A Little Snippet From A New Bill Filed In The General Assembly

36 Responses to “A Little Snippet From A New Bill Filed In The General Assembly”

1. Tom Paine writes
   February 27th, 2009 8:28 pm

   Can we amend the measure to require Stacey Campfield to have a vasectomy? …or better yet, castration?

   Its a joke….

2. Heatseeker writes
   February 27th, 2009 8:35 pm

   Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you make a point.

3. jen writes
   February 27th, 2009 9:51 pm

   Excellent!

4. volvoice writes
   February 28th, 2009 8:30 am

   Why are women always trying to control men’s bodies?

5. Ryan Turbeville writes
   February 28th, 2009 9:12 am

   It would be a good point if vasectomies and abortion were related. A vasectomy doesn’t take someone’s life.

   It’s amazing that some people can’t see the difference between contraception and abortion.

6. Heatseeker writes
   February 28th, 2009 10:35 am

   Wait a minute, Ryan, I thought Jesus said that every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good, every sperm is needed in your neighborhood . . .

   Come on, everybody! Sing!

   Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. When a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate.

7. Bob K writes
   February 28th, 2009 11:38 am

   How about this amendment:

   “Nothing in this Constitution secures, protects, or implies a right to any medical procedure, prescription, or opinion.”

8. The Rep. writes
   February 28th, 2009 12:17 pm

   A vasetomy procedure can be regulated now. Abortions can not be. See Planed Parenthood V. Sundquist.

9. R. Neal writes
   February 28th, 2009 4:41 pm

   “The Rep” says abortions cannot be regulated now.

   A quick scan of Tennessee Code Annotated for the word “aobrtions”:

   Part 51 —State Budget and Appropriations Tennessee Code
   9-4-5116. Abortion funding. — Tennessee Code
   37-10-301. Legislative intent and findings. — Tennessee Code
   37-10-302. Part definitions. — Tennessee Code
   37-10-303. Written consent required — Petition for waiver. — Tennessee Code
   37-10-304. Applicability — Pseudonym — Counsel — Court proceedings — Appeals. — Tennessee Code
   37-10-305. Medical emergencies. — Tennessee Code
   37-10-306. Violations. — Tennessee Code
   Chapter 4 Offenses Against the Family [Repealed] Tennessee Code
   Part 2 —Abortion [Repealed] Tennessee Code
   39-13-107. Viable fetus as victim. — Tennessee Code
   12 39-13-214. Viable fetus as victim. — Tennessee Code
   Chapter 15 Offenses Against the Family Tennessee Code
   Part 2 —Abortion Tennessee Code
   39-15-201. Criminal abortion and attempt to procure criminal miscarriage — Penalties — Lawful abortions and attempts to procure miscarriage — Requirements. — Tennessee Code
   39-15-202. Consent of pregnant woman required prior to abortion — Information provided by doctor — Waiting period — Penalty for violation — Requirements inapplicable in certain cases. — Tennessee Code
   39-15-203. Records and reports of abortions — Confidentiality. — Tennessee Code
   39-15-204. Right to refuse to perform abortions. — Tennessee Code
   39-15-205. Right of hospitals to refuse to accept abortion patients. — Tennessee Code
   39-15-206. Rights to medical treatment of infant prematurely born alive during abortion — Penalty for violation — Limitation on wrongful death action. — Tennessee Code
   39-15-207. Custody of infant prematurely born alive during abortion. — Tennessee Code
   39-15-209. Partial birth abortions. — Tennessee Code
   23 39-15-210. Child Rape Protection Act of 2006. — Tennessee Code
   40-35-118. Classification of prior felony offenses. — Tennessee Code
   53-10-104. Selling, bartering, giving away or obtaining legend drugs. — Tennessee Code
   55-4-306. Choose Life. — Tennessee Code
   63-1-120. Grounds for license denial, suspension or revocation. — Tennessee Code
   63-6-214. Grounds for license denial, suspension or revocation — Reporting misconduct. — Tennessee Code
   63-9-111. Denial, suspension and revocation of licenses or certificates — Enjoining violations — Enforcement — Investigations. — Tennessee Code
   Part 12 —Public School Nurse Program Tennessee Code
   68-1-1205. Compliance with laws pertaining to abortion or birth control referrals or information by employees — Abstinence. — Tennessee Code
   68-5-504. Functions of program — Duties of department. — Tennessee Code
   68-11-223. Ambulatory surgical treatment centers performing abortions. — Tennessee Code

   So, I’m not sure which “The Rep” makes such a ridiculous claim (I could guess), but, seriously, we have “Reps” like this making law in Tennessee?

