News

INFORMATIONAL WEBSITE OF

STATE SENATOR RAYMOND FINNEY,

who proudly represents the beautiful Great Smoky Mountains region of Tennessee--
the Eighth Senatorial District (Blount and Sevier Counties)...

CLICK TO RETURN TO MENU.

E-NEWSLETTER OF CURRENT EVENTS
Posted on April 30, 2006
Slightly updated on August 22, 2006

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 127 (SJR 127)-- AN EXPLANATION OF MY VOTE:

I cast a controversial vote this year on a constitutional amendment proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 127 (SJR 127). SJR 127 opponents have distorted, mis-characterized, and mis-represented this resolution. I have received a small number of negative comments, mostly from the Nashville area. Supportive messages have outnumbered negative messages by at least 25 to 1. Since this vote is controversial, I wish to explain my reason for voting for SJR 127 in a truthful manner. I am convinced of two things: (1) I voted in the proper manner, and (2) I represented the majority will of Eighth District constituents. Thank you for reading this lengthy explanation.

INTRODUCTION: On March 9, 2006, I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 127 (SJR 127), a constitutional amendment proposal for which I was co-prime sponsor. The resolution passed in the Tennessee Senate in a bipartisan vote by a 24 to 9 margin (all 18 Republican senators and 6 of 15 Democrat senators voting for the resolution).

BACKGROUND: Abortion on demand was legalized on January 22, 1973 by two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton. Since that date, more than 46-million unborn babies have been killed by abortion in America-- all under full consent of the federal government.

It is easy to gloss over large numbers. Let me explain these 46-million deaths in other ways:

There are approximately 1.3-million abortions every year in America. There are 31,557,600 seconds in one year (365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60). Dividing the number of abortions among every second in the year, there is one abortion every 24 seconds, as prorated among every day of the week and second of every day (31,557,600/ 1,300,000).
The number of abortion deaths equals the combined population of twenty-four states and the District of Columbia. If every man, woman, and child in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington D.C. had been killed since 1973, the public, media, and political leaders would demand answers and actions to stop this carnage. A number of deaths of unborn babies equivalent to the combined population of these states has occurred because of abortion, but many people do not take notice or express concern.
Abortion is the leading cause of death in America. The number of unborn babies dying from abortion is more than the combined death toll of the next two leading causes of death (heart disease and cancer).
There have been slightly more than 1.11-million American soldier deaths in all of America's wars-- Revolutionary War through the present war in Iraq-- compared with more than 46-million unborn baby deaths from abortion.

In the early 1970s, two unhappy women sought legal advice. A Texas woman, Norma McCorvey, became pregnant through consensual sexual relations with her boyfriend. Because abortion was illegal, she tried to obtain an abortion through sympathy by falsely claiming her pregnancy resulted from rape. She became the plaintiff in a lawsuit, Roe vs Wade. She did not get an abortion. A Georgia woman, Sandra Cano, sought a divorce. Her attorney asked her to sign an affidavit, in which she unknowingly claimed to be pregnant and needed an abortion for medical reasons (neither statement was correct). She became the plaintiff in Doe vs Bolton. Both of these cases rose through the courts, until the U.S. Supreme Court issued rulings on January 22, 1973, to the effect that any woman in America could obtain an abortion at any stage of pregnancy without needing to supply a reason. That is, abortion on demand became the law of the land.

In the years following the Roe and Doe rulings, most states (including Tennessee) enacted commonsense laws which would protect the woman entering an abortion clinic. Such laws included a period of reflectance (48-hour waiting period), parental notification of abortion-seeking minors, health and safety standards for abortion clinics, accurate informed consent, and so forth. Such laws were all found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be constitutional and permissible under the Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton decisions.

In September of 2000, the very liberal Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee vs Sundquist that the Tennessee Constitution grants a fundamental right to abortion. This act of judicial tyranny struck down all of Tennessee's otherwise-permissible laws granting protection to abortion-seeking women, except for parental notification of abortion-seeking minors (which still exists), and caused Tennessee to have the most permissive, liberal abortion status in the nation.

