for a fourth or subsequent violation of domestic assault to a Class E felony. Domestic assault is currently punished as assault which can be either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

Tennessee Department of Health and Human Services distributes swine flu information

The Tennessee Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) distributed information regarding the swine flu to legislative members’ offices this week, in an effort to educate the public on how to protect themselves.

HHS said Tennessee residents who think they may be ill with the flu or flu-like illness should contact a doctor. Symptoms of the illness are as follows: fever, body aches, runny nose, sore throat, nausea, or vomiting. Your doctor will determine whether influenza testing or treatment is needed. If you become ill and experience any warning signs, seek emergency medical care.

The Department of Health also recommended frequent hand washing with warm soapy water, keeping hands away from your face, eyes and mouth, and covering coughs and sneezes with a sleeve or tissue. These precautions can also help prevent the spread of other illnesses.

For more information, contact your representative’s office.

In case you missed it…

• House Bill 738, the “Tennessee Energy Conservation Endorsement Act of 2009,” was passed out of the House Commerce committee this week. The bill classifies the “engaging in energy conservation programs and measures that conserve, as well as distribute, electrical energy and supplies of natural gas, oil and other fuels” as a proper and essential function of public utilities. The legislation also authorizes the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA) to develop energy conservation programs.
• House Bill 431 was passed by the Education committee this week, with a 14-5 vote. The Republican bill seeks to expand the recognition of homeschoolers’ diplomas. The legislation requires that diplomas issued by home schools be recognized by all state and local governmental entities as having the same rights and privileges of diplomas issued by public school systems.
• Legislation that would prohibit sending or reading text messages while driving passed both the House and Senate this week. Members discussed House Bill 107 at length as to whether or not the possibility that texting while driving fell under the “distracted driving” statute, but ultimately determined that the legislation would clarify the law and allow law enforcement some discretion.
• Secretary of State Tre Hargett has added a new tool to his office’s web site to make it easier for people to track pending rules and regulations issued by the state’s regulatory agencies, according to officials testifying in the Joint Government Operations committee. It’s now possible to get updates on pending rules and regulations by subscribing to the Pending Rules and Regulations RSS Feed. This new tool complements the current Pending Rules and Regulations Online Database. The new service allows citizens to stay updated on rules that have been filed with the secretary, to give business owners advance notice of pending rules. (tnsos.org/rules)

The week ahead…

NASHVILLE, TN:  Legislation protecting the integrity of elections in Tennessee overcame its first hurdle towards passage this week with approval by the Senate State and Local Government Committee.   The bill requires voters to provide photo identification to guard against fraud and assure only U.S. citizens vote.

“Unfortunately, we know that voter fraud exists and that there are people who try to be dishonest in an election,” said Senator Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro), Chairman of the Committee and sponsor of the bill.  “This bill aims to curtail such abuse by making sure those persons voting are who they say they are.”
The bill, SB 150, provides for various forms of photo identification to be used including a driver’s license, military identification, a valid passport, government employee identification cards, and any federal and state-issued identification cards that contain photographs of the voter.  The legislation does not apply to those in nursing homes.  It also allows for those who are indigent to sign an affidavit swearing their status as an eligible voter.  In addition, the bill provides for a “provisional ballot” which would only be counted if the election counting board is able to verify current and valid identification of the voter within three days.

Last April a U.S. Supreme Court decision validated the right of states to require voters to produce photo identification.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, of the 24 states that have a voter-ID requirement, seven states specify a photograph be shown to prove identification, including neighboring states Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana.  In no state is a voter who cannot produce identification turned away from the polls.  All states have some recourse for voters without identification to cast a vote or provide for a provisional ballot.

The voter integrity legislation has been approved for the past several years in Tennessee’s State Senate but has failed in the House of Representatives along party lines with Democrats opposing the bill.

“This legislation makes it clear to everyone that Tennessee has the right to make sure that those voting are legitimately casting their votes, and are U.S. citizens,” added Senator Ketron.  “I am hopeful that this measure, which has been upheld by the courts, will be approved by the full General Assembly this year.”

Also on the agenda…

In other action in the State and Local Government Committee this week, legislation was approved to update the political composition of the State Election Commission which has been dominated by Democrats for generations.  State law currently requires that the political composition of the five-member State Election Commission be three members of the majority party and two members of the minority party.  In 2008, the majority party changed prompting the need to replace one Democrat on the state board with a Republican.  The terms of office for State Election Commission board members, however, are on a four-year cycle, which is in conflict with state law given the shift in power.

