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.

Bush was acquitted on the other charges though the presidential signings would have been a guilty verdict if not for a prosecutorial procedural error in not providing verification of a signing statement entered as evidence.

The Prosecutors, from left: Michael Price, Michael Hughey and helper Karl Lukis

The trial took place over two days, in two-hour sessions, not a lot of time to present evidence. Time constraints limited the number of witnesses and the presentation of evidence for both prosecutors and defense teams, and resulted in the guilty finding on one of the four counts. Given the apparent ease with which, in just four hours, this student panel managed to convict the President on one of four counts, it would be interesting to see what a week’s worth of trial would produce. As it stands, the APSU prosecution team scored a major victory for civil liberties. This trial was staged at Austin Peay State University as part of a Constitutional Law I class taught by Professor Greg Rabidoux, Ph.D., J.D., and included a panel of Judges, Defense Counsel and Prosecutors, and witnesses.

Standing from left: Lead Defense, Jessica Lance, Frankie A. DeJesus and Matt Harris, APSU Professor Dr. Rabidoux,; Lead Prosecutors Michael Hughey, Mike Price and Liz Borsavage. The Judges, seated from left, Kasey Henricks, Emery Walters, Enderson Miranda, Ryan Knight and Zach Suggs

1. Disparate Treatment of US Citizens during Hurricane Katrina Response in violation of 14th Amendment. The Federal response to Hurricane Katrina provided unequal protection under the law by unqualified director Michael Brown who was picked by Bush as he passed over others more qualified.
2. Violation of Separation of Powers within Articles I-III of US Constitution. Bush is not just interpreting to clarify laws through signing statements, but actually and intentionally changing the actual law, attempting to assert power as a lawmaker and not just through his Article II [“He shall faithfully execute the law”] powers from the Constitution. A President is not a lawmaker. He has altered 750 laws. [Reference the following website: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html].
3. Violation of Amendments I & IV, Freedom of Speech and Illegal Search and Seizure. Concerning wire tapping and eavesdropping on the American people: What is legal under the 4th Amendment and FISA, versus what has been made legal under the USA Patriot Act, and if in conflict, which one should prevail. There was deception on the part of the President in order to get the Patriot Act passed. Had Congress had the facts, they would not have signed the Patriot Act to begin with, considering the clear violations of privileges and due process rights offered by the Constitution under the Bill of Rights. The Prosecution presented FBI witness who testified she obtained no search warrants because of the President’s direct order to eavesdrop/wiretap.
4. Violation of the Geneva Convention Articles: Iraqis, specifically those in militias, were taken prisoner by the United States military when the U.S. military acted as an invading force. Prosecutors presented CIA witness who testified that most Iraqis captured and held had no ties with insurgents and were released. When Iraq was invaded, the Iraqi soldiers were of course supposed to defend their country. They were found by the CIA to be law abiding citizens, not terrorists. The definition of terrorist per G.W. Bush is “a suspected member of Al Quaeda or the Taliban”. For taking prisoners of war on Iraqi soil, the U.S. and military must adhere to Geneva Convention Articles.

Read the original article at: http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/11/28/apsu-mock-trial-united-states-vs-bush

Just in time for banned books week I have an update on the boycott I called for last November of the Customs House Museum. I became offended when Executive Director Ned Couch used his personal judgment that an artist’s exhibit might offend some museum patrons as justification for requiring the artist to remove portions of it, all done in the name of protecting community sensibilities.

These same justifications have been used throughout history to justify the suppression of peoples freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Our founding fathers found this so reprehensible that they specifically prohibited the government of this country from engaging in those very actives in the very first amendment to our Constitution. The only requirement for censorship is that someone in a position of power disagrees with something someone else was doing, then uses their position and authority to stop them, and that the public acquiesce.

The executive director at the time, Ned Couch, has announced he is stepping down. So today I am ending the boycott called 10 months ago. Don’t get me wrong; I seriously doubt that my boycott is behind his imminent departure, but in the aftermath of his censorship I asked that he leave, and leave he has. You take your victories where you can find them.

The primary result of all this is that you can expect to see greater and more detailed coverage of future Museum events, exhibitions, news, and activities very soon on Clarksville Online!

To learn more

Check out While America Sleeps: Censorship masked as ‘Chapel Library Project’, APSU screens Hollywood Librarian, and our upcoming articles, Banned Books: Have you read one? and Book Burning: Fueling flames of censorship.

Judges exist to protect your constitutionally guarantied liberties.

Lets say, we as a country amend our Constitution to say gays can’t marry. Who and what is next.

When the they came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

If you let them take the rights from one of us, you risk eventually them coming for your rights. Fight against this abuse of the constitution, because sooner or later it might be you they come for.