As you are probably aware, SJR 127, which calls for a Tennessee constitutional amendment restricting abortion rights, passed overwhelmingly in the Tennessee Senate last month and has moved on to the House. (Nine Senators voted against it, including U.S. Senate candidate Rosalind Kurita.)
The local paper had yet another point-counterpoint editorial feature about it yesterday. As the Mrs. noted, the anti-choice position was presented by a man, who is also the president of state's biggest anti-choice organization. The pro-choice point of view was, of course, presented by a woman. Odd how it always seems to work out that way, huh?
Anyway, the anti-choice advocate reiterates that the amendment is not meant to restrict abortion rights (yeah, right), but rather to prevent "activist judges" from making the decision and instead let the people decide the issue.
Actually, that's a great idea. Let's let the people decide. Specifically, let's "let" women decide for themselves, and keep the courts and the legislature out of it. What is it with these nanny government Republicans that makes that such a difficult concept to comprehend?
Submitted by SemiPundit (not verified) on Mon, 2006/04/03 - 10:25am.
I never hear anyone who supports banning abortions discuss the proposed consequences for women and their physicians who would break such laws. They stop short of talking about the punishments they would necessarily have to put in place. The usual response I get is that only the physicians would be punished.
Yes, that's it! Women area always anti-life, while men are always pro-life! Genius! I don't know why we didn't notice it before.
(Hey, if you can call it pro/anti-choice, then I can call it pro/anti-life.)
I never hear anyone who supports banning abortions discuss the proposed consequences for women and their physicians who would break such laws. They stop short of talking about the punishments they would necessarily have to put in place. The usual response I get is that only the physicians would be punished.
Post new comment