“The Republican Party, now holds the largest number of seats in the General Assembly,” said Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris (R-Collierville), sponsor of the bill.  “In order to reflect the new majority and comply with state law, we propose to temporarily add two new Republicans to the mix.  The Democrats are in mid-term and won’t go gracefully.”

Under the bill, SB 547, the new members would rotate off in two years when their terms of office expire.  The make-up of the board would consequently return to a five-member status after that time.

Tennessee law also requires county election commissions to reflect the change in majority status by giving Republicans three members of the five-member boards statewide.  Those terms of office will be up next month.

Finally, the Senate State and Local Government Committee approved legislation sponsored by Senator Doug Overbey (R-Maryville) requiring that a convicted felon must pay all fines and court costs imposed before being eligible to have their voting rights restored.  Currently, a person convicted of a felony must be pardoned, discharged from custody or supervision, and have paid all restitution to the victim of the offense to have their rights of suffrage restored.  This legislation, SB 440, would add the payment of fines incurred as a result of the felony as a condition for restoring the right to vote.

Legislation approved by Judiciary Committee strengthens rights of property owners

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved legislation sponsored by Senator Randy McNally (R-Oak Ridge) to strengthen the rights of property owners in cases of eminent domain.  The potential for abuse of government power in cases of eminent domain has been a growing concern for citizens nationwide in recent years, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. New London, which opened the floodgates.  The 5-4 high court decision condoned the rights of local governments to take private property for public use in the name of economic development.

After the Kelo case, many state legislatures moved into action in 2006 to improve their eminent domain laws, including Tennessee.  The legislation, SB 521 and SB 522, approved by the Judiciary Committee would further strengthen that law to provide additional checks and balances to protect citizens from abuse.

Tennessee’s 2006 post-Kelo law reiterated that a “taking” must be for “legitimate public use.”  It prohibited land used predominantly for agriculture production from being considered a blighted area.  It increased notification requirements for eminent domain action from 5 to 30 days, allowing land owners to receive a fair hearing in court with time to prepare their case and provided for attorney’s fees if the property owner is successful.  It also required government entities seeking eminent domain action to deposit moving and other expenses into an account for the owner of land seized through eminent domain.   The bill approved by the Committee this week would further strengthen that law by providing that approval must be given for eminent domain “takings” by the locally-elected governing body.  It also gives property owners the right of first refusal to buy back property from an eminent domain taking if it is not used for the purpose for which it was taken within ten years.

“The protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against unreasonable government seizure is a fundamental principle of our form of government,” said Senator McNally.  “These two additional protections will provide the checks and balances needed to make help safeguard against abuse.”

Senate Education Committee hears update on efforts to improve students’ health

The Senate Education Committee heard testimony this week regarding the state’s Coordinated School Health Program’s efforts to improve the health of students in Tennessee.  Coordinated School Health Director Connie Givens told the committee that the program is a national model that is making a significant difference to help Tennessee children make healthy choices and improve student performance.

Tennessee ranks among the highest states in the nation for the incidence of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.  Forty-one percent of students in the state’s schools are overweight or obese.  These adolescents have a 70 percent chance of becoming overweight adults who are subject to these life-threatening health conditions.

Beginning as a pilot project, the program was implemented statewide in 2006.    That legislation was sponsored by Senator Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro), General Welfare, Health and Human Services Chairman Rusty Crowe (R-Johnnson City), Senator Steve Southerland (R-Morristown) and Speaker Pro Tempore Jamie Woodson (R-Knoxville), among others.  It provided for a Physical Education Specialist and a Coordinator of School Health position within the Tennessee Department of Education and called for 90 minutes of physical activity for K-12 students.

There are eight components to the Coordinated School Health Initiative including health education, physical activity, nutrition services, school health services, counseling, a healthy and safe school environment, community involvement and health promotion for school staff.  The program also partners with other health care agencies to provide a vast array of health screening services to accomplish those goals.  Givens said the results of the program have included reduced absenteeism, improved academic performance and higher graduation rates.

Research shows that poor health habits in children are associated with poorer academic achievement.  It also shows schools that offer intense physical activity programs have shown positive effects on student academic achievement.

The Committee, in partnership with the American Heart Association, also honored three Tennessee schools for excellence in implementing the Coordinated School Health Law.  Lincoln County High School received “highest honors” for outstanding achievement by a Tennessee high school, E.O. Coffman Middle School in Lawrence County received the award for excellence in a junior high school, while North Stewart Elementary School in Stewart County topped the list for elementary schools.

Turning the tide on Tennessee’s disturbing health status to help future generations make healthy choices is important not only to improve the health of individuals but also for the economic health of the state due to rising health care costs.

Finance Official updates Senate Finance Committee on federal stimulus money

State Finance Commissioner Dave Goetz appeared before the Senate Finance Committee this week where he continued to urge caution regarding the stimulus money coming to the state through the federal U.S. Economic Recovery Act.  The state has revised its statistics on how much will be coming into Tennessee to $4.5 billion over a two-year period.  Earlier predictions were in the $3.8 billion range.

Goetz said he is cautioning leaders at all levels of government in Tennessee to remind them it is a temporary assistance plan and that if recurring expenses are involved to expect the money to disappear at the end of the two-year period.  He also said the federal government is issuing guidance on how the money must be spent daily and that there is nothing to prohibit the federal government them from changing its mind at any time regarding those rules.

Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris questioned Goetz and Department of Transportation Commissioner Gerald Nicely about the need to implement an orderly process to the lawful expenditures of stimulus funds.

“The State Constitution mandates that all expenditures are subject to appropriation by the Legislature,” said Leader Norris.  “The governor has given us his word that he will comply.”

Issues in Brief

Hunting and fishing rights / SJR 30 — The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a resolution this week to amend Tennessee’s Constitution to protect the rights of citizens to hunt and fish.  The measure will be voted on in the same manner as the “Victim’s Rights Amendment” in 1998, the “State Lottery Scholarship Amendment” of 2002, or the recent amendment to give property tax relief to the elderly.  The measure was approved in the 105th General Assembly but must pass by a two-thirds majority in the current legislature before citizens can expect to see the resolution on the ballot in November 2010.

Abortion / SJR 127 – Legislation was filed on Monday by Senator Diane Black (R-Gallatin) to give Tennesseans the opportunity to restore their voice in determining what state law should be regarding common sense protections for abortions.  SJR 127 passed the State Senate overwhelmingly last year but failed along party lines with Democrats voting against the measure in a House Subcommittee.  The resolution addresses a State Supreme Court decision in 2000 that struck down provisions in Tennessee law allowing women to receive “informed consent” information about the surgery and to wait 48 hours before they receive an abortion, making Tennessee more liberal than the courts required in Roe v. Wade.  The earliest this amendment, if approved, could go to voters is 2014.

Coal Fly Ash – Legislation was presented by Senator Tim Burchett (R-Knoxville) to the Senate Environment Committee this week to ban the future storage of coal fly ash in lagoons.  The bill, SB 1559, would prohibit the State Conservation and Environment Department from issuing a permit for disposal of fly ash in holding ponds.  It also prohibits issuance of a permit in landfills unless they contain a liner for protection of groundwater and are capped properly.  Debate on the bill will continue in the committee next week.

Vacancies / County Commissioners — The full Senate passed legislation this week to correct a problem arising from an interpretation of a 2008 law that revised procedures for filling vacancies by a county commission.  That law required a county commissioner to resign from the county commission if they accept an appointment made by that governing body.  Some attorneys have interpreted this to include any appointments made by the county commission, including internal appointment to boards and committees, such as budget and finance committees, beer boards, ethics committees etc.  The legislation, sponsored by Senator Doug Overbey (R-Maryville) clarifies that it was not the intent of the 2008 law to prevent a county commissioner from serving on any board or commission if he or she could lawfully serve on that board prior to the act.

Action Alert Network

The dangerous constitutional amendment that would take away the right to abortion in Tennessee is back again. This year two resolutions, HJR61 and HJR66, have been introduced and both will be heard on Tuesday, February 24 at 4:00 p.m. in the House Public Health and Family Assistance Subcommittee in Room 30.

Both resolutions begin “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion…..”

HJR61 by Rep. Henry Fincher (D-Cookeville), calls for exceptions for rape, incest, and the heath of the mother. HJR66 by Rep. Debra Maggart (R-Hendersonville) does not contain exceptions.

Please contact members of the House Public Health and Family Assistance Subcommittee (http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/committees/sub-phfa.html) and your own state representative and tell them to vote NO on HJR61 and HJR66. The easiest way to identify your legislator is to go to www.capitol.tn.gov. If you type in your address and city and click “search” you will learn your state senator and state representative.

Talking Points

• HJR61 and HJR66 are both all-out attacks on Tennessee women and seekto rob them of their right to make choices about their own health, safety and personal welfare.
• Historically, the State and United States Constitutions have been amended to expand rights, not to take away rights.
• Despite what the anti-choice forces are telling legislators, there are a number of Tennessee laws which already regulate abortion, including parental consent, a ban on late-term abortions and patient informed consent.
• The number of abortions in Tennessee is declining and the focus should be on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies by providing education and resources, not on taking away privacy rights.

