Do you support changing the Tennessee Constitution to allow stricter limits on abortion?

Amanda - posted on 04/19/2011 ( 42 moms have responded )

9

8

3

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - A proposal to change the Tennessee Constitution to allow the state to impose stricter limits on abortion is a step closer to voters.

The resolution passed the House and Senate in 2009, but must be approved by two-thirds of the membership in each chamber of the current General Assembly before it can go to voters in 2014.

The measure passed the Senate 24-8 on Monday.

The proposal says that "nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion."

American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee executive director Hedy Weinberg opposes the measure because she says it would move the state "closer toward taking away women's right to access safe and legal health care services."

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

ME - posted on 04/20/2011

2,978

18

193

I do not support any restrictions on the right of a woman to make private medical decisions with her doctor. If you DO support such restrictions then we, as a country, would have to agree to repeal HIPAA laws in general, unless we plan on creating laws that discriminate on the basis of gender...that pesky constitution...always getting in the way of the GOP agenda...

Lady Heather - posted on 04/20/2011

2,448

17

91

Regardless of what you KNOW, that doesn't mean you KNOW what other people are dealing with. Every situation is different and we don't all react to them the same mentally. And I'm guessing not everyone needs to have a baby as part of their healing process after a traumatic event. I'm quite sure it is possible to heal and have an abortion. Maybe not for you, but you are not everyone.

I'm sorry that you and your mother had to deal with what you did and it's amazing you had the strength, but dude - don't judge others for not making the same choices you did.

I don't know if I even want to comment on this crap. We fund abortion fully here and I'm glad. We don't have some crazy abortion rate because of it. I don't believe in forcing any woman to remain pregnant. Just can't wrap my head around that one.

Sara - posted on 04/20/2011

9,313

50

586

One more point I'd like to make. If you're going to defund PP because they cannot "prove" that the money they get from taxpayers doesn't go towards abortion, then who else are you going to defund? The fire department? They might put out out a fire at a PP, thus helping to support the practice of abortion. How about boycotting Starbucks? They sell coffee to doctors that perform abortions I'm sure. You probably shouldn't buy anymore girl scout cookies either, or let your daughter if you have one join. They donate money to Susan G. Komen foundation, which in turn gives money to PP. Those evil, abortion supporting girl scouts.



The argument that the pro-life camp is using about this issue is ridiculous, IMO. Sure, taxpayer money supports the overhead costs at PP, which I guess you could say in effect supports the practice of abortion, but you could apply that argument to so many things. You'd basically have to live in a bubble to not have some kind of money that you spend go towards what you consider to be "supporting abortion"...and hell, the company that would probably make the bubble you live in would probably make plastic medical instruments that are used in abortions. So really, nothing is safe.

Constance - posted on 04/30/2011

2,651

24

146

This the battle of all battles but people have to stop being nieve. Abortion is something that every woman be completely educated about sex. Now a days most kids don't graduate and get married two days later. If we truely educated everyone not just say sex is for maried people don't do it we would have less unplanned pregnacies hence less abortions. But in this country the second a school wantsto indroduce more indepth information about sex and the types of birth controls availble. Everyone freaks out and says schools have no place teaching our children abut sex it should be taught in the home. I do agree the best place to learn about sex is at home, but lets face i only a handful of parents really teach about sex. Of course I believe in teaching about abstinence but at the same time I am realistic in knowing that not every person out there is going to stay a virgin until marriage. It isn't about condoning sex outsid of marriage it out teaching responsibility. So for everyone who is PRO-LIFE maybe you should focuse on helping educate everyone instead of just judging. If you still aren't convinced that teaching or children about is a good thing. Look up all the articles of 10 year olds having c-sections.
I will say it again as well no one and I mean no one has theright to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body. Focuse on the children who have no one. Not the ones that couldn't even survive with doctors assistance.

Constance - posted on 04/29/2011

2,651

24

146

I don't care who you are but no one has the right to tell any woman what she can or can't do with her own body. No body really knows the whole reason why a woman makes that choice but it is her choice and nobody else's. Remember abortion was illegal in all 50 states at one point and the U.S. Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional, because it is.
We have enough children in this country that are unwanted and abused. We need to worry more about the ones that can live outside the womb.

42 Comments

View replies by

Ally - posted on 04/29/2011

385

11

16

I think it is an outstanding idea and more states should follow suit. I also think that for those completely irresponsible women who have multiple abortions they should just be sterilized bc clearly they have no intention of actually giving birth to the children they create over and over. Save money and more children from needless suffering.

Unless a woman is raped she has made a conscious decision to have sex knowing there was the possibility to get pregnant. I love how we tell our kids to do what's right and take reponsibility for their actions and somehow excuse a woman for ending the life of her own child? What does that teach...if you are irresponsible enough to not take responsibility for your actions then some clinic doc will just suck your baby out and you can get back to your day bc a baby just wasn't in your plans right this minute..

Also i think that rliable birth control options should be provided if not mandatory for people recieving welfare or govt assistance bc honestlt if you cannot support yourself you have no business bringing more children into the world for other people to pay for.

So glad that some states are holding people accountable for their actions, don't just view children as mistakes and making it more difficult for people to obtain such a horrendous "medical procedure"

Working as a nurse i have gotten to see the same low lifes come through ...pregnant again...don't have custody of their other children and high as freakin kites on amphetamines, cocaine, pain pills , marijuana..you name it...and yet they leave the hospital able to go get pregnant again with absolutely no consequences and I am sick of
it...

Just bc a service is legal does not make it morally or right and honestly if the state did not make it so difficult and expensive to adopt i would have already done it...it is like they don't really want to find these children homes with all the hoops decent people have to jump though yet they let these junkies keep their kids ALL the time..trust me i have seen it....it is insane and totally ass backwards

Sara - posted on 04/21/2011

9,313

50

586

The embryo/fetus/baby is a human, but where do you draw the line? Whose rights trump in the situation? That of a independently living, breathing adult human or that of a clump of cells that has the possibility to become a human? It's an honest question on my part...I think it's a slippery slope when you start trying to assign legal rights to life to a embryo/fetus.

Momof1 - posted on 04/21/2011

528

0

17

I am pro-life, so I agree with this bill. I wish abortions were illegal... and no, I'm not a Republican. It may be taken away a woman's right, but what if the man wants the baby and not to mention the baby is a living human.



Edited: I used to go to planned parenthood when I didn't have health insurance and it was great. The two I went to did not do abortions in their clinics, but I always felt kind of shady going into them. I think they should be funded, but not for abortions. Even when I didn't have health insurance, but I was living with my boyfriend (now husband) I had to pay almost normal price for the pills because I lived with my boyfriend. Makes little sense to me, beings how I was trying to avoid pregnancy so I wouldn't have to live on welfare.

Lady Heather - posted on 04/20/2011

2,448

17

91

Yup, and then you get things happening like what happened here a couple weeks back when a kid in care allegedly stabbed someone and then the cops tasered him and it's all been a big mess. He was 11 and in a group home. Dude. 600 a year. That's insane. And they all turn 18 and then what? Makes me want to cry.

Jane - posted on 04/20/2011

2,390

262

487

There are over 600 kids like this born in Texas every year. Most are black or mixed race, and most never get families but stay in the foster care system. Many of these then go on to the penal system. With our son's problems in all likelihood if we hadn't adopted him he would be one of those permanent "wards of the state."

Lady Heather - posted on 04/20/2011

2,448

17

91

That's awesome Jane. We are planning on adopting some older, possibly special needs kids one day. I want to wait until my bio kids are older and I've been better educated on their needs so that we're totally ready as a family. Definitely there are people out there for these kids, but it's never enough to give everyone a home it seems. :(

Jane - posted on 04/20/2011

2,390

262

487

We adopted two non-white special needs infants and we have friends who have adopted other such children and who are looking to adopt two additional non-white older children. People who will adopt these children do exist but there are nowhere near enough of them.

