Tennessee Wants Voters to Decide on Total Abortion Ban


The state of Tennessee is in the process of voting to put a constitutional amendment on the 2014 ballot regarding a state ban of abortion.  The senate, which has an anti-choice majority, is likely to pass the bill.

Via WSMV – Nashville:

The state Senate is scheduled to take up a resolution that would remove abortion rights from the state constitution Monday.The vote is the third and final vote in the Senate. If it passes, the constitutional amendment could be on the 2014 general election ballot for voters to consider.

Of course, with 94 percent of the counties lacking any abortion providers, an all out ban on the procedure is practically in effect as it is.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ Pro-lifer christian republicans love for women, little girls, raped women, and raped little girls to suffer. No doubt most of these people are men. ~

  • marie-barbara

    This is an inaccurate article. SJR 127 if passed by the House will appear on the ballot in 2014 for the voters. If passed, it would say that the state constitution written in the 1800′s does not speak to the issue of abortion.  It would allow the elected state legislators answerable to the people the ability to  pass regulations such as informed consent, waiting periods following informed consent and that late term abortions would have to be done in hospitals. You see we used to have all these things before the ACLU and the abortion chain Planned Parenthood sued the state saying that any regulations around abortion would cast  an undue burdern on women seeking abortion and the unelected activist judges agreed and threw out all regulations. This was the remedy. So even abortion facilities do not undergo inspection, regulation and licensing required of other outpatient surgery centers.

    So please correct your article. SJR 127 would not ban abortions but allow our elected legislators to vote on regulations around abortion which I am sure you realize is allowed by federal law.

  • marie-barbara

    I just went and read the story you referenced in your inaccurate write up. You did not quote the story but just the disingenous arguments of the president of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU who are now putting out erroneous statements to confuse people. So they confused you but the people of TN are not confused.

    If this passes, lawmakers would be able to impose stricter limits on abortions, such as a 48-hour waiting period, mandating informed consent and requiring second trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.

     

    “The people of Tennessee will get to vote on whether they want our elected representatives to make the laws on abortion or the Supreme Court,” said Beavers.

    Wish you would be more careful in your reporting.

  • arekushieru

    I wish YOU would be more accurate in your reporting:

    the abortion chain Planned Parenthood

    Planned Parenthood is not an ‘abortion chain’. If it were an ‘abortion chain’ it would be an even bigger PREGNANCY CHAIN.

    The Federal constitution does not allow for discrimination and so, neither should State constitutions, which is what would happen if women’s rights were to be abrogated.  Which is what is under discussion in the article.  

    Please, read MOAR carefully, next time, before making such asinine comments. 

  • freetobe

    banning or trying to ban abortion or make it so restrictive in hopes that someone will take thier case to the radical right Supreme Court in hopes that Roe vs Wade gets overturned. So no one is  taking the bait they know what your lying manipulative side is all about.

    Sorry you can only fool some people some of the time.

  • orangina

    The men in this world have gone nuts on us women

  • goatini

    “erroneous statements” meant to “confuse people” is YOU.

     

    This is a blog on reproductive justice.  As such, articles here will cite supporters of reproductive justice.  

     

    Supporters of reproductive tyranny; misgogyny; prevention of the exercise of Constitutional, civil, and human rights by US female citizens; and involuntary servitude have plenty of mouthpieces for you to get your erroneous, confusing talking points from.

     

    Hope this cleared things up for you.

  • therealistmom

    I mean, since 97% of their business is NOT abortion, and about 35% of their business is contraception to prevent pregnancy to begin with, the rest of it all being things like STD testing/prevention (which helps women and men keep their fertility and have children if they desire) and routine women’s health care (which helps women retain their fertility and have children if they desire) they obviously have no CLUE how to make abortion into a primary business model.

    Or maybe it is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring education and reproductive heath care for everyone. Hmmm.