   Sheesh.

10. R. Neal writes
    February 28th, 2009 4:43 pm

    (I meant scan for “abortion”, obviously, unless the Tennessee General Assembly’s spelling/typing is worse than mine.)

11. The Rep. writes
    February 28th, 2009 7:21 pm

    R. Neal obviously has a reading or comprehension problem as many on the left seem to have. I said “see planned parenthood V. Sundquist.” Meaning the states ability to limit or limit by regulation was struck down by this court case. Much of the code you stated is definition and not truely limiting in nature. Some was even struck down by the stated court case but remains as part of the code.

    Is this what the left tries to pass off as intelligent rebuttal?

    Sheesh!!

12. The Avenger writes
    February 28th, 2009 7:43 pm

    I wish Rep. Camper would take a good look at the number of African American babies that are aborted everyday in this country and then maybe she wouldn’t try to be so cute about this serious topic. Why doesn’t the African American community cry out for these innocents? Where is her outrage that her people are being destroyed?

    We should all be ashamed. Dems, Repubs, conservatives, liberals, blacks, whites, and so on.

13. Ryan Kristopher writes
    February 28th, 2009 10:29 pm

    By the very fact that a woman wants to have an abortion, it means that the child is unwanted, or that she can’t take care of the child, or that there is a medical problem. Why should I as a taxpayer be required to take care of unwanted children through my tax dollars. I would rather a child be aborted with my tax dollars than brought into a world where it isn’t, or can’t be, taken care of properly. Anyone who cares about society as a whole should understand this. People like the Rep. need to start passing legislation based on what best for society and not what will make a bunch of religious zealots happy. Somebody please get a clue.

14. Donna Locke writes
    February 28th, 2009 10:41 pm

    The constitutional right to privacy, as established at this point by substantial legal precedent, will triumph. We won’t be going backward on this issue. Not for any length of time anyway.

15. The Avenger writes
    February 28th, 2009 10:54 pm

    Hey, Ryan Kristopher: what kind of ice is running through your veins?

    A Life is a Life whether it was “wanted” or not. A child is a fellow human being just like you whether it is “wanted” or not.

    Respect for life is what is best for society. Society is in decline because society has de-valued life–no one matters anymore. When you slaughter your unborn as a society, no wonder people abuse their kids, each other, the elderly–they get the message that life just doesn’t really matter.

    You need to get a clue. I hope you never become disabled or sick and then my tax dollars have to pay for your care.

16. Ryan Kristopher writes
    March 1st, 2009 1:43 am

    Mr. Avenger, I don’t really care if you think an unborn child is a life or not. I don’t believe it’s your decision to make for each woman or couple. If the mother does not want to have the child, then by definition the child is unwanted. An unwanted child should not be forced upon a mother or society and society should not be forced to take care of them. Of course we know Republicans, in general, don’t want to use their tax dollars to take care of them. We have millions of unwanted children sitting in prisons all over this country right now. Let’s assume that the 50 million abortions that have occurred over the past 30 years did not occur. We would by definition have 50 million unwanted children running around in our country. If you can tell me this country would be a better place if they were all born, then I want some of what you are smoking. And my care when I am sick or disabled has nothing to do with a woman’s decision to end a pregnancy and those effects on society. And it won’t be your tax dollars taking care of me as I have paid my fair share.

17. The Rep. writes
    March 1st, 2009 5:47 am

    so by your definition all the children in foster care or who are waiting for adoption should be put to death then right? I mean if no one wants them as you say and the state is paying for them then they are better off dead. I guess people on any social program (welfare, public nursing home, etc.) fit into that category. Put them to death too? I guess you could make the same argument for those who go to public school. I mean since they take your tax dollars and all.

18. Reality writes
    March 1st, 2009 8:03 am

    I said “see planned parenthood V. Sundquist.” Meaning the states ability to limit or limit by regulation was struck down by this court case. Much of the code you stated is definition and not truely limiting in nature. Some was even struck down by the stated court case but remains as part of the code.

    Staceee Campfeeled either can’t read or has a reading comprehension problem. If you actually READ Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist, Stacee, rather than having your opinions force fed to you by Brian Harris, you will see the Supreme Court struck down SPECIFIC statutes, but not the state’s ability to regulate abortion. Properly drawn regulation would be constitutional. In fact, the opinion states that specificially.