I am not pro-abortion, but I AM pro-choice.

Amanda - posted on 04/20/2011

9

8

3

Before I comment I will again state that I do not believe in abortion..Some circumstances warrant it in some ppl's minds..but the fact remains.. Choice is choice...the woman's. I personally don't think anyone has a right to say anything about your choice. Thank you all for commenting..I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that feels the way I do & I ,of course, welcome all comments & opinions :)

Jenni - posted on 04/20/2011

5,928

34

393

That's one thing I can't wrap my head around when it comes to the pro-life stance. It seems more often than not it's pro-fetus and once that evil woman is stopped from killing her baby. Everyone can pat their self on the back and walk away with the ego stroking thought that the baby now has a chance at life. They can imagine that baby's mother giving birth and loving her child and thinking thank god I didn't abort I didn't realize how much of a precious gift this child is. Or she gives the child away for adoption and some happy, stable family adopts it upon birth. Everyone lives happily ever after.



You know... I'd love to think that happens. I'd love to think there is a loving home for every unwanted child. That every child is born in perfect health or the sick drug addicted babies are nursed back to health. But who the heck are adopting these kids? I've talked to so many pro lifers who make no effort for these children after their birth.



My sister is an RN at a large metropolatin Sick Children's Hospital and she's worked at children's hospices. She's seen so many sick abandoned children. Left to suffer alone. With no one to love them or show them affection. Other then by her and the other nurses when they attend to their basic and medical needs. My sister is pro-choice. Yet even though she can have her own biological children, she has vowed to adopt when she's ready for kids.

Sara - posted on 04/20/2011

9,313

50

586

You know, I worked in social services for many years, for an agency that arranged adoptions. It's true that people don't want to adopt older kids with problems. They want a nice, drug-free, white baby, and that's just the reality of the situation.

Lady Heather - posted on 04/20/2011

2,448

17

91

No kidding. We have hardly any newborns up for adoption here, but we have TONS of kids in foster care who were exposed to drugs and alcohol and have all sorts of problems. Funny how no one wants to adopt them. The way I see it is the more we restrict abortion, the greater we risk having more of these kids in the system. Until we can take care of the ones we have, perhaps we shouldn't be adding to the problem.

Jane - posted on 04/20/2011

2,390

262

487

The only thing our county health department offers in regard to pregnant people is WIC after the child is born and income-based fees for immunizations. They don't do ANY of the many things that Planned Parenthood does.

Besides, why should some rich guy I have never met tell me what to do with my body? Especially since the majority of politicians have not adopted any unplanned/unwanted children.

If you are going to oppose abortion for other people, then walk the walk - adopt!

Rosie - posted on 04/20/2011

8,657

30

321

no i don't support any proposition to take away my right to do with my body what i want to. take away that right, they might as well start forcing people to have abortions since they don't give a shit about what people do with their own bodies.

Amber - posted on 04/20/2011

1,909

13

145

@ Erika~ I don't know where you live, but my health department doesn't offer all of those services. They send you out to an open door clinic, which is not free.

Erika - posted on 04/20/2011

10

12

0

To those who support PP (& organizations like it)...

Why is PP fighting laws that would make them meet health standards like other out-patient clinics? If they are already doing things "legally" and for the health of the mother, why fight tooth & nail against ensuring that all PP clinics meet federal health clinic regulations? When the laws are aimed at crisis pregnancy centers (or any other pro-life assistance center), PP jumps all over them for not meeting the requirements. Most of the crisis pregnancy centers are NOT clinics - they are primarily for consultations and are usually ENTIRELY privately funded by individuals not the government.

