Taxpayers Deserve a Fair and Thoughtful Investigation of Planned Parenthood

Phil Roe

by Congressman Phil Row, M.D., 1st District of Tennessee - Last week, we saw history made in the House of Representatives twice – for very different reasons. On Thursday, the Pope addressed Congress for the first time in history. Then on Friday, House Speaker John Boehner announced he would resign at the end of October. The Speaker is a good man and, though I have not always agreed with him, has always tried to do the best he could to fight the President’s liberal policies. Now, House Republicans must choose a new Speaker who can communicate our shared conservative values and renew the fight against ever-expanding government.

Many of my colleagues are putting their names forward for leadership posts. Right now, I’m in the process of meeting with each leadership candidate who has asked for my vote. I will only support a candidate committed to promoting and acting on a positive conservative agenda for House Republicans. We’ve got a lot of work to do within the House Republican Conference, and I’m excited to move forward and continue to get things done for the American people.

As you may know, on Wednesday the House passed a Continuing Resolution that would fund the government through December 11. I voted against this legislation because I believe more needs to be done to investigate Planned Parenthood’s alleged practice of selling the body parts of aborted children. These acts are abhorrent and must be stopped. The House has passed several bills to help address this issue. First, we are in the process of establishing a special investigative committee that will be tasked with determining the extent to which Planned Parenthood violated the law. This week, we passed H.R. 3495, the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act, which give states the authority to withhold Medicaid funding from providers who offer abortion services, a move that has recently been blocked by the Center for Medicaid and Medicaid Services. As I’ve previously mentioned, the House has also acted to defund Planned Parenthood for one year and to further protect newborn babies who survive abortions.

Democrats have called the push for answers an attack on women’s access to health care, and I take great offense to that talking point. As an OB-GYN who spent my entire career caring for women, I believe we should move the funds from Planned Parenthood to other community health centers while Congress completes a thorough investigation into Planned Parenthood’s practices. The allegations against Planned Parenthood – an organization that receives around $500 million in government funding each year – are deeply troubling. It is absolutely shameful that House and Senate Democrats refuse to provide transparency for taxpayers and conduct a fair and thoughtful investigation into these horrific claims.

Over the next two months, we must work in a bipartisan and bicameral way to find an acceptable path forward to address the issues with Planned Parenthood. I’ve heard from many constituents who wished to share their concerns about Planned Parenthood, and I believe this is an issue worth fighting for. You can rest assured I will continue to stand up for the views of East Tennesseans.

Top Stories

Who I am supporting in the race for Mayor, Vice Mayor and members of the Metro Council and how I am voting on the proposed charter amendments.

David  Fox for Mayor

Below is the list of who I am supporting in the race for Mayor, Vice Mayor and members of the Metro Council and my recommendation on the proposed charter amendments.

This is just a list. For commentary on why I am making the recommendations, I am making, you may want to put the candidates name in the search box and anything I have written about the candidate will pop up.

In some cases I feel strongly about the candidate and am enthusiastically supporting that person. In other cases, I have simply chosen the least bad of two bad candidates.

Tim Garrett for Vice Mayor

I have not endorsed in every district, simply because I did not know enough about the candidates to have a preference in some cases.

In the at-large race, one may vote for up to five candidates but I am voting for only one candidate and that is Ken Jakes.  To win a seat outright, without a runoff, a candidate would have to get 20% of the votes cast.  If no one gets 20% of the total votes cast for at-large seats then the ten people who got the most votes will be in a runoff.  With 26 candidates running, I do not want to dilute the strength of my vote so I am voting for only one candidate. There are other good candidates running however, who I would like to see elected, so if one wants to vote for more than one candidate I am listing some additional good candidates.

Ken Jakes for at-large

Here are my recommendations:

Mayor: David Fox

Vice Mayor:  Tim Garrett 
Council member at-large: Ken Jakes

Other good at-large candidates: Robert Duvall, Jody Ball,
Adam Dread, James Keeton, and Karen Bennett

District Council seats:

In some of the races I am enthusiastically supporting someone and in some of the races, I am selected the least bad choice. In some districts, I do not know enough about the candidates to have a preference.

Lioniel Green, Jr.

District 1

District 1: Lioniel Green, Jr. 
District 2: Carrie Searcy 
District 3: No recommendation 
District 4: Robert Swope
District 5: Scott Davis
District 6: Brett A. Withers
District 7: Stephen Clements
District 8: Chris Swann
District 9: Bill Pridemore

Carrie Searcy
District 2

District 10: Doug Pardue
District 11: Larry Hagar 
District 12: Steve Glover
District 13: No Recommendation
District 14: No Recommendation
District 15: Jeff Syracuse
District 16: Tony Tenpenny
District 17: Tony Watson 
District 18: Burkley Allen 
District 19: Amanda Harrison  
District 20: Frank Stabile
District 21: No Recommendation 
District 22: Sheri Weiner
District 23: Jim Roberts 

Robert Swope
District 4

Steve Clements
District 7

Cris Swann
District 8

Tony Tenpenny
District 16

Jim Roberts
District  23

Tony Watson
District 17

Amanda Harrison
District 19

Lonnie Spivak
District 35

Davette Blalock
District 27

Melissa Smithson
District 28

District 24: Allen Grant
District 25: Russ Pulley
District 26: No Recommendation
District 27: Davette Blalock 
District 28: Melissa Smithson
District 29: Karen Johnson
District 30: Write in a name 
District 31: Fabian Bedne 
District 32: No recommendation 
District 33: Sam Coleman
District 34: No recommendation
District 35: Lonnie Spivak

Charter Amendment 1: Effective August 2023, Council terms would be increased from two consecutive four-year terms to three consecutive four-year terms: Voting "yes."

Charter Amendment 2: Beginning September 1, 2019, this would increase the number of consecutive terms a council member could serve from two terms to three terms. Also, it would reduce the council from a 40 to 27 members and would reduce the number of districts from 35 to 24 and reduce the number of at-large council members from 5 to 3: Voting "yes."

Charter Amendment 3: The would require that on any Metro tax-payer funded project with a value of over $100,0000 that the workforce employed by the project consist of a least 40% residents of Davidson County; Voting "No."  

Top Stories

Megan Barry is big labor's candidate.

The Tennessean today reported, "Laborers' PAC puts money behind Barry in mayor's race."  Megan Barry is a favorite candidate among the most liberal elements in Nashville.  She is the preferred candidate of liberal academia getting numerous campaign contributions from those affiliated with Vanderbilt University. She is also the candidate favored by gay rights advocates and she performed the first gay wedding in Nashville. 

She is the only candidate for Mayor who has said she will definitely vote for Metro Charter Amendment 3, the "local hire" amendment pushed by NOAH, the same group also pushing the home price fixing and rent control proposal that goes by the innocent sounding name of "inclusionary zoning." 

Amendment 3 would amend the Metro Charter to require that 40 percent of Metro tax-funded projects be staffed with Nashville residents. While at first glance that may sound like a good idea it would be very difficult to achieve and would greatly add to the cost of all metro projects. Contractors bidding on Metro projects already have their own crews.  For a contractor to lay off their employees and hire local people would greatly add to the cost of Metro projects. While there may be a significant number of unemployed people in Nashville or people not in the labor force, that does not mean they have the skills needed for big construction projects. Most likely, to come up to the 40% local requirement, contractors would just add bodies to payroll to the degree necessary to reach that 40% threshold. One can see how this would drastically increase the cost of Metro public works projects. This is the kind of "make work" legislation favored by big labor.

Megan Barry has also advocated a local minimum wage. She seems to have been outbid by Bill Freeman who has advocated a $12 an hour minimum wage, however.  Barry, on the other hand, as a member of the Metro Council spearheaded passage of a "living wage" for Metro employees. A "living wage" in Nashville is about $11.04 right now. She recently advocated a living wage for everyone when she said, "I firmly believe that we should have a wage that reflects what it really requires to live here, and that's a living wage." Although outbid by Freeman on the minimum wage issue, it was not by much.

Tennessee Laborers' PAC consists of members of Laborers International Union of North America, or LIUNA. LIUNA appears to be the only organized national labor group that has backed any mayoral candidate.   Freeman has been endorsed by of the teachers, police and fire unions and SEIU, but these are local chapters of unions as opposed to a national union.  Megan Barry is big labor's candidate. 

Top Stories

Does the Constitution prevent Nashville from enacting a local hire law? Yes, it probably does.

Daniel Horwitz, an appellate attorney in Nashville and a former Tennessee Supreme Court clerk, has a lengthy detailed article discussing potential constitutional concerns about Amendment 3 on his Supreme Court of Tennessee blog.

Amendment 3 is the "local hire" amendment that says that at least 40% of the work performed on taxpayer-funded construction projects within Davidson County would have to be set aside for Davidson County residents. While there are practical reasons to oppose the bill, such as that it would drastically increase the cost of public projects, and philosophical reasons, such as it is protectionism; Horwitz concentrates on weather or not it is even legal. Ultimately, he concludes that:

Amendment 3 will survive any constitutional challenge brought under either the Dormant Commerce Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. However, as a result of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Craigmiles v. Giles, and as a result of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Consumers Gasoline Stations v. City of Pulaski, Amendment 3 will probably not survive a constitutional challenge brought under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of Tennessee. 

For anyone who wants a deep understanding of the legal concerns about Amendment 3, I urge you to read, "Does the Constitution prevent Nashville from enacting a local hire law? Yes, it probably does."

Please vote "no" on Amendment 3.

Top Stories

Amendment #3 and Discrimination in Davidson County

Braden H. Boucek

by BRADEN H. BOUCEK, reposted from The Beacon Center -  On the ballot right now in Nashville is a charter amendment that, in a nutshell, would provide an employment preference for Davidson County workers on major public works projects. By mandating that Davidson County residents perform at least 40% of the work on publicly funded construction, the amendment would place workers who reside outside of Davidson County at a significant disadvantage under the law.

If the local hire amendment becomes law, it will almost certainly see the inside of a courtroom because it has a number of constitutional problems, as thoroughly outlined here. One such constitutional problem is the unequal treatment of people under the law, also known as discrimination. The expected response of the courts is an illustrative example of both how courts have misapplied Tennessee’s Constitution, and the importance of addressing that problem going forward.

Both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions address unequal treatment under the law. Despite the obvious differences in wording, Tennessee courts generally think that the Tennessee and U.S. equal protection guarantees are identical, meaning that if discriminating against out-of-towners is OK under the U.S. Constitution, then it is OK under the Tennessee Constitution. This is a shame. State constitutions were expected to afford citizens greater rights than those under the federal constitution. One that did nothing more than the U.S. Constitution would be frivolous.

The U.S. Constitution and Tennessee Constitution were prompted by a very different set of circumstances. The U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law was part of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed after the Civil War to protect newly freed slaves. Tennessee’s prohibition against “private laws,” that is, laws that benefit some people but not others, was added in 1835, long before the U.S. got around to guaranteeing equal treatment. It was aimed at curbing the General Assembly’s habitual practice of passing preferential laws for certain individuals. Frustrated by the unfairness of preferential laws and, frankly, how time consuming it was to pass laws that just benefitted one party, the Tennessee Constitutional Convention tried to end the practice with this constitutional provision. The preferential laws mentioned at the Convention were all aimed at bestowing some financial benefit to someone, like giving them valuable liquor licenses, fish traps, and mill dams. After the 1835 convention, if liquor was going to be legally sold, then the legislature had to make it legal for everyone. No more would the legislature be able to single out certain groups for favorable treatment.

This takes us back to the local hire amendment. If the amendment passes, Davidson County workers would be given preference under the law. If you live in a surrounding county, you could be denied work simply based on where you live. The amendment’s discriminatory character isn’t hidden; discrimination is the essence of it. This would be an obvious case of unequal treatment under the law. It creates an enormous financial benefit for Davidson County workers who are friendlier with the unions that are, not coincidentally, behind the amendment in the first place. We have not come far from 1835, only instead of fish traps and liquor licenses, here the politically connected seek to benefit from preferences in public works projects.

Local hire may be acceptable under the U.S. Constitution, but courts should be far more skeptical of it under the Tennessee Constitution. A court would not scrutinize the amendment’s naked discrimination against out-of-town residents under the U.S. Constitution (the Fourteenth Amendment) with the same rigor that it would with racially discriminatory legislation—an unfortunate reality, but hardly surprising given the Fourteenth Amendment’s historical origin. But if a court was no more rigorous in considering local hire under the Tennessee Constitution, then it is outright disappointing. After all, it was economic discrimination, not racial discrimination, which prompted the Private Bill provision in the first place. Courts should be extremely wary.

Nevertheless, Tennessee courts typically rule that there is no difference between the state and U.S. constitutions. This is bad history that can unfortunately lead obnoxious laws that really hurt working class people and do a disgrace to the basic right to be treated equally under the law. Tennessee’s Constitution is not merely redundant. It was crafted to put an end to laws that favor some at the expense of others. Time will tell if the Tennessee Constitution will regain its historical purpose and strength. If the local hire amendment passes, it may provide the fodder.

 Braden H. Boucek serves as General Counsel of the Beacon Center of Tennessee. He manages in-house legal matters and litigation for the Beacon Center, working to advance Beacon’s larger goal of promoting freedom and opportunity in Tennessee

Top Stories

Vote NO on Amendment 3

A coalition of 20 major business and professional organizations are actively opposing Amendment 3 to the Metro Nashville Charter during the Metro Elections, which end August the 6th.

The principle reasons for the Coalition’s opposition are:

• Increased taxes 
• Increased cost of Metro Nashville’s public construction projects 
• Harm local employment 
• Delay completion of construction projects creating additional traffic congestion and safety concerns
• Harm Nashville’s current reputation as “the place to be” 
• Harm Nashville’s continued economic growth and development 

 The coalition members are:

• Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce 
• Associated Builders and Contractors of Greater Tennessee 
• Associated General Contractors of Tennessee 
• Associated General Contractors of Middle Tennessee 
• Tennessee Society of Professional Engineers 
• American Institute of Architects – Tennessee Chapter 
• American Institute of Architects – Middle Tennessee Chapter 
• American Council of Engineering Companies of Tennessee 
• American Council of Engineering Companies of Tennessee – Nashville Chapter 
• Homebuilders Association of Middle Tennessee 
• Tennessee Road Builders Association 
• Nashville Business Coalition 
• NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association 
• Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry 
• Tennessee Association of Landscape Architects  
• International Facility Management Association – Nashville Chapter 
• Building Owners and Managers Association – Nashville Chapter 
• National Association of Women in Construction – Nashville Chapter 
• Tennessee Hospitality Association 
• Tennessee Business Roundtable 

 For more information on The Coalition for Fair Employment in Middle Tennessee and Amendment 3, CLICK HERE

Top Stories

Why the "local hire" amendment is a bad idea.

When presented with the opportunity to sign the petition to put the 'local hire' amendment on the August ballot, I declined.  I thought it was a bad idea at the time and I now think it is even a worst idea. It sounds good: What it would do is require than any Metro project valued at over $100,000 would have to have a work force made up of 40% local people.

I logically knew and intuitively knew this was a bad idea and that protectionism and "buy Local" programs seldom deliver the results they promise. Now, Ralph Schultz, President of the Chamber of Commerce has giving us specific reasons why it is a bad idea.

Writing in The Tennessean yesterday, Schultz pointed out that there is a labor shortage in Nashville. More than half of all current Nashville workers reside outside of Davidson County. A chamber report called "vital signs" published in 2014 projects a shortage of nearly 18,000 workers in Nashville by next year and a 35,000 worker shortage by 2021 unless steps are taken to change that.

While Schultz does not say it; I will.  It is possible to have a labor shortage and unemployed people at the same time. There  are people who dropped out of high school, have criminal records, have no skills, and do not have an aptitude for work.  There are people that are not qualified to do the jobs that need doing. Some people are not only not worth the minimum wage, some people have a negative work value- you would rather them not work for you even it they worked for free.

One thing that makes the "local hire" bill even worst than I originally thought it to be is that it cannot apply to out-of-state contractors. That is stated in Schultz's article but not explained. The reason "local hire" laws cannot apply to out of state contractors is due to the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the US Constitution. This clause says, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." That means we cannot say that a job must be filed by someone from Tennessee. The effect of this is that if the amendment passes we could refuse to hire people from Mt. Juliet or Watertown or Fairview or Springhill but not people from New Jersey or Michigan.

Schultz also points out that if the charter amendment passes, it will require painstaking calculations on the part of contractors and construction delays and will lead to drastic increases in the cost of projects. In another article on the topic, someone pointed out that this amendment could force companies to hire unqualified people to work on their jobs which could present a safety issue.  Someone I spoke to about this said that in order to meet the 40% requirement that companies would simply hire "bodies" to fill the quota, thus drastically driving up the labor cost of tax-payer funded construction projects.

Amendment 3, the "local hire" amendment, needs to be defeated.

Top Stories