  • joan2

    Robin,

    As much as I hate to say it, Marie Barbara is right in that SJR127 itself is not a total ban on abortion. Rather, it would change the state’s constitution so that women no longer have a right to privacy concerning abortion. That change will allow legislators to enact almost any abortion restrictions imaginable, up to and including a complete ban on the procedure if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.

    Of course, that’s the only thing that Marie Barbara is right about. This statement is particularly glaring: “So even abortion facilities do not undergo inspection, regulation and licensing required of other outpatient surgery centers.” Completely and totally wrong! In fact, abortion facilities have to meet the same exacting standards as the outpatient surgery centers associated with major hospitals. They also undergo regular inspections by the Tennessee Department of Health and the local health department. This lie about “abortion clinics aren’t even inspected!” keeps cropping up and is one of Tennessee Right to Life’s major arguments in favor of SJR127. They want to make it appear that abortion providers are rogues who operate outside of Tennessee’s established health care community. That is simply not true. Tennessee has many reputable abortion providers who have operated since the 1970′s with very few adverse incidents, because abortion providers work closely with the Department of Health to make sure the care they provide meets all standards and guidelines. 

    SJR127 is unnecessary and won’t make abortion any safer for women in Tennessee. In fact, the ballot initiative itself will only change the state’s constitution so that women are no longer equal under the law. It will allow lawmakers to enact capricious restrictions on abortion that will do nothing but make it more difficult, if not impossible, for Tennessee women to have abortions…and then what’s next? If we no longer have equal protection under the state constitution, what else can lawmakers do to discriminate against women in Tennessee? I think all women should think very carefully before they vote for this radical change of Tennessee’s constitution.

  • marie-barbara

    “In fact, abortion facilities have to meet the same exacting standards as the outpatient surgery centers associated with major hospitals. They also undergo regular inspections by the Tennessee Department of Health and the local health department.

    Totally inaccurate….The Women’s Center in Nashville is not inspected regulated or licensed as an outpatient surgery center. Every time the Health Dept tries ot shut them down the ACLU has them back up and running by the end of the business day due to the activist abortion friendly judges. This is one of the state’s busiest and most notorious abortion mills. Now an abortion mill can voluntarily do this but there is no law requiring this. Call the Nashville health dept. and ask them yourself. You are a part of the spin machine that supports the lucrative abortion industry.

     

    And how interesting that some say that contrary opinions are not welcome here only those that support the abortion industry…

    If elected legislators enact unreasonable restrictions around abortion, vote them out of office.  Quite simple. So if the people of TN think that informed consent, wating periods, late term abortions must be done is hospitals, abortion free standing facilities must be licensed and inspected at least as much as nail salons…if this is too extreme vote  them out.

  • forced-birth-rape

     

    ~ And Marie Barbara you are part of the pro-extreme vaginal pain on women and little girls against their will.

    Pro-terrorizing women and little girls for nine months against their will with extreme dread and worry of something very painful and terrifying happening to their vaginas against their will.

     

    Pro-forced-birthers are sadomasochistic misogynistic vagina pain mongers.

     

    You think women and little girls should have no rights over their own bodies and vaginas, it gives you the person who cannot feel it pleasure for the girl or women to be pregnant and give birth against her will.

    No one else should be able to vote or dictate what happens to a woman or little girls vagina, unless you all have pimp envy, which you do.

    Females are just chattel and breeding stock to you sadomasochistic misogynistic perverts. 

    Quit pretending you are better then muslim misogynist, you are not!

    If a female has not got rights over her own vagina, she has not got any rights. ~

     

     

    ~ Genesis 3:16

    “I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and cravings will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” ~

  • arekushieru

    As opposed to the pregnancy mills and industries better known as CPCs?  The ones who operate as ‘health care’ centres, but have no required liscensing of employees or standard regulatory bodies (I mean, as you would require all outpatient clinics that provide abortions to be operated)?  

    Of course, it’s telling that you could only come up with one such instance.

    It’s really laughable that you think it’s as easy as voting to get these people out of office, since the corollary to that would be… of course… that it’s just that easy to vote them INto office, for the opposite reason.

    Thanks.