Pro Life in TN

My photo
Pro Life thoughts in a pro choice world through the eyes of a convert. I took early retirement after working in the social work and Human Resources fields but remain active by being involved in pro life education, lobbying and speaking .

Adoption

Adoption
Showing posts with label Tennessee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tennessee. Show all posts

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Tennessee's Brittany Maynard

John Jay Hooker is a familiar name in the state of Tennessee. Until recently he had been described in a tongue and cheek manner as a political gadfly and perennial candidate.   A gifted orator, born to a prominent family,  Hooker’s  verbiage  often got him in trouble as in 2010 when he had his law license suspended for thirty days  and was publicly censored for filing frivolous law suits and making statements regarding judges with “reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.”  Hooker is known for championing his causes with passion and flamboyance. Now in his eighties and diagnosed with a terminal form of cancer, he is now being revered as Tennessee’s version of Brittany Maynard as he seeks to bring physician assisted suicide to his home state.

Tennessee, along with 45 other states, outlaws physician assisted suicide. This should not to be confused a patient’s right to decline treatments or use living wills to stipulate what measures they want used to keep them alive. It also does not prohibit the use of palliative care which has the purpose of relieving pain until natural death occurs. Physician assisted suicide would allow a doctor, upon request, to give a prescription for a lethal drug to end the life of the patient.  They alleviate pain by killing the patient.

A bill was introduced in the TN General Assembly earlier in the year by Democrats as a courtesy to Hooker  and met with a lukewarm but polite response.  It promptly was assigned to a summer study committee, a tactic used to gently end discussion.   Hooker, who never gently ends any discussion, brought a lawsuit against the state arguing that the law forbidding assisted suicide was unconstitutional, citing the privacy clause in the state constitution attempting to accomplish by judicial fiat what could not get done in the legislative body answerable to the people. That tactic has been used successfully before by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood to wipe out restrictions around legalized abortions passed by the state legislature. It took 14 years and amending the state constitution to correct this.

The liberal editorial board of the Tennessean quickly endorsed physician assisted suicide and lionized Hooker as a civil rights champion, not mentioning is earlier ties to the paper. They praised his fiery rhetoric as they endorsed him and his cause.

“At last month’s TedX Nashville conference, Hooker gave a rousing speech concerning his desire to take his life with a physician’s help, and it earned him a standing ovation after he recited at the end Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous words: “Free at last, free at last.”
I sat through the two hour court case heard in Chancery Court on July 10th by Chancellor Carol McCoy. The state’s main argument was straightforward and asked the judge to dismiss the suit since public policy matters should be decided in the General Assembly and not the courts. They pointed out the state’s compelling interest in preserving all life and warned of the eroding protections for the vulnerable population that may be at risk with the overturning of this protective law. The poor, elderly, disabled, and mentally deficient citizens would be endangered as the right to duty quickly morphs into the duty to die.  Allowing assisted suicide would also erode the trust between patient and doctor who would go from healer to executioner.

What astounded me most about the arguments from the lawyers supporting assisted suicide was the amount of time spent on telling emotional stories laced with extreme hyperbole of slow, painful deaths emphasizing the discomfort of family members having to watch loved ones lose their bodily functions and dignity instead of focusing on legal merits of their argument. The hyperbole included a paper from a Vanderbilt professor describing a sick old woman (later identified as his mother) who stored up sleeping pills for her suicide and her distress when she could not find them at the appropriate time. 

When they did mention the merits of the case using the law, they argued that the Constitution should be an evolving and growing document that responds to changing times and poll numbers.  They referenced the growing aging population and said this may be in great demand by this age group!  Or do they mean in demand for this age group! Slip of the tongue, perhaps?? Their other legal argument centered on a privacy clause in the state constitution and that the current language in the law forbidding assisted suicide was vague.

Mr. Hooker seemed larger than life in the courtroom, though not speaking all cameras were trained on his every expression as his lawyer used terms as “rendezvous with death” and spoke of his desire to have dignity and die at home surrounded by loved ones.  While no one is challenging his right to discontinue treatments, the lawyer suggested that having a script for a lethal dosage may give someone like him the courage to go for the experimental trial, knowing they had the backup plan of the lethal meds at the ready.  His lawyer stoked fear insisting not allowing assisted suicide was like murder forcing the patient to endure a slow death.  He referred to the refusal of assisted suicide to being in hell continually tormented by the devil!

I cringed at weak and inappropriate attempts at humor comparing assisted suicide  to people with a fear of flying smuggling small bottles of vodka on the plane to ease their fear. I was most offended when they suggested that we are kinder to dogs that we put down with sorrow in our hearts. So much for the sanctity of human life!

After two hours of testimony, the Chancellor did not give her ruling pending the submission of supplemental briefs from each side. She promised to do her best to expedite her decision noting that time was of the essence for Hooker.

 As Mr. Hooker exited the courtroom, he was surrounded by reporters and cameras. He stopped to give a statement that was run on many media outlets.  Also exiting the courtroom in wheelchairs or with assistance were those representing Not Dead Yet or other disability rights organizations. They were largely ignored as they silently made their way past the crowd. So  this was the  marketing of the culture of death. I think they understood clearly what this action would mean for them. Their lives would be seen as less valuable and a burden on society. They understood the subtle way that they would be made to feel that society would be better if they would embrace this route.

 What I heard in that courtroom was  all about control. I want to decide how and when I die. As the  old Frank Sinatra song  says ...I did it my way!  God's way was not a concern.   I don't know Mr. Hooker's spiritual condition, but the  arguments on his behalf had a noticeable absence of any mention of prayer, faith,  peace, or eternal hope. It also was absent any recognized value to caring for the weak and vulnerable by caregivers or society. It reminds us that when God is not revered as the Author and Creator of life, the very sanctity of human life becomes dependent on polling numbers and we are all diminished.

As someone who lost a spouse to a malignant brain tumor  (the same tumor that Brittany Maynard suffered from) and  married to a man who also lost his first wife to the very  same brain tumor, we can attest that you can die a natural death, surrounded by loved ones with the assistance of palliative care. Caring for them was not a burden, but an honor and privilege that we cherish. Every day, hour and minute they lived was  precious to us.  They were the true heroes. They had death with dignity.

Pix: Nashville Public Radio WPLN


Tuesday, November 11, 2014

TN: Pro life amendment wins at ballot box so abortion supporters file suit in federal court to void results...


Once again, what the abortion industry could not achieve at the ballot box, they seek to achieve using the unelected judiciary.   Planned Parenthood is smarting over the fact that the power of the pulpit and grassroots activism rose to the challenge, despite being outspent nearly 3-1, endorsements of all four major newspapers , and some Hollywood celebrities to pass a pro-life amendment on November 4 th.
Following a clear defeat when Amendment 1 passed 53%-47% in Tennessee, Planned Parenthood board members and supporters filed a lawsuit  in federal court with to have the election results thrown out.   They basically want each vote hand counted, and thrown out if they voted yes on one and skipped voting in the Governor’s race. They further ask that if that is not possible, to have the election results voided and another election held.
Four amendments were on the ballot in November and they all passed. But this is the one that the abortion industry is focused on, as it is clearly driven by passion for unbridled abortion profits and not any constitutional principle.
State officials have called the lawsuit absurd, but note that the plaintiffs have filed a federal lawsuit, hoping for a more liberal audience. Planned Parenthood officials are not officially commenting, denying any connection with the suit, despite the fact that the lead plaintiff starred in one of their commercials that was named as the most dishonest of the season and is their Chair of their Board in Nashville. This is a point most media reports have ignored.  Already, Op Eds are appearing, supporting this suit from news outlets that endorsed them and clearly have egg on their face for their lack of influence.
Yes on 1 have responded to the suit, showing that even if you manage to weed out those who declined to vote in the governor’s race, the amendment still would enjoy nearly 20,000  yes votes, enough to pass.
David Fowler, an attorney and one of the members of the coalition for Yes on 1 suggested that the state Attorney General should seek sanctions against them for this specious lawsuit.
Jeff Teague, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, acknowledged in a post mortem that Tennessee is a pro-life state; however it is clear that they are willing to thwart the will of the people to protect their profits.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

TN: David and Goliath battle follows biblical script....


 
 
Despite being outspent 3-1 ,  having  all four major city newspapers endorse the Planned Parenthood position, the pro-life amendment known as Amendment One  relied upon a strong grassroots effort in all 95 counties and  focused  on the power of the pulpit to win  53% to 47% in Tennessee.

Brian Harris, President of Tennessee Right to Life summed up the winning strategy that may be described as a classic David and Goliath battle.

"We recognized that we would never have the financial resources of the abortion industry so began planning long ago to build a team of advocates who could educate and organize their local communities," Harris said. That effort paid off, especially in rural regions of the state where volunteers raised funds and awareness of both the amendment and the 2000 court ruling in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v Sundquist, a decision which claimed a fundamental right to abortion.”

The previous post explained the significance of this battle, not only for Tennessee, but for the signal it would send to the rest of the country, especially the 15 other states  similarly attacked in the courts by the abortion industry. This should also encourage them to follow the lead of the Volunteer State.   Had it failed, it would have emboldened the abortion industry to attack the remaining 34 states as needed with their winning strategy of using the courts to find a right to abortion in their state constitution to effectively block pro-life legislation.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

One of Tennessee's unlicensed abortion centers exposed in 911 call


Pro-Life in TN updates on the efforts to pass Tennessee’s Amendment 1, which would again make the state constitution neutral on the issue of abortion. This would allow elected legislators the right to regulate legal abortion. Currently, state lawmakers have no ability to require abortion facilities meet the standards of other same-day surgery centers. With no way to require that facilities meet certain standards, and no informed consent or waiting periods, a dangerous “let the buyer beware” situation exists.
Click here for the video...





Monday, March 17, 2014

Abortion movement sends letters to the editor using scare tactics and misinformation



This is how they are going to spin it....letter today in Memphis Commercial Appeal...

First they are going to ignore federal law and lead with the scare....


"amendment one would allow legislators to ban abortions even in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother."
Scare tactics....truth does not matter. Legalized abortion is federal law and state law cannot supersede federal law. What they really fear is that Roe Vs. Wade may fall some day and they are wanting to prepare for that. Actually the abortion industry holds TN as a model for other states on how to achieve unregulated abortion on demand at any stage of the pregnancy.

"These regulations and laws the other side wants seek to shame,stigmatize and deter women from choosing abortion."

Really ? Requiring abortion facilities to be inspected and regulated and meet the same standards as other outpatient surgery centers is intended to shame? Having late term abortions done in hospitals is a stigma? Informed consent is a deterrent?

"It’s perplexing that the writer suggests Tennessee has become an “abortion destination”

Latest stats from CDC says that Tennessee is 3rd in the states  for doing abortions on girls and women who reside out of state.  Most Tennesseans would not see this as a source of pride.

"In fact, a requirement passed by the General Assembly in 2012 led to the closure of several clinics and forced some physicians to stop providing abortions." 

This administrative regulation by our pro life governor states that abortionists must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Is it a bad thing, that doctors who cannot meet these minimal standards cannot provide abortions at these uninspected and unregulated centers? 

"....most Tennesseans treasure their right to privacy."

Friday, April 9, 2010

Knoxville Father Wants Biology Book Banned...Update

Update: The board of education had a meeting and decided to table the motion for another 30 days....something that is done when they want the attention off them...... the sentence that is bringing so much concern is: Creationism: a biblical myth that the world was created in seven days by a Judeo Christian God. MYTH!! The father points out they could say biblical belief....this shows a bias against Christian beliefs....he points out that his son who is in this advanced class using his critical thinking skills brought this to his attention because he was offended by it. I say he has a point!! The board was not happy with the attention this has been getting. I'll bet!

This is a bit off topic but just a bit.....right here in TN...notice the comments....appropriate for honors level biology course...calls belief in creationism a biblical myth...bias against Christianity??? Once again, best movie to watch is "Expelled" by Ben Stein...who by the way is Jewish.

A Tennessee father says a biology textbook should be banned from his son’s curriculum because of it's ‘bias’ against Christians. Kurt Zimmermann is appealing a Knoxville school district's decision to keep the book. He says the textbook used in his son’s biology class cites creationism as a "biblical myth." According to reports, he requests, 'non-biased' textbooks be used. In his words, the current textbook's phrasing misleads, belittles and discourages students in believing in creationism and calls the Bible a myth. Knoxville County School superintendent Jim McIntyre says the committee's finding to keep using the book is appropriate. However he asks the board to hear Zimmerman's appeal Wednesday, April 7. Melissa Copelan, the board’s director of public affairs tells Fox News, “when there is a concern about education materials there is a process that is followed… Now it is up to the board.” She referred to procedure listed on the school board's Web site. When there is a complaint about curriculum board members put together a committee- six members, including the high school's principal, a biology teacher, a parent and a student. Even though a few of the members thought the material was "questionable," the committee ultimately said it's "appropriate for an honors level biology course." Local papers report Zimmerman pulls a quote from page 319 in the book, Asking About Life, where creationism is described as, "the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days."

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Why Universal Health Care Will Not Reduce Abortion Rates .... a response to the Obama offensive on abortion



Monday, March 15, 2010

  [Michael J. New]
Ever since the inauguration of President Obama in January 2009, he and his Democratic colleagues have known that abortion would be a key stumbling block to the enactment of health-care reform. There are several reasons for this. First, most Americans oppose government funding of abortion. Second, the Democratic party has recruited many pro-life candidates to run in conservative districts, and these Democrats would find it politically difficult to support health-care reform that includes public subsidies for abortion. Finally, President Obama and other Democrats sound disingenuous when they say they want to reduce the incidence of abortion, but then subsidize it through health-care reform.
As such, in a number of forums, President Obama and various surrogates have made concerted effort to either address or downplay the concerns of pro-lifers. But it seems that supporters of Obama’s health-care reform are now changing their approach and going on the offensive. In an editorial that ran in the Washington Post on Friday, author and journalist T. R. Reid argued that universal health care will lower the abortion rate in the United States. Using data from the United Nations, his argument relies on the fact that several European countries with universal health care also have lower abortion rates than the United States does.