Pro-life champions-- including a senator I greatly admire and who has been seated next to me in the Senate Chamber for the past two years, Senator David Fowler (R-Hamilton County)-- began the laborious process of restoring these laws to Tennessee through a constitutional amendment process. Senator Fowler and I were co-prime sponsors of SJR 127.

WORDING OF SJR 127: The wording of SJR 127, which would amend Article I of the Tennessee Constitution, is:

"Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion."

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT PROCESS: The framers of our Constitution made it difficult to amend this document. SJR 127 would have been required to pass these hurdles before becoming effective:

Adoption by a simple majority (half plus one) in both the Senate and House of Representatives of the 104th General Assembly during 2006;
Lying over one election cycle (November of 2006);
Re-consideration in the 105th General Assembly (2007 or 2008), and adoption by both the Senate and the House of Representatives by a super majority (two-thirds plus one); and
Ratification (approval) by a majority of the voters in the next gubernatorial election (November of 2010).

WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? The obvious question that must be answered to frame the debate on abortion is: When does life begin?

If life begins at birth, abortion is nothing more than a surgical procedure and has no more moral implication than an appendectomy.
If life begins before birth-- that is, if life begins at conception, abortion is the taking (killing) of a human life and has the moral implication of homicide. Most people are opposed to partial birth abortion, because it is gruesome. But, the baby aborted by this procedure at 40 weeks of gestation is the same baby it was at 20 weeks or 10 weeks of gestation, or at conception. The only difference in the baby is its size.

The one and only question, then, that must be answered in the debate on abortion is: When does life begin? Only two answers are possible: Life begins either at conception or at birth. To argue some arbitrary age between conception and birth is sophistry, an extreme absurdity, and an embarrassing foolishness. After a lifetime of studying the human body through my practice of medicine, after searching the Holy Bible diligently to determine God's teachings on life, and after many hundreds of hours thinking about when life begins, I am convinced that life begins at conception. At that moment in which the father's chromosomes and the mother's chromosomes join to form the baby's chromosomes, whatever constitutes the "spark of life" is transmitted to the next generation. That product of conception is unique, complete, separate, and irreplacable. Given protection in the mother's womb, that product will in approximately nine months be delivered as a living baby, not a mass of tissue. My faith in God guides my life, and I am convinced that the Scripture in Genesis 2:7-- which tells of God's breathing into Adam's [hence, our] nostrils the breath [transliterated Hebrew: nesh-aw-maw': "breath, spirit, wind"] of life-- is our eternal aspect [our soul, our spirit]. That breath of God makes us eternal and, therefore, "made in the image [the likeness] of God." Man is not given permission to take another's life, except in certain instances (for example, self-defense or justifiable war). I also wish to add that any woman who has had an abortion need not experience guilt or estrangement from God, if she asks forgiveness and repents.

WHAT IS AT STAKE WITH SJR 127? Abortion is such a controversial issue that the PEOPLE should decide whether it is to be performed without any safeguards. The September 2000 Tennessee Supreme Court decision was made by four SELECTED-- not elected-- Supreme Court justices. (Tennessee has an anti-democratic method of selecting its Supreme Court justices. A committee sends the governor three names-- and will send more, if he does not like any of the names on the list-- for him to choose a "candidate." The governor's one choice is placed on the ballot for the people to approve or disapprove. This process reminds me of the old Soviet elections, in which the Communist Party placed one name on the ballot, and the people all voted for that candidate.)

Presently, Tennessee women do not have the protection and regulatory oversight afforded women in other states. They have no guarantee of informed consent, no period of reflectance (a 48-hour waiting period), and no required hospitalization for a late pregnancy abortion.

SJR 127 would put the people's ELECTED officials-- state senators and representatives-- in charge of restoring rights and protection for women entering Tennessee abortion clinics. Women should be at the forefront in demanding passage of SJR 127!

SJR 127 would NOT stop abortion in Tennessee. The law of the land would still be established through the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe and Doe decisions.

WHAT IS NEXT FOR SJR 127? The pro-abortion House leadership assigned SJR 127 to a hostile, pro-abortion subcommittee, the House Public Health and Family Assistance Subcommittee. On April 12, 2006, this subcommittee voted not to pass SJR 127 out of the subcommittee. Although parliamentary maneuvering could bypass this vote, the resolution was effectively removed from consideration in the 104th General Assembly.