Background

The introduction of HJR61 and HJR66 is the result of the ACLU/Planned Parenthood victory in the Tennessee Supreme Court. We successfully challenged several restrictions in the Tennessee Abortion Statute, including the mandates that a woman seeking an abortion could only receive state-mandated information and counseling from a physician, and that she must subsequently wait 48-72 hours before returning to have the abortion performed. In September 2000, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued a momentous decision affirming a woman’s right to privacy as it pertains to her right to obtain an abortion.

President Obama said he did not want family planning to be used a “political wedge” and refused to continue that “stale and fruitless debate.”

“In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.” — President Barack Obama to CNN

January 21, the day after President Obama was sworn into office, was the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the U. S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion by stating the right to abortion was guaranteed within the 14th Amendment’s  right to privacy.  Even as inauguration crowds dispersed,tens of thousands of members of the right to life movement converged on Washington for the annual Right to Life march, which ended on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.

While Republican opposition to this decision was quickly voiced in tandem with charges that Obama’s decision was a flip-flop on his earlier statements to work to reduce the number of abortions, it is in fact in keeping with that pledge. Finding ways to fund family planning efforts and create a safety net for women of childbearing age is the responsible approach to 21st century health care.

Population Action International said the move will “save women’s lives worldwide” and that the issue is basic health care and well-being for all women and children. Planned Parenthood, which decried the Bush administration action in cutting of funding, took a similar stance, applauding the move as positive direction in women’s health care.

President Obama, in making his decision, said the move to provide funding to family planning clinics would help achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies, “promote safe motherhood,” reduce maternal and infant mortality,  and improve  economic opportunities for women.

“By signaling his intention to restore U.S. funding for UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, President Barack Obama is signaling his re-engagement with the international community on the critical challenge of improving reproductive health around the worl.”  — UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth said.

Okay, when McCain first popped on the Election 2008 radar back in that early New Hampshire primary, I was next door in Vermont, wondering with a bit of perverse pleasure how McCain managed to dislodge the likes of Romney, Giuliani, and others in a presidential nomination bid. It just got interesting, I thought. Little did I know…

I know now, though, that his nomination has been a boon to the Democratic Party, a boon magnified orders of magnitude by his choice of Palin as VP. Thank you, John for handing over so many states to the Dems. Three times in a row, I watched the debates, and watched the post debate charts fade from red to pink to yellow to light blue…you get the idea.

Senator John McCain

I am dumbfounded that in three debates, McCain never found his footing, never managed to get the knock-out punch in, not one, not on any subject. All Obama had to do was break even to win. The first debate was not the showstopper it should have been; the subsequent and much heralded town meeting was a colossal bore with more action on the streets of Nashville than the under the lights at Belmont University. In both cases, Obama came out ahead, though not with the power of his early campaign speeches and interviews. One more shot, I thought. They have one more chance to get it right.

Wednesday’s final debate in New York, which was deftly moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS, was the right format with the right moderator. It was the right fit for Obama, who both looked and sounded presidential, who exuded the right levels of charm and intelligence (not hard considering the competition), who had the answers to the questions, even when the answers were tough for some viewers to swallow. McCain entwined himself in the life of “Joe the plumber” (perhaps not the same Joe six-pack of Palin fame) and hammer that poor man to the ground. Once, twice a mention, maybe. But for heaven’s sake, John, give it a rest.

Senator Barack Obama

What America saw Wednesday night was an articulate educated black man who was at ease with himself, his opinions, his ideas, a man who looks at America with a reality check, not a blank check, and looks and sounds presidential while doing it.

What America saw Wednesday night was a war hero who despite his honorable service to his country was now incapable of staying the subject, unable to pronounce or string words and sentences together without rambling off the issue and changing the subject, a man who resurrected old themes and could not give any genuine assurance that he was not still a participant on the GOP/Bush playing field.

What distressed me the most?

McCain’s opinion that we “need to reward these good teachers.” Hey, nothing wrong with that. Oh wait, here’s the rest of that story:

• “We need to encourage programs such as Teach for America and Troops to Teachers where people, after having served in the military, can go right to teaching and not have to take these examinations which — or have the certification that some are required in some states.” ~~ John McCain
  

And then there was:

• A little detail of McCain’s not knowing the difference between Down’s Syndrome that affects Palin’s youngest son, interchanging that diagnosis for autism, which is an entirely different issue. If he does know the difference, he failed to articulate that.

