Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Hypocrite of the Week: Tennessee Rep. Jean Richardson
Read why below, courtesy of Family Action Council of Tennessee:
Last week the House Health and Human Resources Committee considered a bill that would allow those who have had a sex change operation to change their birth certificate to reflect their "new" sex. Of course, adding and removing body parts does not change genetics and chromosomes - women still have two "x" chromosomes and men still have an "x" chromosome and a "y" chromosome . And, no doubt that is why Rep. Jason Mumpower (R-Bristol) made a motion to amend the bill to require that the new birth certificate reflect the existence of a sex change.
It was then, right there in a public meeting where government policy is being made, that Rep. Jean Richardson (D-Memphis) conveniently vaulted over the "wall of separation of church and state" constructed and revered by liberals and dropped the "J-word." Yes, that's right, she brought up "Jesus." Rep. Richardson, in response to Rep. Mumpower's physiologically correct amendment, chided him for his lack of compassion with a bizarre question to support her position, "What would Jesus do?"
Rep. Mumpower gave a fine response, but the extreme irony of her question is found in the fact that several weeks ago she voted against SJR 127, the resolution that would amend our state constitution and pave the way for partial-birth abortion being banned in Tennessee.
Yes, you read correctly. There is no enforceable ban on partial-birth abortion in Tennessee! And there won't be one without the passage of SJR 127. In what is nothing short of a political bomb shell, our state Attorney General recently stated that even the same ban on partial-birth abortion the United States Supreme Court upheld would not be enforceable under Tennessee's Constitution. (In Tennessee, an Attorney General opinion nearly carries the weight of law, particularly among legislators and the governor's administration). According to our state Supreme Court, even partial-birth abortion is a constitutional right in Tennessee. That is, unless we amend our Constitution to say otherwise.
We wonder what Jesus would do about birth certificates for those who have changed their physical appearance, but we don't ask that question when it comes to protecting unborn children in the third trimester from having their skulls pierced or crushed and their brains removed. Call me crude and insensitive, but those are the words the U.S. Supreme Court used when it said that partial-birth abortion could be banned. When we use these "nice" but sanitized descriptions for abortion procedures, too many do not know what we are really talking about. People need to know the cruelty of the procedure that was protected by Rep. Richardson's vote against SJR 127. Protecting partial-birth abortion is not very compassionate.
Which raises another point. Jesus was never asked about birth certificates. So he never spoke to the issue directly. But he did say that whoever would cause one of these "little ones to stumble," it "would be better for that man to have a millstone tied around his neck and that he be cast in the sea." When the House of Representatives sits by and makes it possible for even one partial-birth abortion to be performed and a whole state does not rise up to demand their elected officials act to change this, you have to wonder if there are enough millstones in Tennessee to go around.
Lastly, the press, as best we can tell, did not jump all over Rep. Richardson for bringing religion into the consideration of public policy, let alone the fact that it was Christianity. I have no doubt that had I asked that same question of my fellow legislators when I was sponsoring SJR 127, I would have been crucified by the press and political liberals. Maybe I should have asked and suffered the consequences. After all, we know what Jesus would do when it comes to being crucified for doing the right thing.
Last week the House Health and Human Resources Committee considered a bill that would allow those who have had a sex change operation to change their birth certificate to reflect their "new" sex. Of course, adding and removing body parts does not change genetics and chromosomes - women still have two "x" chromosomes and men still have an "x" chromosome and a "y" chromosome . And, no doubt that is why Rep. Jason Mumpower (R-Bristol) made a motion to amend the bill to require that the new birth certificate reflect the existence of a sex change.
It was then, right there in a public meeting where government policy is being made, that Rep. Jean Richardson (D-Memphis) conveniently vaulted over the "wall of separation of church and state" constructed and revered by liberals and dropped the "J-word." Yes, that's right, she brought up "Jesus." Rep. Richardson, in response to Rep. Mumpower's physiologically correct amendment, chided him for his lack of compassion with a bizarre question to support her position, "What would Jesus do?"
Rep. Mumpower gave a fine response, but the extreme irony of her question is found in the fact that several weeks ago she voted against SJR 127, the resolution that would amend our state constitution and pave the way for partial-birth abortion being banned in Tennessee.
Yes, you read correctly. There is no enforceable ban on partial-birth abortion in Tennessee! And there won't be one without the passage of SJR 127. In what is nothing short of a political bomb shell, our state Attorney General recently stated that even the same ban on partial-birth abortion the United States Supreme Court upheld would not be enforceable under Tennessee's Constitution. (In Tennessee, an Attorney General opinion nearly carries the weight of law, particularly among legislators and the governor's administration). According to our state Supreme Court, even partial-birth abortion is a constitutional right in Tennessee. That is, unless we amend our Constitution to say otherwise.
We wonder what Jesus would do about birth certificates for those who have changed their physical appearance, but we don't ask that question when it comes to protecting unborn children in the third trimester from having their skulls pierced or crushed and their brains removed. Call me crude and insensitive, but those are the words the U.S. Supreme Court used when it said that partial-birth abortion could be banned. When we use these "nice" but sanitized descriptions for abortion procedures, too many do not know what we are really talking about. People need to know the cruelty of the procedure that was protected by Rep. Richardson's vote against SJR 127. Protecting partial-birth abortion is not very compassionate.
Which raises another point. Jesus was never asked about birth certificates. So he never spoke to the issue directly. But he did say that whoever would cause one of these "little ones to stumble," it "would be better for that man to have a millstone tied around his neck and that he be cast in the sea." When the House of Representatives sits by and makes it possible for even one partial-birth abortion to be performed and a whole state does not rise up to demand their elected officials act to change this, you have to wonder if there are enough millstones in Tennessee to go around.
Lastly, the press, as best we can tell, did not jump all over Rep. Richardson for bringing religion into the consideration of public policy, let alone the fact that it was Christianity. I have no doubt that had I asked that same question of my fellow legislators when I was sponsoring SJR 127, I would have been crucified by the press and political liberals. Maybe I should have asked and suffered the consequences. After all, we know what Jesus would do when it comes to being crucified for doing the right thing.
Labels: Abortion, General Assembly, Homosexuality
Permalink posted by Rob Huddleston @ 9:22 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Birth certificate records what happened at a particular time. If a guy chops off part of his anatomy 30 years after his birth it has no affect on what transpired at the time of his birth. A doctor certifies that he brought a male or female child into this world. It is ridiculous to think that one could later change what was witnessed previously.
Separately, regarding the hypocracy issue, I am constantly amazed to find that those who cry the most about separation of church and state when it suits an immoral purpose will not hesitate to invoke Jesus' name on some oddball garbage.
Post a Comment
Separately, regarding the hypocracy issue, I am constantly amazed to find that those who cry the most about separation of church and state when it suits an immoral purpose will not hesitate to invoke Jesus' name on some oddball garbage.
<< Home
