Abortion vote expected to resurface — in November

After the Senate voted 18-15 last Thursday, largely along party lines, to change the proposed constitutional amendment, it was withdrawn for the year by its sponsor, Sen. David Fowler, R-Signal Mountain.

“Everybody made their bed and now they’ll have to sleep on it,” Fowler said after the vote.

Shortly thereafter, the Senate Democratic Caucus issued a news release with the headline: “Senate GOP Votes Against Partial Birth Abortion Ban.”

“The Republicans in the Senate have cast a vote for two very extreme positions,” said Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Haynes of Goodlettsville. “They’ve said women who are raped or young girls who are the victims of incest or a woman whose life is in danger should be forced to carry a pregnancy to full term — no matter the result. And they’ve also said they don’t want to add a constitutional provision banning partial birth abortion. Frankly, I find both positions disturbing.”

Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life, said his initial reaction to the Democratic declaration was to deem is “laughable” and “a pretty amateur attempt at spinning.”

But upon reflection he said the Democratic move is a serious political matter.

“I think what we see coming out of the pro-abortion Democratic camp is recognition that this is an important issue. They are going to try and redirect that momentum or at least neutralize it,” he said.

Harris said his group “will be working very hard to replace pro-abortion legislators. No doubt about it.”

Democrats say it will be hard to paint them as “pro-abortionists” because they voted to constitutionally prohibit partial-birth abortion and were willing to vote for Fowler’s amended resolution. The amendment said there would be constitutional protections for abortion in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother.

“It was not Democrats that killed it. If Senator Fowler had brought it to a vote, it probably would have passed 33-0,” said Sen. Tommy Kilby, D-Wartburg. “I voted a pro-life vote. It’s a solemn issue with me. My position on the pro-life movement is the same as George Bush’s.”

Senate Majority Leader Ward Crutchfield, D-Chattanooga, said Thursday’s vote may have been the first shot fired in the 2004 campaign.

“Most everything up here is political. The campaign is on,” he said.

One Democrat, Sen. Douglas Henry of Nashville, voted with 14 Republicans against the amendment. One Republican, Sen. Bill Clabough of Maryville, voted with 17 Democrats for it.

Fowler said earlier this year that pushing the proposal would at least provide a voting record for use by anti-abortion activists in this year’s election campaigns. Some critics of the proposal think that was its primary function all along, which Fowler denies.

Sen. Roy Herron, D-Dresden, leader in efforts to modify the scope of Fowler’s proposal, said the Republican used “the blackmail approach” of depicting efforts at compromise as an indicator of support for abortion.

The amendment to retain constitutional protection in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother was sponsored by Sen. Charlotte Burks, D-Monterey, who is considered anti-abortion by both sides.

“The pro-life community realizes that was a killer amendment,” said Senate Republican Caucus Chairman Ron Ramsey of Blountville. “I believe the pro-life community will realize that this fall.

“I don’t believe Charlotte thought it was a killer amendment, but she was used in this situation. She’s a sweet lady,” he said.

Fowler said he withdrew the proposal, which would have required approval in the next General Assembly by two-thirds vote of both houses before going to the people for their approval or rejection, because he thought it would have left the door open for what he considers an activist judiciary to decide what the law was.

Fowler said one phrase in Burks’ amendment — “The government shall not interfere with the decision of the family of a child rape victim to terminate that pregnancy” — could have led to a father who raped his child having control of a resulting pregnancy.

“If we put that language in the Constitution, we are giving an activist court another hammer to beat us over the head,” Fowler said. “Abortion policy, whatever it is, should be made by a democratically elected body and not our judiciary.”

The proposed constitutional amendment effort grew out of a 2000 state Supreme Court decision declaring that the Tennessee Constitution grants women a greater right to abortion than does the U.S. Constitution.

Fowler’s amendment would have specified that the Tennessee Constitution did not provide any greater right to abortion than the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.