And then there was:

• That detail of the $5,000 taxable tax credit for health care. Oh, yes, somewhere there is a plan available for $5,800 a year. How many families will actually find a $5,800 plan that covers all their needs? I certainly haven’t found one yet. And probably don’t have the difference to fund a realistic plan that would run me, at my present age/health, somewhere in the vicinity of $10,000-12,000 a year. McCain has also said nothing about pre-existing conditions.Is that $5,000 tax credit something you have to spend before you can claim it and then have it taxed? Or am I missing something here?

And was anyone else bothered by the fact that McCain simply could not stay on point? That he stumbled through words and phrases in a way that rivals George Bush? That he meandered across his own view of the political landscape, which holds a wide disconnect from middle America reality? That he fumbled and stumbled through a number of questions just as Palin did in several of her interviews? McCain simply did not look or sound presidential and that’s a trickle down effect on Palin. Or did it surge up from her?

My belief is that college needs to be made affordable, that the bar in educational standards must be raised significantly higher, that everyone has a right to health care and prescription medications, that we need to build a new economic structure for America that will include green jobs and a return to industry that has for some time been shifted offshore. My belief is that women need to have a right to choose, not have reproductive choices made for them by people who do not have to deal with the realities or circumstances behind these choices.

My belief is that no candidate is going to fix America’s problem in four years of a first term presidency. The only thing a new president can do is start working on the problems we face as a nation, and as individuals. The only thing a new president can do is have a plan rooted in reality that can be implemented in a progressive series of laws and actions for the long term. Investments in education, energy, industry, small business, take time to mature: we have lapsed in many areas, and there is no quick fix, no painless recovery.

What I saw Wednesday night was a candidate, Senator Obama, who had a reality check and a plan to fix what ails America. I’m not exactly sure what McCain was offering that would be of any use to middle America.

With six and a half long months left in office, President Bush and his administration, specifically the United States Department of Health and Human Services, still have time to tinker with laws and regulations that that challenge our civil liberties, human rights, and a woman’s right to choose. President Bush may soon have a new and controversial regulatory issue before him, one that flies in the face of existing laws and which does not need Congressional approval to be put in place.

“One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of “abortion.” This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception – including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs – “abortions” and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.”

– Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Patty Murray in a joint letter to HHS

Yes, the abortion/contraception issue is back on the front burner, this time in the form of a HHS draft regulation that essentially redefines “pregnancy” and could impact every single woman in the country seeking contraceptive services. While the HHS draft is still under debate with no timetable for submission or a seal of approval, its opponents suggest that the changes in regulations fall within the ideological scope of the Bush administration.

The potential law/regulation sparks debate to the most minute moment in time: when conception actually occurs, and could place the idea of “contraception” in the category of abortion. At best, the draft proposal could restrict or limit access to birth control for millions of women. The words “barefoot and pregnant” are not that far back in our legislative history.

According to the Alex Mayer of the St. Louis Dispatch (7.31.2008), “The Bush administration is attempting to re-define ‘pregnancy.’”

Mayer uses an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal:

“The Bush Administration has ignited a furor with a proposed definition of pregnancy that has the effect of classifying some of the most widely used methods of contraception as abortion.

A draft regulation, still being revised and debated, treats most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as abortion because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. The regulation considers that destroying ‘The life of a human being.’”

In Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary are the following definitions:

ABORTION: The TERMINATING of pregnancy after, accompanied by or closely followed by the death of an embryo or fetus. Induced expulsion of a human fetus.

CONTRACEPTION: Deliberate PREVENTION of conception or impregnation.

The draft regulation puts both definitions on equal footing. Any change would not impact the legality of birth control pills, morning after pills or any form of contraception, but it has the potential to reduce the availability of such items to the women who need/want them.

Proposed regulations could impact access to birth control

Defenders of this proposed “adjustment’ to current regulations say it would reportedly defend pharmacists, doctors and clinicians who currently prescribe contraceptives but who, based on personal or religious beliefs, would prefer not to prescribe or dispense such medications. While more liberal states might see marginal impact from such a change, states with a stronger religious of biblical base could make a serious impact on the availability of contraception to women. The proposal has the potential to “disrupt state laws securing women’s access to birth control” and “jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women.” It would also adversely impact woman who are victims of sexual assault.

The Wall Street Journal report noted that “some on the religious right” see this change as “creating obstacles” for women trying to access birth control and added that the draft regulation could “prompt” insurance companies to “drop coverage for prescription birth control, a move that ultra-conservative Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky said is “fantistic.” Yes, read that again: “Fantastic.” Intruding on a woman’s right to control her own health is “Fantastic.” In this case, add the concept “barefoot and pregnant.”

The proposed rule states that “the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion. This effectively places individual and institutional beliefs over patients’ rights, greatly endangering women’s health.” — David Feinwachs, chief counsel of the Minnesota Hospital Association (as reported in the Star Tribune 7.30.2008.)