    Of course, demagogues like you don’t want real solutions. Abortion makes a great fundraising tool. Why mess with it?

19. TN4th writes
    March 1st, 2009 9:17 am

    Great analogy. Nothing in the constitution secures a woman’s right to refuse forced childbearing. Women are chattel and broodstock without a voice in whether they will bear children or not.

20. The Avenger writes
    March 1st, 2009 9:42 am

    Ryan Kristopher: Have you ever considered that maybe if our society actually cherished and valued (life) children, so many wouldn’t have grown up to end up in prison? Don’t you see the cycle and the connection here? Of course poverty and lack of education or lack of initiative, drug & alcohol addicitions, have plenty to do with the problem, but fundamentally, the idea of throw-away children compunds all these other problems. It is a mind-set. If I don’t want you, I just abort you, and then if I do another child, and things are tough, its just easier not to want you either, so you end up neglected, abused, whatever. It is all connected. Teachers are just one group who are burdened because people don’t bother to teach their chidren the basics like their colors, numbers, name, address, etc.

    Same thing with how we treat our elderly–we warehouse them in nursing homes. They are inconvenient, too.

    Society pays the price for the breakdown of the family. At one time families cared for all their members, young, old, middle age. Couples stayed together and raised their children, grandparetns helped out, etc. People look to government to take care of their families now. Pre-K, head start programs, etc.

    Abortion on demand is part of the overall problem.
    It is all about responsibilty. Or the lack thereof.

21. She Who Shall Not Be Named writes
    March 1st, 2009 9:44 am

    If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

22. Mary Mancini writes
    March 1st, 2009 10:35 am

    Taking R. Neal’s research one step further, a quick scan of Tennessee Code Annotated for the word “vasectomy:”

    Search Results
    There were no matching documents found.

    The point of this legislation is to highlight who is allowed to control their own reproductive health and who is not. Taking a page out from Aunt B’s book - men are trusted to do so and women are not.

23. Rep. Camper Fights the Powers that Snip » LIBERADIO(!) writes
    March 1st, 2009 10:57 am

    [...] heated discussion is going on this morning at a Kleinheider joint, and Aunt B., as usual, brings [...]

24. Ryan Kristopher writes
    March 1st, 2009 11:37 am

    In response to the Rep, I never said that I didn’t want to take care of all children or other citizens our country. Actually, my beliefs are exactly to the contrary. My statement was to the requirement being pushed by anti-choice activists that women are going to be forced to have unwanted children. Why should I be forced to pay for children that are brought into this world involuntarily? In other words, through forced child birth by religious zealots. If a woman doesn’t want to have a child, she shouldn’t be required to have the child. We can’t take care of all unwanted children. We don’t have the money to take care of the ones we have now. Maybe we should put a special tax on all anti-choice activists for the care of children born to women who would have preferred not to have the children. Rep, would you be willing to pay? Please don’t respond as we all know the answer to that question. As for your statement about foster care, you obviously did not read my post carefully because foster children before they were born were wanted by their mother, i.e. they weren’t aborted. After the child is born, it is our duty as a society to take care of all children. Of course, you would never know this by the votes of Republicans regarding most children’s programs. I do give props to Alexander and Corker for voting for the SCHIP program last month. They were two of only 7 Republicans.

    Avenger, I do not disagree with the good natured thoughts in your post. However, I think you are living in a fantasy world. There will always be people who can’t, or are incapable of taking care of their children. These are the people that don’t need to have children. Society would be better off if these people didn’t have children. I’m not being cold hearted, I’m just telling the truth. And forcing women to have children will not make society love these children more, nor will it change society’s beliefs toward the treatment of children, or for that matter, those less fortunate in general.

25. The Rep. writes
    March 1st, 2009 1:35 pm

    You seem to be confused as to when the choice to have a child is made. If you are having sex there is a chance of pregnancy. I think everyone knows that. If you go ahead and have sex you are making a choice.

    Now you will say “Rape and incest!” you are looking at less then 2% of abortion cases. Lets save the 98% of children that are killed and we can argue the 2% later.

26. Ryan Kristopher writes
    March 1st, 2009 1:49 pm

    One more thing and I will be through with this thread, I promise. What will the cost be to the state of Tennessee if the abortion amendment passes and Roe v. Wade were overturned. No one ever asks this question. On just an annual basis, there are 14,218 abortions performed in Tennessee (2006 DoH Numbers). If we take these numbers and just take the percentage that will likely end up on TennCare alone (currently 600,000 children on TennCare out of 1.4 million total Tennessee children). This is nearly 43%. 43% of 14,218 abortions performed each year is 6,113 new children on TennCare annually.

    If this amendment were to pass and Roe v. Wade were overturned, as the anti-choice advocates hope, Tennessee would likely have over 110,000 new enrollees on its Medicaid program within 18 years of its passage. The TennCare program has a budget of over 7.5 billion dollars and one-third of those dollars are state dollars. Children make up over half of the TennCare population. Folks we are talking about a conservative estimate of over a billion dollars for just TennCare alone as it is currently configured.

    This does not take into account TANF, Food Stamps, education, incarceration or the other numerous things required to take care of all these children. We are talking billions of state dollars. Someone please explain to me where this money will come from and how we will pay for it? I don’t want to hear about the right to life or women’s rights, I seriously want to know how we would pay for this.

27. Avatar writes
    March 1st, 2009 2:23 pm

    Ryan Kristopher,

    Your rhetoric provides all the proof conservatives need to demonstrate our point that liberals are in reality elitists. You sound like a Nazi, and you’re so blind you can’t even see it.

    Do us all a favor and find your soul.

28. Mike Samoose writes
    March 1st, 2009 2:37 pm

    TN 4th writes “Great analogy. Nothing in the constitution secures a woman’s right to refuse forced childbearing. Women are chattel and broodstock without a voice in whether they will bear children or not.”

29. Mike Samoose writes
    March 1st, 2009 2:40 pm

    When women quit spreading their legs for the dogs who seek them out for no reason than their own personnel play toy maybe then they won’t be referred to as chattel and broodstock.

30. Ryan Kristopher writes
    March 1st, 2009 4:08 pm

    While I made a promise not to comment again on this thread, that was before I was called a Nazi and a person without a soul. I believe people without souls are those that would force women into having children they don’t want or can’t afford ,and then after the children are born turning their backs on them. I know it’s easier to call someone a Nazi rather than answer the question posed. And if elitist means actually thinking about an issue rather than listening to right wing nut jobs, then call me an elitist. Calling people names is about all right wingers can do these days, unfortunately, it works very well in Tennessee.

31. The Avenger writes
    March 1st, 2009 4:30 pm

    Ryan Kristopher: Where is your heart? I think Avatar was pointing out that your ideas on who should or shouldn’t have children or why or why not they should have children reminds him of the Nazis. They built an empire on who should live and who should not and almost destroyed our world based on their belief of who is worthy to survive.

    Again, babies that result from an unwanted or unintended pregnancy are still human beings–what about their choice? We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness regardless of why we are born or the circumstances.

    We all forget that these innocents are our own flesh and blood and that is why we all are guilty of being souless. This is not about right wing nuts. It is about the most fundamental right–to LIVE.

    You would want me to fight for your life, wouldn’t you?

32. She Who Shall Not Be Named writes
    March 1st, 2009 4:42 pm

    For most of you guys, literally, pregnancy and childbirth is not a reality. It’s just something that women do. Just like women have no concept about how painful it is to be kicked between the legs. Babies and children, regardless of age, are the most precious resource we have and should be wanted and planned, if possible. Mostly they should be treasured and embraced, especially,when they are adolescents but not by our prison system and jails. I truly appreciate RK’s comments.

33. DADvocate writes
    March 1st, 2009 5:52 pm

    I’m part of an investment group that had been planning on opening a huge vasectomy clinic in Memphis. Guess we’ll be moving to West Memphis, Arkansas now.

34. The Rep. writes
    March 1st, 2009 10:03 pm

    RK,

    If roe was overturned and sjr127 passed nothing would change in Tennessee. Added cost $0.00. Abortion would still be 100% legal.

    Roe took the power from The states. It said abortion is guaranteed in the US constitution. SJR127 says Tennessee constitution is not more liberal then the us constitution and it can be regulated as the states decide. It would still be legal.

35. Donna Locke writes
    March 1st, 2009 11:00 pm

    it can be regulated as the states decide. It would still be legal.

    We’re talking about a constitutional right here. Roe v. Wade was decided on that basis. Like voting, there can be some regulation but not regulation that interferes with the right or makes it difficult to exercise that right.

36. The Rep. writes
    March 2nd, 2009 7:44 am

    Yes. I was saying if roe was overturned AND 127 passed.