Amendment would only bring state in line on abortion

Tennessee Voices, March 28, 2009 by Carol M. Swain

Last week (March 19), my colleague Ed Rubin, dean of the Vanderbilt University Law School, published an opinion piece accusing the proponents of the proposed state constitutional amendment on abortion (SJR 127) of political grandstanding by engaging in a "legally insignificant gesture."

According to Dean Rubin, the passage of the amendment would not overturn Roe vs. Wade, and would instead impede our ability to attract new businesses, force youth to flee the state, and show the world that Tennessee remains an "embarrassing backwater of moonshine liquor and monkey trials."

The dean is mistaken on some of his points. Proponents of SJR 127 are merely seeking nullification of a Tennessee Supreme Court decision that unwisely applies "strict scrutiny" to abortion legislation rather than the U.S. Supreme Court's lesser standard of "undue burden."

Federal courts allow states considerable flexibility to enact common-sense provisions for the regulation of abortion. These provisions include informed consent, a short waiting period and state inspections of clinics. Unfortunately, these provisions were struck down in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee vs. Sundquist (Sept. 15, 2000), even though they were allowed in federal rulings such as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992).

Tennessee now has more liberal abortion laws than those found in many states. To its credit, the state has retained some meaningful regulations, such as a requirement for one-parent consent before a minor daughter can obtain an abortion, and a ban against the use of tax dollars for abortions, except in cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the mother's life.

Many abortion supporters fail to understand that there are valid religious and secular reasons for having provisions such as informed consent, short waiting periods and clinic inspections. Negative side effects often follow abortions. Research shows that women who have abortions often regret their decisions later. Many suffer from depression, infertility and miscarriages.

I speak as one of the millions of women who exercised a choice they now regret. In my early 20s, as a married woman, I aborted my unborn child out of convenience. In my naivete, I reasoned that if abortion was legal, then it must be OK.

Everything that is legal is not OK. The state has a moral obligation to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. The passage of SJR 127 would be an important step in the right direction for empowering and protecting women.