Thu
Oct 23 2014
07:43 am

A rebuttal to an Amendment One ad:

Click here

True blue's picture

Im calling B.S. Ambulatory

Im calling B.S.

Ambulatory clinic standards are virtually no standards at all and PP v. Sundquist said even those inspections are constitutionally suspect and may be struck down.

Other states with similar mysterious invisible constitutional protections have also sued in court to say those "protections" mean a state has to pay for abortions. No matter what the elected officials say.

Its funny how in one breath this commercial says the elected officials are the problem and in the next say they will protect us.

I will agree with one thing. the court made a decision based on what they wanted it to say. The problem is, thats not their job. The court is supposed to interpret the constitution as it was drafted. Not to give anyone rights that don't exist based on their political leanings at the time.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

You're a little short on citations, sweetie.

reform4's picture

Let me give him a hand:

(link...)

an ASTC must have resuscitators, defibrillators, trach kits, a FULL crash cart, an RN in recovery and on duty at all times, qualified anesthesiologists, etc.

Patients under sedation must be continuously monitored (EKG, O2sat, BP, etc).

Staff must have continuing education. Full recordkeeping and reporting as per a hospital is required. Any mistake has to be reported to the state with followup reports. The regs go on and on...

Factchecker's picture

Trolls will be trolls, and wrong like a broken clock

Another troll who's illiterate. Or one of the usuals. Doesn't matter.

Dahlia's picture

I especially liked

The last line of the ad, it summed it up well.

True blue's picture

Those requirements are

Those requirements are nothing compared to a hospital and as I said are constitutionally suspect because PP V. Sundquist said about any requirement at all could be seen as a restriction and therefor struck down. You also seemed to skip my other points. Selective vision?

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Citations? Selective hearing?

True blue's picture

State government forced to

State government forced to pay for elective abortions (overturning state law) because of court decision based on constitution similar to Tennessee

(link...)

fischbobber's picture

Now that was funny

You quote an article with made up facts from an absolutely biased source with absolutely no respect for the truth. Don't tell me, let me guess. You'll feign outrage when I point out you're lying and full of shit.

I'm telling ya, you can't make this stuff up, oh wait, yes you can.

True blue's picture

The fact you do not like the

The fact you do not like the source does not make the facts any less real. If you can somehow show the decision quoted did not do just what I or the article said then feel free. I doubt you will because you can't. It is a well known decision among those who keep up with pro life legislation and decisions.

fischbobber's picture

It's not the decision

It's the hypothetical bogus conclusions the writer of that article drew from the decision that's a lie. That's the real problem here. You guys are losing the battle on Amendment 1 and you're resorting to a campaign of desperate lies to win.

Run on the merits of what you are trying to do. What Amendment 1 does is give the legislature sole control over women's reproductive laws. Own it and tell the truth about what you are doing. This is a conservative state. If the majority of voters think that the Tea Bag legislature we have in office is smart enough or moral enough to tell women what they can and cannot do in their reproductive years, you'll win easily. We understand that that protecting women is as important to you as protecting slaves was to the plantation owner, stand up and tell the truth about what you are doing. Own it. And use legitimate legal sources when quoting court decisions. The magazine of Happy Mommy non baby killers is not a legitimate legal source, I don't care how official sounding they make their Web-site name. Passing off opinion and far-fetched scenarios as fact does not make it so.

And as to whether or not abortions should be subsidized by medicare and medicaid, of course they should you moron. But then, so should birth control so we wouldn't have to subsidize the abortions. Nothing gripes my gall like a gutless liar.

True blue's picture

As for proving what isn't in

As for proving what isn't in the constitution isn't and never was, I guess you can word search for "abortion" or "birth control" in the state constitution. I never have been able to find it. I am curious how amendment 1 is supposed to remove what never was in there to start with.

True blue's picture

As for the standards (minimal

As for the standards (minimal as they are being constitutionally suspect because of PP V. Sundquist you can read the decision yourself. It says any regulation must pass "strict scrutiny". If you know law, that is an incredibly hight bar. One that all but makes regulation impossible.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Okay, let's back up...

In your very first post, you complained that "ambulatory clinic standards are virtually no standards at all," but the issue in TN is that while ambulatory clinics are licensed and inspected, private medical practices (performing a "substantial" volume of abortions) are not.

Why didn't you pick the lower hanging fruit? Because then you'd have to concede that legislators are perfectly able to tweek existing state law that already causes these private medical practices performing "substantial" volumes of abortions to be licensed and inspected simply by better defining the term "substantial" and WITHOUT trying to alter our state Constitution.

In that same post, you warned that "other states with similar mysterious invisible constitutional protections have also sued in court to say those "protections" mean a state has to pay for abortions."

Why did you then cite this New Mexico case that turned on that state having an Equal Rights Amendment, when Tennessee ratified but rescinded its Equal Rights Amendment? If that's the Constitutional protection that has you quaking in your boots, it's not a "mysterious" one, it's an "imaginary" one.

And I call BS on your claim that you are "curious how amendment 1 is supposed to remove what never was in there to start with."

You're not too curious, or you would have read the very first sentence of the text the ballot asks us if we should add, which reads:

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

You have a lot of posts on this thread, you just don't have one that makes any sense.

True blue's picture

If you say something is not

If you say something is not there that is then it will contradict itself.

Lets see if I can explain this to you.

If there is a dead fish in a barrel, you can see it. You can say "there it is". If I say there is no dead fish in the barrel, the fact that there is, would contradict my saying it. I could only say "there is no dead fish in this barrel now." If I were to actually remove the dead fish from the barrel.

The same holds true with the constitution. The constitutional amendment does not remove anything. There is no "dead fish" to remove. It just says there is no "dead fish" there even though you said there was. There is nothing in it to remove from "the barrel" because it was never there to start with. There is nothing to contradict the statement "There is nothing there".

B Harmon's picture

Don't feed the troll

Don't feed the troll

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives