- Greg Cravens
About Bruce VanWyngarden's Letter from the Editor on Amendment 1 ...
When I see the "Yes on 1" signs in yards all over town, I just want to go up to those people and say "Do you really know what that means?"
It means we voluntarily give up our rights to privacy. And we invite our elected state representatives and senators, whoever they may be, now and in the future, to make whatever kind of laws they want to make about a woman and her family's personal business. I am especially bothered by churches that are promoting this idea that we should defer to politicians about our private medical decisions.
It is gullible to condone government overreach on a promise from elected officials who may not even be in office two years from now. If the "Yes" people want to say their religious dogma compels them to believe this or that about abortion, that's fine. We all have a right to believe what we want to believe. But, when those same people want laws passed that force me to abide by their beliefs, that's a violation of my rights under the Constitution.
It really does not matter which political party we align with or whether we are black or white, rich or poor. Women of all stripes and persuasions have problem pregnancies and are vulnerable to incest and rape. What a travesty it would be to pass an amendment to the constitution that affords no protection to us in those cases. Vote "No" on Amendment 1.
My husband is an Episcopal minister. We are both Christians and adamantly opposed to Amendment 1. Although some people view this amendment as a religious litmus test, we must really look at the bigger picture. Amendment 1, if passed, would threaten our cherished system of government. The proponents of the amendment in the legislative branch are basically saying to the judicial branch of our government, "Since you struck down the laws we passed in 2000, we found a way to get around it. We will just change the very document we've sworn to uphold." The sad thing is that they have hooked people of faith onto the idea that they can legislate morality and undermine our system of checks and balances.
The passage of Amendment 1 would set a dangerous precedent and could become a slippery slope for many issues, not just abortion. The Constitution ought to be about protecting people's rights, not taking them away. If you read the proposed amendment, you can see how vaguely it was written: "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion ... not even in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother."
While none of us likes abortion, if we or someone we loved was in one of these extenuating circumstances, we would want these personal and very private medical decisions to be made in the doctor's office and not in Nashville. Please respect the dignity and worth of each woman in our society by voting "No" on Amendment 1. And remember to cast a vote for the governor of your choice.
- Greg Cravens
About Jackson Baker's post, "Bailey Hits 'Deal ... Political Machinations'" ...
I hear there's a special costume for Halloween this year, with a fuzzy grey-haired cowboy in a black mask and big 10-gallon hat, sitting astride a white stallion. They call him The Lone Dissenter.
About Wendi C. Thomas' column, "Husband Wanted. Unemployed Need Not Apply" ...
I have an idea: How about the men not make the choices that will put them in prison and give them a record?
There are a lot of issues Wendi is pointing out here, and I can see why her critics like to give simple rebuttals like "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." They like these simple talking points, because it hurts to actually wrap their heads around the complexity of the issues.