In a letter to Michael Leavitt, secretary of Bush’s Health and Human Services Department, Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray, both strong advocates for women’s health and most recently supportive of over-the-counter “morning after” pills, wrote the following:

Sen. Hillary Clinton

Dear Mr. Secretary:

It has come to our attention that the Department of Health and Human Services may be preparing draft regulations that would create new obstacles for women seeking contraceptive services.

One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of “abortion.” This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception – including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs – “abortions” and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.

Sen. Patty Murray

As a consequence, these draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women’s access to birth control. They could jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women. They could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.

We strongly urge you to reconsider these regulations before they are released. We are extremely concerned by this proposal’s potential to affect millions of women’s reproductive health.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Patty Murray

This rule change would:

• endanger a Minnesota law that requires doctors to offer rape victims emergency contraception. (Feminist Daily News Wire 7.16.2008]
• expand the definition of abortion to falsely label several types of birth control – including emergency contraception, the pill and IUDs – as abortifacients. (Feminist Daily News Wire 7.16.2008]
• deny federal funds to medical providers who will not hire doctors or nurses that object to abortion. (Feminist Daily News Wire 7.16.2008]
• affect over 500,000 medical facilities (National Partnership for Women and Families 7.30.2008)
• nullify state laws that require doctors to provide the option of emergency contraception to rape victims, would be effectively nullified.( Star-Tribune/MN)
• affect over 500,000 medical facilities (National Partnership for Women and Families 7.30.2008)

The rule change is currently being debated within HHS. There is no timetable for when the final version of the rule will be released.

Unfortunately, this means Tennesseans often have to rely on news media sound bytes to obtain information about the candidates. However, since news media are businesses and therefore have as their proper goal the making of money, this often leaves viewers with precious little information about how the candidates would actually go about running the county and a disturbing amount about their private lives.

Let’s be honest, does it really matter than Barrack Obama has an Islamic heritage, that Hillary didn’t leave Bill, that Mitt Romney is Mormon or that John McCain allows his adult children to live their own lives?

With this in mind, the author has put together a series of articles about how the candidates stand on some of the hottest issues of today, from abortion to the Iraq war. With that in mind, there are a few necessary disclaimers. First, the author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to OnTheIssues for doing most of the leg work for these articles. Despite their sometimes apparent bias, their repository includes sources for its statements that allowed for easy backtracking to the original source to produce the truth. Secondly, the author wishes to note that the opinions and interpretations of the candidates and their stances on the issues are his own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Clarksville Online, its publisher, or any other member of its staff. Further, the author realizes that he has not included analysis on every possible candidate and at no point intends to do so.

An issue that has become recurring throughout recent political cycles has been that of abortion, with people holding positions from outright bans in all circumstances to completely unregulated abortion. Most politicians do not hold such extreme positions as a matter of political necessity, but there is a wide range in positions among the candidates in this election cycle. Generally Democrats are painted as supporting abortion while Republicans are stereotyped as being staunchly anti-abortion. However, the truth is that these labels are not entirely correct in the current field.

Barrack Obama surprised many with his victory in the Iowa caucuses. How does he feel about abortion, though? Obama believes very strongly in the woman’s right to choose. As the junior senator from Illinois, Obama voted against the partial birth abortion ban. Senator Obama also voted against the bill that would require parental notification for minors seeking abortions outside their home state. Obama advocates age appropriate sex education that includes information about family planning and contraceptive use. Senator Obama says he believes that women should be trusted to make their own decisions regarding abortion, but he also says that he extends the presumption of good faith to abortion protestors. Overall then, Barrack Obama has a very permissive attitude towards abortion in line with the hardcore liberal stance.

Hillary Clinton was the front-runner up until the first primary but had a very disappointing finish there. Mrs. Clinton has a somewhat more centrist view of abortion than Senator Obama that has changed somewhat over the years. Clinton’s failed 1993 national health care plan included the legality and widespread availability of RU-486 and traditional abortion procedures. She has also labored strongly to have the Contraceptive Plan B (the so-called “Morning After Pill”) placed on the market.