The subcommittee vote was 4 against passage, 3 for passage, and 1 abstention. All three Republican representatives voted for passage. Four Democratic representatives voted against passage-- Representatives Lois DeBerry (D-Memphis), JoAnne Favors (D-Chattanooga), Sherry Jones (D-Nashville), and Beverly Marrero (D-Memphis).

SJR 127 will be brought back to the 105th General Assembly, to be voted upon in either 2007 or 2008 (probably 2008).

With regard to abortion, the state government is divided along these lines:

SENATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GOVERNOR

The Senate is solidly pro-life. A pro-life super majority now exists. SJR 127 will easily pass every time it is introduced. The majority of House members are pro-life, as evidenced by 50 of the 99 members signing onto SJR 127 as co-sponsors. The House leadership-- Speaker Jimmy Naifeh and Speaker pro tempore Lois DeBerry-- are strongly pro-abortion. SJR 127 will be assigned to a hostile subcommittee, packed with pro-abortion members.
SJR 127 will likely continue to fail in subcommittee, unless the House leadership is changed. If Republicans gain the majority, Representative Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville), a strongly pro-life member, will be elected speaker, and SJR 127 will pass. Governor Bredesen is strongly pro-abortion. As far as SJR 127 is concerned, however, he has no input into constitutional amendments. His main pro-abortion contribution is in "selecting" liberal, pro-abortion appellate justices.
My friend and colleague, Senator Jim Bryson, is running for the office of governor as the Republican candidate. Senator Bryson is strongly pro-life.

Tennesseans are pro-life. A poll, paid for by Tennessee Right to Life, found that Tennesseans hold these views:

When do you believe life begins? 58% believe life begins at conception.
Should taxpayer dollars pay for abortions for low-income women? 69% oppose such payments.
Should abortion-seeking women be counseled about medical risks, alternatives to abortion, and answer fully any questions before the abortion? 85% support informed consent.
Should abortion-seeking women be required to wait 48 hours before the abortion is performed? 78% support a waiting period.
Should abortion clinics have the same standards of cleanliness and safety and health standards as required in other medical clinics? 82% support equal safety standards.
When deciding whether to vote for a candidate for public office, how important is a candidate's position on abortion? Voters considering a candidate's views on abortion: 44% very important, and 32% somewhat important.

WHAT ABOUT RAPE, INCEST, AND MATERNAL HEALTH? Pro-abortion advocates fairly ask: Should a woman who has become pregnant as a result of rape or incest or whose life is endangered be required to remain pregnant?

I have thought many hours about this question, which truly tugs at the heart, and I admit I cannot formulate a convincing answer. Some thoughts may be pertinent, though:

More than 95 per cent of all abortions are performed solely for the convenience of the mother-- that is, as a form of birth control to end an inconvenient pregnancy.
Of the remaining pregnancies, few (approximately one per cent) are performed to end a pregnancy resulting from rape and even fewer are performed because of incest.
Most people agree that a mother's life should be spared, if a continuing pregnancy would cause her death. In truth, however, this condition is very rare, with modern medical care. Many obstetricians never encounter a pregnancy, in which an abortion is needed to save the mother's life.

An SJR 127-like amendment would not prevent abortions because of these conditions. Consider the differences that a constitutional amendment resolution would create:

IF THE CONSTITUTION IS AMENDED
(If an SJR-like resolution passes) IF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT AMENDED
(If an SJR-like resolution fails)

ELECTED legislators would oversee abortion by a democratic process. SELECTED justices would oversee abortion by a disturbingly undemocratic process.

The Tennessee Constitution's language would be followed, as written. The Tennessee Constitution's language would be applied, not as written, but as interpreted in the justices' minds.

A majority of legislators-- 50 representatives and 17 senators-- would be required to enact any law affecting the practice of abortion. Checks and balances are applied by the political process. A majority of justices-- only 3 justices-- would be required to decree any order affecting the practice of abortion. Checks and balances are not applied by the political process.

