The Oak Ridge City Council on Monday, Jan. 11, 2016, approved a proclamation that recognizes Sunday, January 17, as Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. Ellen Smith, third from right, cast the only vote against the proclamation, saying it was a controversial political statement. (File photo by John Huotari/Oak Ridge Today)
Note: This story was last updated at 7:48 a.m. Jan. 13.
Proclamations by the Oak Ridge City Council are normally not controversial, but one that passed on Monday was. It was perceived by some as a controversial political statement that entered the abortion debate.
The proclamation recognizes Sunday, January 17, as Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. It says Tennessee residents “aspire to honor the dignity and worth of every person and to defend the sacredness of each human life.†Also, the proclamation says Tennessee residents care for “society’s weakest and most vulnerable, including the infirm, the elderly, and the unborn,” and no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property.
The question of what rights to grant to the unborn or fetuses can be controversial because of the impact they might have on abortion rights. There is also considerable debate about when life begins.
Tim Stallings
Tim Stallings, executive director of Choices Resource Center in Oak Ridge, requested the City Council proclamation, and he did not think it weighed in on the political debate.
“It’s not just about the unborn,†Stallings said. “It’s about people with infirmities, the elderly.â€
He said the day started with former President Ronald Reagan and has been recognized by Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam. Reagan established National Sanctity of Human Life Day on Sunday, January 22, 1984, the 11th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the still-controversial Supreme Court decision that granted women the right to an abortion in 1973.
Sanctity of Human Life Sunday is on the third Sunday in January, near the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Oak Ridge Mayor Pro Tem Ellen Smith said she thinks Reagan started the day 31 years ago for churches to pray to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“This item is a controversial political statement,†said Smith, who cast the only “no†vote against the proclamation in a 6-1 vote. “The mere fact that this is such a controversial item in the community…I’m disappointed that we’re even being asked to vote on it.â€
Proclamations are typically “feel-good positions,†said Smith, who argued that the proclamation was outside the scope of the city, and City Council’s rules and procedures say controversial positions will not be supported by the City of Oak Ridge.
Proclamations can do things like recognize someone for an outstanding achievement or for years of community service. They are symbolic in nature and don’t have a practical impact.
In support of the Monday night proclamation, Oak Ridge City Council member Trina Baughn said Council has also honored trees.
“I can think of no more positive thing that we can say as a Council than we value human life,” Baughn said. “Do we value the life of a tree over that of our fellow man?â€
That was a theme echoed by Council member Rick Chinn, who said he saw no difference between the proclamation for Sanctity of Human Life Sunday and others for events such as Earth Day. He saw three emails opposed to the proclamation and received several calls in favor of it, Chinn said.
Oak Ridge Mayor Warren Gooch said the Council should be even-handed representing views across the city.
“This proclamation is drafted very narrowly,†he said. It’s the same as the one drafted by Haslam that met legal approval, and he doesn’t believe the proclamation violates any principles of church and state, or City Council rules, Gooch said.
Earlier, the mayor, like Stallings, said he didn’t see the proclamation as entering the political debate over abortion. Instead, he said, it was merely a request to acknowledge and recognize a day that is special to many people in the city.
Before the proclamation was approved, Council briefly debated whether to add it to the agenda.
Oak Ridge City Council member Charlie Hensley agreed with Smith that the proclamation, which was submitted by Baughn on behalf of Stallings, was a controversial political statement, and Hensley objected to the late addition, pointing out that Baughn has previously objected to late additions to Council agendas by other city officials.
In response, Baughn said that Council had never rejected a proclamation request.
Hensley, Smith, and City Council member Kelly Callison voted against adding the proclamation to the agenda. Once it was added, though, Hensley and Callison voted in favor of it, along with Baughn, Chinn, Gooch, and Council member Chuck Hope.
Stallings said Choices Resource Center, a nonprofit organization, is a pregnancy center in Grove Center that helps young females, in particular, with unplanned pregnancies, but also provides support and education, sex education advocacy in schools, pregnancy tests for females, and testing for sexually transmitted diseases for males and females.
See the proclamation here:Â Sanctity of Human Life Sunday Proclamation Jan 11 2016.
More information will be added as it becomes available.