Clinton, however, has some consistency problems. Senator Clinton indicates that she supports the banning of late term abortion, but she voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that included provisions for the life of the mother. Clinton also claims to support parental notification for minors seeking abortion, but she voted against that bill too. The Senator did, however, vote for a bill that would fund sex education including information on family planning. Clinton says she believes abortion should be safe, legal and rare. She supports the Cairo document, which claims abortion is a right but not a tool for family planning. Overall, Senator Clinton’s words would suggest someone with a more populist view of abortion supporting reasonable restrictions. However, her voting record is somewhat at odds with this and suggests that in practice she adheres more closely to the liberal line.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee kicks off the Republican side of the issue. Huckabee staunchly opposes abortion in any form. He says that states rights do not exist for moral issues such as abortion. The Governor says that he would ban all abortion if able and that no consensus with pro-choice advocates is possible as he believes that they want a fundamentally different world from pro-life advocates. Huckabee was part of the leadership that led Arkansas to passing a Human Life amendment to the state constitution expressly stating that life begins at conception.

Huckabee believes that it will be a good day for America when (not if) Roe v. Wade is overturned and until then, he has stated there should be no tax dollars for organizations that fund abortion. Governor Huckabee is also a staunch supporter of Woman’s Right to Know legislation. Governor Huckabee has criticized other Republicans for their stances claiming that hating but allowing abortion, stating that it’s like saying “I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it.” Overall, Governor Huckabee is very consistently against abortion, in all circumstances. Mr. Huckabee takes the hardcore conservative line on abortion.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani takes a more populist view on abortion. Giuliani has stated that he would not sign a Federal ban on abortions. He believes that the government should not be involved and that the ultimate choice should be made by a woman and her health care providers. However, the former Mayor does support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban despite opposing parental notification requirements.

Mr. Giuliani, as Mayor, supported adoption and other alternatives to abortion in an effort to decrease the abortion rate by providing other suitable alternatives to having an abortion. As President, he says he would leave individual states to decide whether or not to fund abortion. He claims he would appoint constructionist judges, but that there would be no litmus test for any nominee he put forward. Overall, Giuliani takes the stand that abortion should remain legal, but that it can be reasonably regulated. His stance fits well with the populist line, although his stance on parental notification bucks that trend.

Senator McCain is the moderate conservative on abortion. Senator McCain said he was concerned about women undergoing dangerous and illegal procedures if the culture and views surrounding abortion were not changed before it was outlawed. Senator McCain believes that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity as determined by a medical professional, and that the benefit of the doubt should be extended to a person claiming rape or incestuous pregnancy. Senator McCain claims that he wishes for Americans to work together to make Roe v. Wade and abortions irrelevant.

Senator McCain’s voting record supports this philosophy for the most part. McCain voted to strip tax money from organizations that support or perform abortions. Senator McCain also voted in favor of the Parental Notification bill and in favor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He also voted yes on attaching a criminal penalty to harming an unborn fetus while committing a crime. Despite his claim of supporting alternative to abortion and seeking to make it irrelevant, however, Senator McCain did vote against funding for sex education that includes information on other family planning options as well as contraceptives. Overall Senator McCain has a mdoerate conservative view of abortion, which is fundamentally a view against abortion.

Other candidates generally fall into camp with one of those positions. John Edwards toes the Obama Clinton line. Mitt Romney professes to being roughly in line with Huckabee, although his sincerity on that point could be legitimately questioned given his pro-choice stance as Governor. Fred Thompson is very similar to Senator McCain in his views of abortion, although he opposed the parental notification bill and does include a litmus test for judges. Representative Ron Paul is the odd-man out for both parties, in keeping with his more libertarian mindset and his voting record could reasonably place him on both sides of the fence. However, Ron Paul appears to consistently take decisions that remove the Government from the realm of sex in general, including abortion, at any point in any fashion (he voted against both abstinence only AND comprehesive sex ed, for example) although he did support the partial birth abortion ban.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a ban on the controversial “partial birth abortion. In a bitterly divided 5-4 decision, the nation’s highest court showed a disturbing willingness to revisit the constitutionality of a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wishes to carry her baby to term.

The abortion issue is one of the most hotly debated topics in our country’s political climate. The debate is as fiery as it is passionate; as bitter as it is emotional. In fact, I sincerely believe that one of the only other topics that has been anywhere near as divisive as the abortion debate is the debate over GLBT equality. The latest decision from the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts only makes this debate even more explosive.

As in any firestorm of conversation, the only way to deal with it effectively is to take a step back away from the emotional and religious hype and look at it objectively. People on both sides of the issue have a lot of important points that must be considered. But before I continue, there’s a few things I need to establish:

• I think abortion is murder. I believe that when a pregnancy is terminated, a life is snuffed out before ever has a chance to begin. I believe life begins at conception, and that all life is precious.

Now that I’ve completely angered one side, it’s only fair that I provide an equal opportunity offense:

• As a gay man, it’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever cause an abortion and even less likely that I’ll ever have one. Because of this, I have absolutely no business telling women what they can do with their own body. Put simply, it would be the ultimate in hypocrisy.Therefore, I fully support a woman’s right to choose, even though it grieves me to know that there have been so many children aborted.

