March 21, 2002: Attack on Reproductive Freedom - Contact your legislator if they serve on Health Access Committee to Vote No on SJR110

Dear Friends,

On Wednesday, March 27 (morning), a dangerous constitutional amendment (SJR110) exempting abortion from the privacy guarantee of the Tennessee Constitution will be voted on in the Health Access Sub-Committee of the House Health and Human Resources Committee. SJR110 has many sponsors in the Senate and House. It passed the Senate last year. If the resolution were to pass the House this year, it would be reintroduced during the 103rd TGA (2003-2004) and have to pass by a 2/3 vote in both Chambers. Then the resolution would be placed on the statewide ballot in 2006.

The introduction of this amendment is the result of ACLU's victory in the Tennessee Supreme Court. In Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist, we successfully challenged several restrictive provisions in the Tennessee Abortion Statute. In September 2000, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that several provisions were unconstitutional and that the Tennessee Constitution afforded women a right to privacy regarding her right to seek an abortion. The decision is momentous because it reaffirms the right to privacy found in the Tennessee Constitution.

Our message to anti-choice legislators who might be swayed is that SJR110 effectively eliminates the TN Constitution as the independent interpreter of state law. For those who are typically "states' rights" advocates and do not like the Federal courts, it is ironic that it is many of these states' rights advocates who are sponsoring this resolution.

SJR110 passed the Senate by a 21 (y) -10 (n) - 2 (not voting).

Our Talking Points include:

1) SJR110 sets a precedent that could diminish the privacy protection afforded Tennesseans by the Tennessee Constitution Privacy is a invaluable right that most Tennesseans embrace. While this resolution only focuses on abortion, any Tennessean who supports privacy should be concerned.

2) If SJR110 passed, and Roe v. Wade were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, our State Constitution could not provide any additional privacy protection for women. (i.e., Abortion would be illegal in our State).

3) It is typically unheard of for states to willingly give up rights guaranteed in their State Constitution.

4) Some supporting SJR110 are saying that these restrictions would have been upheld under the United States Constitution. In fact, using both the strict scrutiny standard under the State Constitution and the less rigorous undue burden standard under the US Constitution, the provisions would still be upheld.

If your legislator serves on the House Health Access Subcommittee (listed below), please contact them before the vote next Wednesday, March 27.

Please let us know what you hear from your Representative.

Many thanks.
Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director