If PP is doing such a great thing by handing out birth control & such, why are the numbers of abortions (and "unwanted" pregnancies) rising year by year? Even as the amounts of birth control being handed out increase, the rates of abortion also increase. Birth control is NOT the answer for lower abortions apparently. Education is the best answer. 54% of abortions are performed on women who have used birth control. Only 8% of abortions are on women who've not used birth control. That right there says that birth control is not really effective at reducing abortions... If a particular method has a failure rate of 5% and 1 million women use that method, then there are going to be about 50,000 unintended pregnancies. More than 25,000 of those (according to statistics) will be aborted. I'm using the Alan Guttinmacher Institute numbers for my statistics. The CDC even says that "induced abortions usually result from unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception." So there again, birth control is NOT the answer to reducing abortions. Even having abortions is not the key to reducing abortions b/c about 1/2 of the women who have abortions will have another one.


Why do we even need PP when city, county, state, etc health departments provide the SAME services for the same or lower costs? Oh, yeah, city, county, state, etc health departments do NOT do abortions... That's really the only difference. Wouldn't our federal $$ be better used in these health departments/clinics than going to PP? Let's put it this way: if there are 100 county health departments in my state and $100 million of federal money for reduced fee health care (including birth control, but not abortion) that would mean each of the health departments got $1 million. However, if you add in the 10 PP as well as the 100 health departments that must share that same $100 million, each one only gets about $909,000. Theoretically PP & the health departments are meant to serve the SAME people. Many people that use PP also use the health department & vice versa.

As for Canada's abortion rate, its 14.1% (2003). Here in the US the rate is 19% (2008). The UK's abortion rate is around 18% (2005). I can't find information on Canada's contraceptive use, but if its similar to the US then still the majority of women having abortions are using contraception. Again, that shows that contraception does NOT eliminate.

Using the argument that restrictions on abortions will lead to back-alley abortions and more complications is disengenuous. The fact is that women die from legal abortions now. There is also some debate as to the reporting of abortion deaths is under-estimated because most women who've aborted don't tell others that they have aborted.

I am in agreement with regulations on abortion. I'd prefer abortion to be eliminated all-together. However, if abortions are going to persist, I'd rather know that all medical due dilligence is being followed by abortion clinics. I also want abortion clinics to stay within the bounds of legality. Providing an abortion on a minor (under 16 in this instance) should NOT be done without parental/guardian consent because sex among minors of this age is a criminal offense in most (if not all states). So either parents/guardians need to give consent or the police need to be notified EVERY time someone under 16 comes in for an abortion (medical or surgical). Since that is a legality - why fight against the regulations?

Basically, I guess my thing is that while I personally think no ONE should have an abortion for ANY reason, if someone chooses to have one the clinics that provide this service should follow rigorous medical & legal standards. What's wrong with that? They should also not be using my tax money when that same $$ could beef up local health department/clinics that provide ALL the same services except abortion.

Just a little background on me... My mom was raped at 14 & gave birth to my "uncle" back in 1973. I had 4 complicated miscarriages. I was diagnosed with breast cancer while pregnant with my daughter. The options I was provided locally were hope you don't die of the cancer while you have your baby OR abort your baby & get treated. I chose another option of leaving my locality & doing chemotherapy while pregnant. In other words, between my mom & I, we've personally lived & thrived through some of the common arguments in support of abortion. So I'm not just speaking in hypotheticals. I KNOW the anxiety produced by having a possibly terminal disease while pregnant. I KNOW the difficulties of maintaining a high-risk pregnancy. I KNOW the anxiety produced by not knowing whether your pregnancy will survive whatever situation you're in at the time. I know, through my mom, the difficulties of conceiving in rape. I know, through my mom, the judgements you go through when you're a teen and pregnant. I know, through my mom, the agony of knowing that the same guy that raped you got away with it because no one believed you &/or reported it (it just wasn't done back then as it is now). ANYONE can survive & thrive if given the appropriate support. Abortion does not foster support - it removes the "problem" and allows the individual to hide the "problem". Abortion solves NOTHING.