Choices Resource Center is pictured above in Grove Center. (Photo by Choices Resource Center)
Representing a pro-life view in the abortion debate, a “Crosses for the Unborn” display is set up at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Oak Ridge on Saturday, Jan. 9, 2016. Father Brent Shelton, the church’s pastor, said the displays are set up for a month near the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but they are not related to an Oak Ridge City Council proclamation that passed Monday, Jan. 11, and recognizes Sanctity of Human Life Sunday on Jan. 17, 2016. That day is also near the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade. (Photo by John Huotari/Oak Ridge Today)
Copyright 2015 Oak Ridge Today. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Philip W Nipper says
Its too bad that council did not follow their own rules and procedures regarding controversial subjects or political issues when considering proclamations for approval. I think most folks would agree that the arguments over pro life / pro choice and the Roe v Wade decision are indeed some of our nation’s most controversial, partisan and divisive subjects and one I feel our elected non-partisan city officials should have steered clear of. I believe that council should consider revising their rules and procedures to include language that would stipulate the approval of proclamations be accomplished by a unanimous vote.
Trina Baughn says
“stipulate that the approval of proclamations be accomplished by a unanimous vote” Why stop at proclamations? Why not require a unanimous vote on everything?
Philip W Nipper says
Your response to my comments, although short and somewhat sophomoric, are quite revealing.
Matt Bailey says
Obviously it’s a mistake to require a unanimous vote re: the trash pickup discussion. We have a better rate for backdoor trash pickup than other nearby cities pay for street pickup. Mr. Chinn stated that “the rates aren’t going to go down in the future”, and 6 CC members understood savings to be gained. One CC member apparently lacks the vision to see the wisdom in this proposal. Anytime you can lock in this kind of low rate for multiple years, it would appear to be a simple decision. But, apparently not for some people. If it gets rebid and the price is higher, will that come out of the councilwoman’s pocket, or is that yet another cost she expects the citizens to pick up. It would appear that one CC member may not understand the costs associated with putting out a RFP or the value of locking in a long term rate (lower than their “corporate office” would likely agree to).
Charlie Jernigan says
You are, of course, correct. Since these things follow a normal Robert’s Rules vote, it should have been amended to include the protection of women’s sanctity of life provided by Row v Wade, the 75% of deaths in homicides committed by criminals with guns, the convenient suicides facilitated by easy access to guns, the children who die by unsecured guns in homes, those who lose their lives to the death penalty, and those victims of war to move toward a more inclusive definition of sanctity of life.
I am sure that this proclamation was not intended to actually portray any actual, fundamental support for sanctity of life, but was designed to drag the City Council down some pandering hole. I hope they can correct this additional misuse of foolish power and avoid the inclusion of such inane statements on their future agendas.
C. Hagan says
Mayor Smith, Thank you for your common-sense observation about the proclamation. I am not comfortable with elected officials who feel they can–through clearly agenda-driven proclamations–speak for me; and you at least indirectly realized that there are citizens who would rather not see Council unnecessarily venture into controversial areas. It diminishes the Council and those who serve on it to stir up trouble where there was none.
Tracy Stout-Powers says
Tracy Stout-Powers
The sanctity of human life is controversial?
You must be clairvoyant if you can tell that this was a “clearly agenda-driven-proclamation(s).”
There is an election coming up if you are that uncomfortable with CC members that approved a Proclamation that for ONE day, honors the sanctity of life.
C. Hagan says
No, I certainly do not see the sanctity of life as controversial. But the Proclamation includes “the unborn” as people, and that is a controversial subject because it says that a fetus is a person. As to the agenda behind the Proclamation, I neither have nor need clairvoyance, only logical reasoning. Look at who requested it, what that organization does, the timing of the Proclamation that coincides with the month of the Roe v. Wade ruling, the title of the Proclamation which uses a favorite phrase of the anti-abortion advocates, and the implied reference–also by title–to the 1984 national Proclamation that calls abortion “a tragedy of stunning dimensions.” And again, look at the inclusion of the unborn as people with Constitutional rights. For those reasons, I see the Proclamation as driven by an agenda. If I have come to a wrong conclusion, I apologize.
Let’s compromise. Remove “the unborn” from the Proclamation and surely we could both agree that it’s a commendable document worthy of support and perhaps a reminder that we should strive to hold life in high regard.
Tracy Stout says
How is someone to hold life in high regard when they have no problem with abortion? Late term abortion, any kind.
There is no need to compromise inn anything. Just because YOU and a few others don’t like it, does NOT mean he should change the way HE wrote HIS proclamation.
Does this REALLY even affect you?
Tracy Stout
C. Hagan says
You’ve jumped to a wrong conclusion about my opinion on abortion. I never said I was pro-choice. I simply pointed out that the issue is controversial.
And yes, it does affect me in profound ways that I choose not to describe here.
If you are unwilling to compromise, then we’ll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment.
Tracy Stout says
I can’t compromise, I didn’t write the proclamation. 🙂 But, if I were the writer, I wouldn’t compromise on my values, morals or beliefs just to pacify people that have no problem with abortion being used as a method of birth control in 21% of all American pregnancies.
You don’t have the right to not be offended.
Tracy Stout
C. Hagan says
In some respects, we agree. I wouldn’t expect or ask you to compromise your morals or beliefs.
Mr. Stallings has an absolute right to express his beliefs about the sanctity of life, both in the Proclamation as written and elsewhere without regard for my beliefs. You do too. But he presented the Proclamation to Council to make it a declaration or resolution to be voted on. Once the Proclamation became an item on the Council agenda, I have an absolute right to comment on it and suggest changes–in the same way I have a right to comment on almost anything to be voted on by Council. Mr. Stallings wanted the Proclamation to be a statement of public values, so–as a member of the public–I can comment. If my suggestions were not taken, I wouldn’t mind as long as they were heard and genuinely considered in light of their public value, not in light of their alignment with your values or those of Mr. Stallings.
You emphasize the author. Again, I would not ask Mr. Stallings or you to change your statements of belief because, as I said, you have a right to express them. You don’t have to cater to my beliefs in your personal morals and values. But the Proclamation is not a statement of personal belief once it goes to Council. He made it a public issue, and that’s why I suggested compromise. I wasn’t suggesting that you compromise your beliefs. I was suggesting that compromise is possible in a public forum about a public document Mr. Stallings presented for public discussion at a public Council meeting. If he had asked Council to declare that the Proclamation was a statement of his personal beliefs, I wouldn’t have commented on it at all. Similarly, if his organization had declared a Sanctity of Life Day, I wouldn’t have commented. But this was a public document, and I was attempting to make the Proclamation a document everyone could agree on, not just some members of the public.
Your inability to compromise comes from your belief that a public document must conform to only your values and no disagreement can be tolerated. Our government doesn’t work that way. The Constitution of the United States was written through compromise. I think a small town Proclamation could also be served by compromise.
Joseph Lee says
C. Hagan, thank you for your thoughtful commentary. This latest stunt by Ms. Baughn is truly unfortunate. I totally agree this action diminishes council and was intended to stir up trouble where there was none. She has repeatedly shown that she is willing to damage this body and the city if the result is more media exposure for her.
Sam Hopwood says
Gee Joe, I thought you were over the “small ball” stuff but then again, maybe not. I am delighted that you are still having heartburn over Ms Baughn, and that you have now added Rick Chinn and Mayor Gooch to the list. Which council members will be next to join it? Enjoy!!
BTW, my offer to help you move to Farragut still stands!
Joseph Lee says
Gee Sam, glad to hear from you. I was afraid you may not have survived the holidays but I see you have and I hope you had a great one, as I did. So, take your best shot Sam and remember push back is in full go mode. Enjoy!!! Now, with that out of the way………
We have a preschool to build and the vote on funding is coming up soon. It’s shaping up to be another classic battle between the end of days crowd and those focused on the future of education in our city. If you need a ride to the council meeting to see the show live, just let me know. My offer still stands. Thank you.
Charlie Jernigan says
Actually most pregnancies are “controlled”, if that is the term you wish to use, naturally.
I am not sure whom you blame for that affront to your version of the sanctity of life.
Joseph Lee says
The latest stunt pulled by Baughn last night was indeed unfortunate. This issue was advanced by her solely to soothe her need for attention and publicity and had absolutely nothing to do with advancing the interests of our city. While I do not agree with the action the council took I do commend them for effectively dealing with, yet again, another matter that was forced unnecessarily upon them by the councilwoman. Council members are suppose to conduct themselves in a nonpartisan manner, solve problems for the city and not cause them. Apparently Trina Baughn didn’t get the memo or she did and does not think it applies to her.