However, Reid’s analysis is superficial and unconvincing. First, abortion rates in the United States are lower than what the UN statistics indicate. In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, the U.S. abortion rates reported by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control are 19.4 and 15, respectively. As such, the incidence of abortion in the United States is comparable to that of many European countries with universal health care, including Great Britain, France, and Sweden. Furthermore, even though Australia and New Zealand offer more generous public health benefits than the United States does, their rates of abortion are similar to ours.

More importantly, simply comparing the U.S. abortion rate to abortion rates in countries with universal health care is misleading. The United States has a far more racially diverse population than many of these European countries, and statistics show that a number of minority groups have higher-than-average abortion rates.

Furthermore, the experience of states that have offered more generous provision of public health benefits is instructive. For instance in 1974, Hawaii passed legislation requiring all employers to provide relatively generous health care benefits to any employee who works 20 hours a week or more. Since that time, Hawaii has consistently had one of the lowest rates of uninsured adults in the country. However, according to data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Hawaii’s abortion rate consistently exceeds the national average

An even better example comes from Tennessee. In 1994, Tennessee launched an ambitious public insurance program to cover its uninsured. TennCare, as it is called, expanded Medicaid to cover people who couldn’t afford insurance or who had been denied coverage by an insurance company. With an initial budget of $2.6 billion, TennCare quickly extended coverage to an additional 500,000 people by making access to its plans easy and affordable. The program, however, became so expensive that Tennessee was forced to scale it back in 2005.

Despite the fact that Tennessee invested heavily in more generous public health benefits, their abortion rate has not changed much since the mid 1990s. In fact, the decline in Tennessee’s abortion rate is actually well below the national average. Between 1995 and 2005, the Guttmacher Institute reports that the national abortion rate fell by 13.8 percent. However, in Tennessee the abortion rate fell by only 3.3 percent. Overall, it seems clear that more generous health benefits in Tennessee did little to reduce the incidence of abortion.

More importantly, there exist many reasons current health-care reform proposals would actually increase abortion rates. For instance, the legislation which passed the Senate and which Democrats are trying to push though the House includes public funding for abortion. This should concern pro-lifers for several reasons. First there is plenty of evidence that government subsidies for abortion increase abortion rates. Second, if abortion becomes a federally mandated benefit, that could jeopardize a number of state-level pro-life laws — including parental-involvement and informed-consent laws. Finally, one reason why the abortion rate in the United States has fallen is the substantial decline in the number of abortion providers. A steady flow of federal funds to abortion providers could stem or even reverse this trend.

As always, the pro-life movement would do well to continue its vocal and effective opposition to Obamacare.

— Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton, NJ.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Ford in New York runs into trouble with Choicers












Photo from Nashville Post. com
"While carpetbagging can work in New York, a failed carpetbagger returning home with a tail between his legs wouldn’t go over well.
By changing his voter registration, declaring himself pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, Ford Jr. has effectively disqualified himself from Tennessee politics."

Read it here


With all the recent talk about Harry Reid's comments about a "light skin African American" who does not speak with a Negro dialect unless he wants to....can now be talking about Harold Ford Jr., former Congressman from Tennessee, who is considering running for the Senate seat from his new home in New York currently held by Kristen Gillibrand. She holds the seat vacated by the former Senator Hillary Clinton by special appointment and not election as Robert Gibbs, White House spokesperson mistakenly characterized it today, when asserting the White House support of Gillibrand. Attractive and articulate, Harold Ford Jr. is having trouble not with the carpet bagging aspect.... New Yorkers are used to that; but in gaining acceptance of his pro choice conversion. He is being attacked by NARAL via Huffinton Post who has released a video from 2006 when he was trying to convince Tennesseans that his "centrist" position was really a pro life position in a race he lost to Bob Corker for the U.S. Senate.


It is not unusual for ambitious politicians who were pro life at the state level to abandon their pro lifeness and become pro choice once they go for national office......as in "show me the money." I wonder if they had trouble with NARAL and the like minded troops like Ford is experiencing. They are suspicious of this conversion and don't want to take the chance that he may become a "centrist" again or worse yet a pro lifer in wolves clothing.
Pro-Life Doesn't Play in New York, Mr. Ford



Poor Harold, Tennesseans did not buy that he was pro life in his last run

Followers