Sara - posted on 04/20/2011

9,313

50

586

I don't believe that people like me are the one's blowing this out of proportion. I think conservatives in this country are doing their fair share. Abortion is an issue that gets people riled up, it motivates Republican's voting base...it equals votes. They have every reason in the world to blow any issue concerning abortion as far as they can...even if it threatens to shut down the federal government.

As far as the PA doc goes, legal clinics are, or should be, inspected. Illegal clinics, by definition­, are not. So if abortion is made illegal, then all clinics that provide abortions won't be inspected. And the DEMAND for abortions likely will not change, or not change much, simply because it is made illegal. What this guy did was wrong, sick and illegal. To my understanding, the Republican governor of the state was the one that suspended inspections of abortion clinics. And you'll notice this wasn't a rampant problem in PA duing that time either, it was this ONE guy doing something illegal that he was making a ton of money off of. Not exactly a compelling case for making all abortion illegal in my mind.

Jenni - posted on 04/20/2011

5,928

34

393

No I get it Nikki, the OP's a bit misleading. But I am strongly against any restrictions on abortion... because in OHIO's case... where does it end?
Anyways, I'm debating for the sake of debating because these issues don't affect me personally. I just don't like the idea of governments having so much control over things that should be a personal freedom and right.

Yes the information is available but that doesn't stop misinformed people from voting or taking personal duty to read the information for themselves.

Nikki - posted on 04/20/2011

401

37

35

You are really blowing this out of proportion.



And the PA doc was supposed to be inspected every year like every other doc in PA. This was neglected. He was doing what was illegal because he could get away with it, because it wasn't regulated like it was supposed to be.



Edited to add- Whether people do the research of not. The information is out there and available.

Jenni - posted on 04/20/2011

5,928

34

393

No. I said cut funded abortions from PP. Not cut PP all together. I mean really though who cares if they do fund 3%. And if your gov't doesnt fund abortions then what is the issue?? How does restrictions affect you? How does anything a woman does with her own body affect you?

Maybe *you* research them but i persume the general public don't bother to take the time. They take whatever fox news or msnbc spew at them as fact. Which I believe accounts for the majority reflected in the polls.

I don't care how common abortions are. It's NOT my business. It doesn't affect me personally. There far less common in my country. No restrictions here. My point is that if you wish to reduce the number of abortions performed, restriction is not the answer. Taking away human rights is not the answer and yes if your government doesn't fund it then it is just a human right's issue. The right to believe whatever they want about when life begins and make their decision accordingly. You don't know when that is, I don't know when that is and science doesn't know when that is... it is intangeable.
You force more women to have their babies all you're doing is forcing more women and children onto assistance. More medicaid receipents. More gov't funding. Or do you suggest you cut funding to those programs as well and force more people onto the street.

I'm still not sure why you are against abortions if it's not $$$ out of your pocket than I take it's a moral issue? If that's the case than it is definitely a human rights issue. I wouldn't see it any other way.

Sara - posted on 04/20/2011

9,313

50

586

"Women already die from abortions that are not legal. Do we not remember the doc in PA who was performing illegal late term abortions. It wasn't properly regulated or inspected. If the government isn't going to monitor it to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up, then why not just outlaw it so you can police it better."

Ok, just in the interest of debating facts, I dont' think this is a very good example of why abortion should be illegal. First, what that doctor was doing was ILLEGAL, that's why his license was stripped and why he is no longer able to practice medicine. That is why what he was doing wasn't regulatred, because it was ILLEGAL. Second, people who provide legal aboritons are regulated and have ethical codes and laws by which they must abide. Once in a while you're going to get someone doing something like that Doc in PA, but cases like that would be a lot more rampant if abortion was made illegal. I really do not understand how you can think that aboriton would be better regulated if it were illegal. That just doesn't make any sense. Before Roe Vs Wade, hundreds of thousands of women died from illegal abortions or abortions they tried to perform themselves. Then, they didn't seek medical attention when things went wrong, and often bled to death, because it was an illegal practice that they could get in trouble for. THAT is what will happen again if abortion becomes illegal. How does that make things better? Illegality won't stop abortion. It's like Jennifer said, the only way to stop abortion is to educate people and give them better access to affordable BC.