There, now that I’ve completely offended nearly all of my readers at this point, I think I can continue.

This decision by the SCOTUS deals primarily with what conservatives call a “partial birth abortion” for which the medical term is “dilation and extraction.” Make no mistake about it. This case is built around a red herring. “Partial birth abortions” are so rare, that they make up less than 2 percent of the total number of pregnancies that have been terminated.

In most of those cases, the fetuses were unviable in the first place. Conservatives latched on to this procedure because of its apparent “brutality” in which they took great pleasure in printing explicit diagrams to show exactly how it’s performed. Several groups took out full page ads across the country to print these diagrams. It was the perfect poster boy for the “evils of abortion.”

There is one factor that has yet to be addressed in all this. With all of the “choose life” signs and “IM4IT” license plates out there, I have to ask whether or not our fundamentalist and conservative neighbors have ever once taken the time to actually provide any viable options for mothers who are in crisis pregnancy situations?

“Oh, but we have crisis pregnancy centers!” They’ll say. Big deal. I know how these pregnancy centers work. At the well-funded ones, they have an exam room complete with a volunteer nurse or doctor to do an ultrasound, free pregnancy tests, and lots of counseling which shows how bad abortion is.

They might point the women or girls to adoption agencies, but in the end, there’s little investment into the lives of the people involved. There are marches, t-shirts, newsletters, dinners, and lots of other nifty events. There is, however, little practicality.

The director of one center even went out of his way to adopt a baby… from China. He literally had hundreds of women and girls that went through his local ministry, and didn’t offer to take one of those babies as his own. He had to go halfway around the world.

Where are the ministries that actually help single women to raise their children? What about having direct relationships with adoption agencies? What about conversations about birth control? STDs? What about condoms, for crying out loud?

More to the point why aren’t we as Christians encouraging people to be responsible with their sexuality? We’ve taken an all-or-nothing approach which is as ineffective as it is irrelevant in our society. Ministries have spent millions of Federal grants to promote “abstinence-only” programs, which don’t even work! Further, when these kids do have sex, it’s in risky, promiscuous behavior that completely ignores safer sex practices.

We’re in an age when birth control, condoms, and frank discussions on sex is simply critical. We can’t be dancing around the issue any longer. Coming up with cutesy names for “penis” and “vagina” only confuses our kids and compounds the problem.

We simply must better prepare our congregations and our children for the reality that we are bombarded with sex at every turn. Sheltering people from it won’t work. Hiding our own disgrace doesn’t work. That means that all of those secret abortions that conservative parents force on their daughters so they can save face need to stop.

I heard one preacher say once, “You know why we have abortion in America? I’ll tell you why. It’s because a church said to a young, unwed mother, “you slut!” That’s why we have abortion in America.” I think he has a point..

The Church in America has become a master at judgment, and a novice at compassion. When we compound this to the reality that the early Roman Christians would roam the streets to look for exposed babies to raise as their own, the contrast becomes clear. What’s more, the emperor of the day even commented that “These Christians love our own more than we do.”

This was at a time when Christians were being killed in droves. Yet they still valued life so much that they would roam the streets at night to look for children or hide under bridges to wait as babies were discarded into the aqueducts.

We’re not able to adopt at this stage in our lives. We know we can’t invest the time needed. Several friends of ours have, which is wonderful. These men and women have gone through the rigorous process to prepare their homes, and are at various stages of that journey.

Overall, it’s time for us as Christians to stop being comfortable in our mission and start putting our money where our mouth is. So if you’re going to complain about abortion, I expect to see your name on the rolls of adoptive parents for AMERICAN children. Until then, your voice will just be another fading cry of gnashing teeth in the darkness.

For the moment, Roe v. Wade is still very much intact. This decision is indeed a setback, but I really think the most important thing for us to do is to address the root of the problem which is ignorance. Its ignorance that says that “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion.” It’s ignorance that says that we can just point a finger at a young unwed mother and say, “don’t have an abortion” without providing a genuine, viable alternative.

So there’s a ban on one, extremely rare, procedure. Fine. It doesn’t solve the problem. It doesn’t put an end to abortion, nor does it end the debate. And no, it’s not the end of the world.

Thankfully, it doesn’t force women back into the back alleys. It does, however, let us know how deeply important this issue is, and how the only way to address it effectively is through relationships and commitment, not religious zeal, not legislation, and certainly not the Supreme Court.

 Previously published on www.skippingtothepiccolo.com