The governor would need to review and concur with any applicable legislation. Neither the governor nor the General Assembly would have the ability to review and concur with any applicable ruling.

The legislators' actions are conducted in full, open view of the public. A record of debates is maintained. All actions can be reviewed through press reports and actual, live viewing of the proceedings on the Internet. The justices' actions are conducted in secrecy behind closed doors. No record of deliberations is maintained. Actions cannot be reviewed by anyone by any means.

Ultimately, Tennesseans are granted the opportunity to decide the language of their constitution in this important, divisive issue. Ultimately, Tennesseans are denied the opportunity to decide the language of their constitution in this important, divisive issue.

FINALLY. A SJR 127-like resolution will likely be re-considered every session, until passed. Abortion is too important an issue to deny the people the opportunity to vote on this constitutional amendment proposal.

There is a glimmer of good news, however. The number of abortions appears to be decreasing in Tennessee. We must continue to stress sexual purity among our youth (abstinence until marriage), in the hope of reducing teen pregnancies; teen abortions; and teen sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), with the resulting infertility and sterility in later adult years. Only abstinence programs are effective in reaching these goals. There is a high failure rate in condom-based initiatives.

Pastors and churches need to do better jobs, reaching into their congregations to minister to men and women who have been involved in abortion. Most women grieve after the loss of a child. A woman may grieve even more, if she believes she caused the death of her baby. Women who have had abortions need love, sympathy, and understanding. They need to be taught that God stands ready to forgive any sin, including abortion. Guilt is not an emotion from God. Churches should seek to erase women's guilt-- through the grace, love, and forgiveness of God-- and return them to a joyous, full, and productive life.

TELL ME YOUR VIEWS ABOUT SJR 127 AND/OR ABORTION:

Thank you for your views.

SENATE	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES	GOVERNOR
The Senate is solidly pro-life. A pro-life super majority now exists. SJR 127 will easily pass every time it is introduced.	The majority of House members are pro-life, as evidenced by 50 of the 99 members signing onto SJR 127 as co-sponsors. The House leadership-- Speaker Jimmy Naifeh and Speaker pro tempore Lois DeBerry-- are strongly pro-abortion. SJR 127 will be assigned to a hostile subcommittee, packed with pro-abortion members. SJR 127 will likely continue to fail in subcommittee, unless the House leadership is changed. If Republicans gain the majority, Representative Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville), a strongly pro-life member, will be elected speaker, and SJR 127 will pass.	Governor Bredesen is strongly pro-abortion. As far as SJR 127 is concerned, however, he has no input into constitutional amendments. His main pro-abortion contribution is in "selecting" liberal, pro-abortion appellate justices. My friend and colleague, Senator Jim Bryson, is running for the office of governor as the Republican candidate. Senator Bryson is strongly pro-life.

IF THE CONSTITUTION IS AMENDED (If an SJR-like resolution passes)	IF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT AMENDED (If an SJR-like resolution fails)
ELECTED legislators would oversee abortion by a democratic process.	SELECTED justices would oversee abortion by a disturbingly undemocratic process.
The Tennessee Constitution's language would be followed, as written.	The Tennessee Constitution's language would be applied, not as written, but as interpreted in the justices' minds.
A majority of legislators-- 50 representatives and 17 senators-- would be required to enact any law affecting the practice of abortion. Checks and balances are applied by the political process.	A majority of justices-- only 3 justices-- would be required to decree any order affecting the practice of abortion. Checks and balances are not applied by the political process.
The governor would need to review and concur with any applicable legislation.	Neither the governor nor the General Assembly would have the ability to review and concur with any applicable ruling.
The legislators' actions are conducted in full, open view of the public. A record of debates is maintained. All actions can be reviewed through press reports and actual, live viewing of the proceedings on the Internet.	The justices' actions are conducted in secrecy behind closed doors. No record of deliberations is maintained. Actions cannot be reviewed by anyone by any means.
Ultimately, Tennesseans are granted the opportunity to decide the language of their constitution in this important, divisive issue.	Ultimately, Tennesseans are denied the opportunity to decide the language of their constitution in this important, divisive issue.