Nikki - posted on 04/20/2011

401

37

35

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, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

This is the exact wording of the bill. There is nothing about outlawing abortion in it. It says that the people of the state canenact regulations on abortion. In 2000, PP brought a lawsuit and the state supreme court invalidated all laws pertaining to abortion in TN. including informed consent for women considering abortion, a 48 hour waiting period and a requirement that second and third trimester abortions be performed in regulated hospitals rather than out-patient abortion facilities.

This original post is no better than out goverment with the propaganda then is it?

Ok, if we don't fund them through public HC which we don't, why not cut gov't fuinding to orgs. that do perform abortions. you made my argument for me.

I think there should be stricter limits on gov't assistance anyway.

I never said passing laws on abortin would save tax dollars. I said it didn't think we should fund PP with gov't money. I stand by that.

And if you research the laws and bills, you can;t be swayed. I do that research by the way.


"There are two kinds of abortion in the U.S. — in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill.

Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old"


"According to its 2008-2009 annual report and fact sheet, contraception constituted 35% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 34%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; abortion services constituted 3%; other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility, were 11%. Those percentages include prenatal services to 7,021 clients and 977 adoption referrals to other agencies as well as 332,278 abortions"

Jenni - posted on 04/20/2011

5,928

34

393

PP main purpose is to provide BC and education. Only 3% funds abortions. They attempted to claim 90% to scare the public. So take abortions out of PP if it's really that big of an issue. I guess you'll just wind up funding more to social assistance.

Don't fund abortions through government healthcare. We don't. Then it will be just a freedom of beliefs issue. You won't have to worry about your tax dollars going to pay for abortions. Although something tells me you'll wind up spending more on social assistance and medicaid.

I understand how your government works. It spews propaganda to sway the voting public. Passing laws on abortion will save you tax dollars. I call BS on that one.

Nikki - posted on 04/20/2011

401

37

35

The argument to defund PP is because they cannot effectively prove 100% that government money is not used to fund abortions, that is not lawful in the US.

This is not a freedom of belief issue, it is a healthcare issue, which is not a proteccted 'right' under our first amendment. Our country is a democreatic republic. Which means that we elect representatives to our government but the ultimate decision lies with the general population. This just isn't a first amendment issue.

Jenni - posted on 04/20/2011

5,928

34

393

freedom of religion includes freedom of belief. Even non-religious people have rights to their beliefs not just the religious.

Jenni - posted on 04/20/2011

5,928

34

393

Do you honestly feel that the rate of women dying in legal abortions can even compare to number of women who will die from self-induced abortions? It's not even comparable. We don't have any restrictions on gestational age or criminal law against abortions whatsoever. But you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion past 24 weeks. Our government doesn't monitor abortions at all. It is between the woman and her doctor. Yet we have half the number of abortions as the US per capita.

Those things are happening because of lack of access and restrictions.

Apparently, there isn't enough access to BC. Especially considering your republicans are trying to defund PP. I'm not sure what the access is to BC in America but I'm sure lack of access stems from lack of Universal Health Care.

I'm not sure if I agree with the right to take away freedom of belief based on a majority vote by state. That's why same sex marriages are still illegal in a vast majority of states. Human rights should not be up for debate... they are a right. Just because a majority believes in one side doesn't mean they should have the right to take away the minorities rights. Freedom of beliefs should not be in question for the voting public.

I do not believe in abortion. But I believe much more strongly in the right to belief and the right to choose. I will not take away another woman's freedom to make that decision for herself. American pride themselves on the freedom of religion, freedom of belief... we're a free country. Yet you have no problems taking those rights and freedoms away from yourself and others. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Nikki - posted on 04/20/2011

401

37

35

The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

This is not a first amendment issue. Nowhere on there do I see, the right to choose to have an abortion. I am really getting tiredof freedom of speech meaning freedom to do whatever the he!! I want. Not a valid argument.