However, there is good news here in Oak Ridge. We are currantly in the last quarter of her last term as a council member. As of this morning her term was 79.5% complete and 300 days from today she will be out of office. The bad news is there is still plenty of time for her to further damage our city if she is permitted to do so.
Matt Bailey says
Solve problems? Joe, who gets their name in the papers by solving problems? It’s deja vu all over again. Bad publicity is better than no publicity and it’s been too long since her picture has been in the news. I miss the days when she bounced up and down in her seat, mad as a hornet. Those were the good old days. Now, it’s just old hat.
Joseph Lee says
We can do better than this, and will do so. I’m over the small ball.
It’s past time to get on with building this city up. Thank you.
David Allred says
It’s a nice proclamation as far as proclamation’s go, I would have easily voted for it…. but the real work of valuing human life is much more difficult isn’t it? Best I can figure, this is why Jesus didn’t have time to write much down or get buried in debates with the Roman magistrates about the dignity of human life (speaking of, Rome was certainly among the most barbaric in all of human history); he was busy doing the work of love and healing with the most marginalized members of his community.
I can say this about Mrs. Baughn however — she does demonstrate a value for marginalized lives. I’ve seen her serve, love, and offer helps to some of the most broken in our community. Like her or not, you couldn’t say with any accuracy that her passion is not equally matched by her compassion.
At the end of the day, that matters more to me (and I believe to God) than a 10,000 proclamations.
Matt Bailey says
Actually, Mr. Allred, I can easily disagree with your statement. She showed no compassion at all for the Police Chief (his officers or his family) when she falsely accused him of violating an order of protection. She showed NO compassion for Oak Ridgers when she failed to acknowledge she was wrong (and apologize) when multiple gov’t agencies determined she was completely off base. NOR has she expressed any remorse for the money that was wasted to investigate this absurd claim and satisfy her apparent need for publicity. Nor did she express any remorse for repeatedly contacting the media with all the falsehoods she invented during that period. Of course, this all left Oak Ridgers with a black eye.
Do you ever wonder if she calls WATE or Hallerin Hill with good news? Wonder why she doesn’t? Where’s the compassion there? Maybe the better question is why she calls the media in the first place? Where’s the compassion for the city she’s supposed to be serving? Or is she just serving her own ego?
We’ve already proven that she misled the city about the teachers leaving in droves. Compassion? Not so much. Heads up Mr. Watson, it appears you’re next.
Joseph Lee says
The marginalized are not served well by the distruction of the community in witch they live. I think Jesus, had he a website, would agree. Thank you.
Sam Hopwood says
Well said. Every now and then a clear voice of reason is heard.
Mike Mahathy says
While I respect the views of all parties here, I also respectfully ask all of you to let it go. We have important and serious issues in the city for which we should be focused on for the good of our city.
Tracy Stout-Powers says
By Tracy Stout-Powers
And people wonder why newcomers aren’t flocking to Oak Ridge to live? The attitudes, nitpicking and snarkiness alone is enough to turn most people away.
Mr. Stallings did not rewrite the Constitution, but a Proclamation. There is nothing to debate in what he wrote, he’s not trying to rewrite Row vs Wade. It was merely a way to recognize something that we should all hold dear.
William Cramer says
Why is it that Ms. Baughn is seemingly at the center of every controversial issue facing Oak Ridge at any given time? She talks about wanting to improve our local government, yet I only see her talking talking talking without ever actually accomplishing anything of any substance. I’m sick of her using our city government to get her name in the news.
Joseph Lee says
Mr. Cramer, a lot of us are sick of it. It will be over soon. November 8, 2016.
Matt Bailey says
Mr. Cramer, in 3 sentences you’ve captured everything many of us have been saying for over a year. Thank you.
Raymond Charles Kircher says
Looking at the upcoming budget sessions and City of Oak Ridge property taxes, I assume some of that sanctity has filled the business offices of the city.
Joseph Lee says
Spoken like a true negitron.
The topic is not property taxes. Mine went up too.
I like it here in Oak Ridge. I think I’ll stay. Thank you.