If the dollar has little value, then donate a few.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The plot thickens

As you know last night I was informed about an amendment that was added to the state budget that might nullify my language defunding planned parenthood.

I was quite upset as we had worked for weeks to get the wording right for a budget amendment and the language put in makes that language legally questionable.

I wanted to find out who had put in the stripper language after we had told them to take it out. I called Doug Hiem the legal attorney for the house and asked about the language. I said I was not too pleased about wording specifically requested to be removed, being removed, and then being put back in buried deep in the budget where it would not be seen until it was too late. I asked if it was something he did on his own or was it something someone had him do.

He said he originally took it out when we requested him to do it but later a member came back and had him put it back in. I asked him who it was and he said he could not tell as it would violate lawyer client privilege.

While it could have been someone from the senate side, four of the five power players (Ramsey, Watson, Mc Nalley, Crowe) have said they would not and did not support the change. The fifth Mark Norris (The senate sponsor) has not spoken on the issue. Logic dictates that the people with the real influence over the budget on the house side at that point (previous to presentation) are Speaker Beth Harwell, Charles Sargent (Chair of finance) and Gerald McCormick (Sponsor of the bill) No comment from them.

More to come....

UPDATE: Jerald McCormic texted me and said it was not him.

UPDATE II: Beth Harwell said it was not her.

UPDATE III: Charles Seargent said it came from the senate.

9 comments:

  1. Members can change the bill without offering an amendment? Does the sponsor and speaker have some sort of special power in this regard? It's bizarre to me that it can be changed without a vote.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank goodness it went back in - it would have eliminated funding for health care for thousands of poor women in Tennessee. Nothing at all to do with abortion counseling.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a Shelby County taxpayer, I am delighted that this went back in, and, to be truthful, Senator, i doubt that your amendment would have held up in Federal court, where this would have wound up.

    So, while I understand your frustration, this remains a win-win for the majority of the state.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Anonymous: Everyone knows that the important thing is to make the anti-abortion crusade as effective as possible. Collateral damage to the poor is perfectly acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, it would have been sent to the county health depts. to provide these services just like the other counties in TN do. PP relies upon these funds so they can increase foot traffic for the profitable abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Save your "shell game" stories for those who will buy it. I think most people know what Planned Parenthood is really all about.

    The Sen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Terminating Counselor Heim's employment is clearly the best solution. He is employed by the people. The people are the client. He is my attorney, and this person wants to have it disclosed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TN Constitution Article One Sec. 1. All power inherent in the people — Government under their control. — [NOT THE LAWYERS]

    That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tony Gottlieb, you do realize that your argument makes absolutely no sense, right?

    ReplyDelete

Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1