Nikki - posted on 04/20/2011

401

37

35

Women already die from abortions that are not legal. Do we not remember the doc in PA who was performing illegal late term abortions. It wasn't properly regulated or inspected. If the government isn't going to monitor it to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up, then why not just outlaw it so you can police it better.

I agree that education and access to BC would lower abortion rates IF it were taken advantage of. There are already programs where women can get free or low cost BC and there are still abortions.

I canunderstand it if the life of the mother is in danger or if the fetus has died in utero.

But all the things you mentioned are already happening. So that won't change. Plus you have orgs. like PP who don't follow all the rule al the time, so that can't be monitored either.

In the state law in Ohio murder is willfully ending the life of another or terminating another's pregnancy without cause. (paraphrase I will get the exact wording.)
OH is trying toi pass a bill that effectively outlaws abortion, so TN is not the only one thinking this way. I say if the voters want it to be illegal by a majority vote. Then states should be able to set their own standard for the legality of this procedure.

Jenni - posted on 04/20/2011

5,928

34

393

The scary thing is; legistration and less access will probably persume the abortion rates are down. Unfortunately, I fear that won't be the case it won't be able to take into account illegal back alley abortions. Or women leaving to get abortions where there is access. Or women dying from self-induced abortions.

Nikki - posted on 04/20/2011

401

37

35

I absolutely support this amendment. Of course, i am totally against abortion.

Jenni - posted on 04/20/2011

5,928

34

393

@Karen 99% agree. That's why early sex education incorporating a comprehension of media values pertaining to sex is vital. Taliking to our kids about what they see on TV, movies, and in music. Providing them with education based on science and not religion. Preaching responsibility and not abstinence.



Here in Canada we have the same tv programs, movies and music as you in the US. Yet we still boast far lower abortion rates and drastically lower teen pregnancy rates. So that part I can't agree with you on, I don't believe it's a losing battle.

Bondlets - posted on 04/19/2011

178

0

23

Jennifer - While I agree that education is key I also believe a huge amount of "education" comes from the media and as long as movies/TV shows are educating our kids and setting the standards (word used very loosely) that unprotected sex and unplanned pregnancies will continue to abound. This is, IMO, a losing battle that will not be fixed with legislation or more education because the other "education" is just too powerful.

Amber - posted on 04/19/2011

1,909

13

145

@ Jennifer~ YES! That is exactly the key. Teaching abstinence only will continue to increase the number of unplanned pregnancies, which in turn contributes to abortion.
Give women knowledge and birth control and you will have a whole lot less abortions. Give women abortion legislation and you will have a whole lot more unsafe abortions which put the mothers' lives at risk also.

Legislation doesn't help anything. Prevention does.

Jenni - posted on 04/19/2011

5,928

34

393

I've said it in quite a few other abortion debates and I'll say it again. My country, Canada, has no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever and we have half the number of abortions per capita as the US.



Prevention is the key: education and access to affordable BC.

Amanda - posted on 04/19/2011

9

8

3

Karen, I agree with you on that! I got this post from a local news channel. The comments there just blew me away! I had to see what CoM had to say.

Bondlets - posted on 04/19/2011

178

0

23

If the limits include no public funding for abortion then I'm all for it. Abortion shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer $.

Amanda - posted on 04/19/2011

9

8

3

While I am TOTALLY against abortion...I don't see how anyone other than the woman can say if she wants the child...you can't FORCE someone!! I am against abortion..however I am also against the gov. being able to make our decisions! I have 2 children 10 & 8...it was my choice to have them! Would yall rather the woman, who doesnt want the baby, have it & mistreat/abuse/kill it b/c she was MADE to have the child...it IS a womans right not to have a child..no matter how many of us dont like it!!!

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms