The letter:
Thank you for writing with your concerns; I only wish you had done so before posting your blog.Your initial reaction of confusion is certainly justified. However, I think Senator Marrero’s stance on reproductive rights speaks for itself; she is the most outspoken advocate for these issues in the State Senate. She certainly appreciates your acknowledgement of her record in your email. Obviously some of your readers are unfamiliar with this record; that is the only explanation I have for some of the vitriol directed at her in the comments of your blog. This is to be expected, of course, but I was still a little shocked at how quickly people were ready to lump her in with the anti-choice movement despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.To understand the disparity between her intentions and the actual text of the bill requires a degree of understanding of some of the messier aspects of the legislative process (the “sausage making,” if you’re familiar with the expression).When a legislator has an idea for a bill, he or she must communicate that idea to one of the staff attorneys, who do their best to translate often vague ideas into language that will fit into the Tennessee Code. Sometimes they are more successful than others. Representative Hackworth’s original intent was simply that pregnant women with substance addictions be provided with treatment options should they make the decision to carry the fetus to full term. Somehow, a miscommunication between Hackworth’s office and Legal Services resulted in the fundamentally flawed bill that has unfortunately captured the attention of the blogosphere. I will not pretend to understand how this happened, but rest assured that the bill’s flaws did not escape Senator Marrero’s attention when she agreed to be its sponsor in the Senate. However, there is a filing deadline for new legislation, and in this case, the bill had to be filed that day or not at all.Now the bill can be amended with any language that deals with that section of the Tennessee Code. I am already looking at a version being discussed by Senator Marrero, Representative Hackworth, and the designated staff attorney that does not require any testing of pregnant women whatsoever. Without belaboring the details of a work in progress, suffice to say that Senator Marrero will not support any legislation that will require drug or alcohol testing of unwilling mothers. She understands that this would be completely counterproductive, as so many have pointed out, due to the fact that it might discourage some women from seeking prenatal care. Moreover, she wholeheartedly supports the provision of the bill that makes any and all drug test results inadmissible in a criminal trial. This provision was in the original version of this bill (a fact that escaped nearly everyone with a comment to make), and will continue to be a cornerstone of the legislation as it moves forward.I hope this alleviates some of the concerns you and your readers have. Moreover, I hope that you feel free to write directly, or post on your blog, any suggestions you have that would help us craft a bill that will address the problem of neonatal abstinence syndrome without infringing on the fundamental control that women must have over their own bodies.Rest assured that Senator Marrero remains your strongest advocate here at the capitol.Sincerely,Cory Bradfield
Legislative Assistant
Senator Beverly Marrero
615-741-9128P.S. Feel free to post any part of this letter that you feel will contribute to a productive discussion; I will probably join in myself as a civilian when on my home computer.
Yes, I have quibbles, of course, but I just can’t bring myself to them at the moment. I’m just glad to see this.
Tiny Cat Pants 
Okay, I’m glad you got a response. And I’m glad Marrero seemingly hasn’t lost her mind. Here are the problems I have with this response, which are more about how legislators respond to criticism than the specific issue:
1) It’s offensive to assume you don’t know how the process works.
2) It’s less than helpful to essentially say, yes, the bill is f’ed up, but it’s not our fault – without bothering to explain why they haven’t come out publicly and said, “that’s f’edup and not at all what I meant, and here’s how we’re going to fix it”
3) It’s unhelpful to suggest that you should have talked to them before criticizing them. You had more information available than most people (who are not busy reading proposed bill text), and have every right to criticism without doing back room private hand holding of your legislator.
4) Past actions/record do not give any of them a pass on anything going forward, and it’s offensive to dismiss critical comments with an assumption that people who are critical are simply unfamiliar with her record.
If all of these things are true, that the bill didn’t come out how it was supposed to, that Marrero didn’t mean it, and so on, then she needs to publicly come out and say so, at least when things like that happen in the future.
Rachel, yeah. Your point #2 is on target: there was no reason Marrero couldn’t have made her concerns about the bill and her intentions to amend it known while introducing it or immediately afterward.
Plus, this: Somehow, a miscommunication between Hackworth’s office and Legal Services resulted in the fundamentally flawed bill is awfully reminiscent of “mistakes were made,” ya know?
Pingback: Explaining The Drug Testing Pregnant Women Bill : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee
Huh? I could swear there was a comment to this post by Rachel that I was responding to. Am I crazy?
nm, I had an issue. It’s there, I think. ;)
“Rachel, yeah. Your point #2 is on target: there was no reason Marrero couldn’t have made her concerns about the bill and her intentions to amend it known while introducing it or immediately afterward.”
nm, the bill has only been “introduced” in the sense that it has been filed and referred to committee. The bill is not even close to moving forward in a committee. In other words, we are right smack in the middle of “immediately afterward.”
Things move a tad faster than that in the blogosphere; from the point of view of a reader here, it’s been half a week since discussion of this bill began.
nm, that’s one thing that also struck me. I realize that politicians and their handlers don’t want folks to take it to the blogs but they are going to have to get used to it.
I found that part of the response to be a bit peculiar. I honestly don’t understand why politicians don’t understand blogs. They should be trying to.
It’s almost like the words people write down and try to propose as law have…y’know…meanings and stuff. And that ordinary citizens are talking to each other about those words and what their practical effects might be, without waiting to have the meaning digested and spun.
It’s good to know there’s an explanation for this bill and I’ll look forward to seeing the amended language. However, the provision for declaring drug test results inadmissible (that’s nice) misses the point that junkies operate in a world of low trust when it comes to institutions. Women can reasonably be expected to behave as if this provision did not exist and resist opportunities for behavioral surveillance.
Newscoma, I thought your post about that today was exactly on-point.
http://newscoma.com/2009/02/24/the-choice-for-the-tndp/
And your puppy zen post may be all that gets me through today.
Here’s how I feel about where we stand now. One, I’m glad that the legislation, as it was written, is not the legislation that Marrero intended. She has been a great advocate for women in Tennessee and we cannot have folks flaking out when the stakes are as high as they are now.
On the other hand, it seems to me a pretty enormous leap from “pregnant women shouldn’t have to pay for rehab if they need it but can’t afford it” to “the State can make you take a drug test.” And I am very worried about what went wrong in the process that would allow something like that to happen. That, to me, does not seem like a miscommunication and I am concerned about how that got rewritten in the way it did.
And, yes, the days of people comfortable in the halls of power knowing the right ways to register their concerns are over. We’re paying attention and we can read the bills ourselves, and as far as I’m concerned, every Democrat in the Legislature is in a position of earning back my support. I don’t think I’m the sole progressive who feels that way.
So, yes, I believe Marrero is one of the best advocates in the state for women’s rights. No, I don’t believe that means I’m going to trust that, if her legislation seems funky, she’ll straighten it out later.
It’s almost like the words people write down and try to propose as law have…y’know…meanings and stuff. And that ordinary citizens are talking to each other about those words and what their practical effects might be, without waiting to have the meaning digested and spun.
Really. What do these damn bloggers think they’re doiong, thinking and writing and such. Don’t they know who runs things?
And speaking of running things, did you hear Hell freezing over because Campy has a bill that “made it out of committee” because “it was good.” Seriously! Who would have ever thought it?
doing, damn it, not doiong.
It would be so awesome if Campfield learned from this the pleasures of non-nutty legislation!
Is it evil of me that, because it’s Campfield, I expect that there’s some insanity lurking in a subclause of his bill that has so far escaped notice?
And is it out of line for me to wonder — getting back to Marrero’s bill — why legislation that claims to be about helping women with drug problems requires drug testing even in cases where there is no reason to suspect drug abuse?
While agreeing with Rachel’s point, I must now withdraw my charge of douche-nozzlery.