Visit BlueCollarMuse's column >>

BLUECOLLARMUSE

Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 4; Links Seeded: 0
Member Since: 12/2007Last Seen: 7/02/2008

Democrats Disenfranchise Tennessee Voters

advertisement

Those who remember almost any recent election will likely stop to read that headline again. After all, isn't it the Democrats who have been making the claim every other year that their voters have been disenfranchised? Isn't it the other guys that do that sort of thing? The answers are yes and no. 'Yes', it's the Democrats that claim it but, 'No', it's not the other guys that do it. Hypocritically, it is Democrats that claim it and the Democrats that do it. One need look no further than Tennessee SJR 127 for proof.

In 2000, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that common sense legislation pertaining to abortion in Tennessee be struck down. Things like a 48 hour waiting period and full disclosure of the impact of having an abortion to any woman seeking one were thrown out. It is vital to note that none of this legislation prevented, in any way, a woman's access to abortion. Just the opposite. How is it possible that more information and consideration of such a decision would be bad for a woman considering such a medical procedure? The Court, as courts often do, ruled otherwise. Once again, a small group of appointed individuals, set aside the will of the people as expressed through their duly elected representatives.

Since 2004, SJR 127 has been introduced into the Tennessee Senate and passed by a wide majority each time. Each time it has gone to the Tennessee House where it has died in Committee, the Public Health and Family Assistance Subcommittee of Health and Human Resources Committee to be precise. It was the same earlier this year. On a party line vote, the Subcommittee refused to allow SJR 127 to come out of committee to the full House where it would pass and then be put on the ballot in 2010 for all Tennesseans to vote on. Six committee members, all Democrats, are preventing six million Tennesseans from having their say. Talk about disenfranchising voters!

The resolution these six anti-democracy Democrats are keeping from appearing on the ballot is as follows:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

That's it. It's a simple, factual declaration the truth. There is no language in the Tennessee Constitution that secures the right to an abortion or funding for the same. Instead, it is up to the people of the state of Tennessee to decide!. Who could be against that? In 2008, in the United States of America, who could oppose letting the people vote on such an important issue and have a say in the way things are done in their state?

Who, indeed? It is the Democrats who oppose such a thing! It is the Democrats who insist the people be forbidden from voting on the matter! It is the Democrats who say there's no need to put such a matter on the ballot for the people to decide. One has to wonder why. Isn't it the Democrats who loudly and continually tell us that the people overwhelmingly support abortion on demand? Isn't it the Democrats who proclaim themselves the champions of choice? Isn't it the Democrats who are first to rush to the microphones and reporters with charges of voters being disenfranchised? Yes. It is.

But when it comes to actually having to support such a concept as opposed to merely talking about it, it is also the Democrats who are saying one thing and doing another. It is the Democrats who won't allow the people to actually have a say on abortion. It is the Democrats that refuse to allow the people to choose. It is the Democrats who sit in Committee and refuse to speak when the voters of Tennessee are disenfranchised. It's the way they want it.

Tennessee House members Lois DeBerry, Joanne Favors, Sherry Jones, Mary Pruitt, Jeanne Richardson - all Democrats, along with the chair of the full Health and Human Resources Committee Joe Armstrong, also a Democrat - all voted to deny Tennesseans the ability to exercise their right to govern themselves via the vote. It's six against six million! (excellent video link)

Once again I find myself wondering why so many good people with solid values continue to support the Democratic Party when the Party repudiates everything they stand for time and time again. I think it's time for those folks to rethink supporting Democrats. I think it's time for Tennessee to be governed by Tennesseans and not by out of touch, out of the mainstream Democrats who don't even understand enough about our government to know that it's government of, by and for "the people", not "the powerful". Email or call these Representatives. Let them know you'll be thinking of their vote as you cast your vote in November! At least the Democrats haven't found a way to take that vote away from you ... yet ...

Blue

Armstrong - rep.joe.armstrong@legislature.state.tn.us - 741-0768
DeBerry - rep.lois.deberry@legislature.state.tn.us - 741-3830
Favors - rep.joanne.favors@legislature.state.tn.us - 741-2702
Jones - rep.sherry.jones@legislature.state.tn.us - 741-2035
Pruitt - rep.mary.pruitt@legislature.state.tn.us - 741-3853
Richardson - rep.jeanne.richardson@legislature.state.tn.us - 741-2010

  • 4 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
1.1
{"commentId":1737069,"authorDomain":"bizzi-owen"}

I thought it was very well thought out, and I must say I do agree with the author. It is amazing how a few people can determine other peoples lives.

{"commentId":1737069,"threadId":"255977","contentId":"1447034","authorDomain":"bizzi-owen"}
    Reply#1 - Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:25 PM EDT
    {"commentId":1738357,"authorDomain":"bluecollarmuse1"}

    Thanks Mary -

    While I appreciate comments of any sort, even those that disagree ... I must confess that I have a fondness in my heart for comments from people who like what I've written.

    Blessings,

    Blue

    {"commentId":1738357,"threadId":"255977","contentId":"1447034","authorDomain":"bluecollarmuse1"}
      Reply#2 - Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:58 PM EDT
      {"commentId":1738430,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

      Clipping to Greenhouse Showcase. Although I disagree, it's a pretty good article.

      {"commentId":1738430,"threadId":"255977","contentId":"1447034","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#3 - Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:39 PM EDT
      {"commentId":1738997,"authorDomain":"bluecollarmuse1"}

      Spiffie -

      Thank you for the hat tip. I'm curious as to what it is you disagree with, however? The facts of the article are pretty solid. The situation is as I have described it. Not much to disagree with there.

      If it is the general observation that Democrats are disenfranchising voters, I can understand your disagreement and frustration but would have to point you, once again, to facts. It is difficult to find an issue where Democrats put their ideas out there in the marketplace to be debated and examined and then put to a vote of the people and then win at the ballotbox. The biggest victories the Left has won in the recent past have been won in the courts, not the voting booth. After those victories, the Left then prevents any new legislation or initiative processes from taking place that would give the people a say in the outcome. This effectively disenfranchises voters.

      Further, those court decisions often overturn the will of the people as expressed through the votes of their duly elected representatives. For instance, Roe v Wade - a court decision - overturned standing law in over 30 states. The voters of those states had spoken. The courts, not the voters, changed that.

      Environmental issues are usually decided by courts, not voters. Issues like taxes, immigration, gay marriage and on and on and on are increasingly settled by litigation and not by the folks impacted by the issues. And once the court decision is made in their favor, then there can be no revisiting or re-examination of the issue. If it takes 400 court challenges to reverse a law they don't like - so be it. But once the "right" decision is made, there can be no challenges to that. How many recounts were necessary in Bush v Gore? For many it seemed the answer was, "However many it takes to get the result we want."

      The ultimate example would have to be the Bush - Gore election. Unhappy with the outcome and unwilling to accept that they had lost, Democrats tried every legal option to change the outcome. To a large extent, I don't have a problem with that (although perhaps it's only because I preferred the ultimate outcome and had it been different then I would be the one upset). However, when even their "Ace in the Hole" tactic of litigation didn't work, then they simply repudiated the results. Bush wasn't elected, he was selected. It seems to escape them that if that was true, then it is also true that had Gore won the court mandated recounts and challenges, HE would have been selected as opposed to elected. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a scenario under which that would have been expressed by a single Democrat.

      All this and more is the rationale behind my assertion. I'm very interested in your thoughts on the issue so if you've a mind to, please respond. Or, if my compelling and flawless arguments are effective, I also invite you to re-examine any allegiance to the Democrats which you may have in light of this and other issues.

      The point is not to make you a Republican, the point is to note that Liberty is the goal. It's even noted in our founding documents. As long as any party, GOP or Democrat, is set on continually overturning your vote or keeping you from voting then they are depriving you of your Liberty and responsibility to vote for good governance. In my experience, that characteristic is found more often and more obviously in the Democratic Party. It is, in large measure, why I cannot support them.

      Blue

      {"commentId":1738997,"threadId":"255977","contentId":"1447034","authorDomain":"bluecollarmuse1"}
        Reply#4 - Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:22 AM EDT
        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"255977","isPrivate":false}
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        {"threadId":"255977","contentId":"1447034"}
        Start TrackingStart Tracking
        Stop TrackingStop Tracking