The Tennessean just completed a fascinating series of guest editorials on abortion. The argument of the physician in support of legal abortion was so transparent that I was astounded to find it in print. What he admitted in regard to abortion was not only self-contradictory and discriminatory but horrifying.

I think I’ve found a silver lining for those who are frustrated with the governor’s Executive Orders on COVID and the two most recent court defeats on abortion—the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Louisiana’s abortion law and the temporary restraining order entered Monday by U.S District Court Judge William Campbell halting enforcement of Tennessee’s new abortion law. I also have a helpful resource for those who want to use this “silver lining” to their benefit.

When Governor Lee’s COVID-19 Executive Order first ordered certain businesses to close, I looked up the law on which he relied and saw it passed while I was still in the state Senate. My heart sank on the assumption I probably voted for it. However, this week’s executive order delegating authority to county mayors to require county residents to wear facemasks or face state criminal sanctions sent me to the Tennessee Code to see if I’d really voted for a law that would allow that. I did not, and it is time we tell our state legislators to put an end to law by executive branch fiat.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued its latest travesty, this time a judgment holding unconstitutional an abortion-related law in Louisiana. But no one should be surprised that the Court failed to use the case to overrule Roe v. Wade. Even I predicted that back in February. Now, here is my prediction for what the decision means for the abortion law just enacted by the Tennessee General Assembly.

As a child I played on the Civil War monuments, markers, and memorabilia on the grounds of Missionary Ridge Elementary School. I never gave much thought to what they symbolized other than the war itself. It was recess, and I was just playing. I do know that none of them venerated a particular person, but I have been grappling with how to think about the monuments to and statues of some famous or some might say infamous Americans that are being defaced or pulled down.

Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued a judgment based upon the word “sex” in Title VII, the federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination, having a meaning it did not have when it was enacted in 1964 and one that isn’t even its primary dictionary meaning now.

I’ve read with great interest the comments about and solutions to racism that have been coming from our nation’s policy leaders—politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and athletes. I personally have not found one yet who I believe even has a clue about where to begin. My friend, the late Phillip Johnson, a noted law professor and author, told us where to begin when it comes to finding solutions to issues.

This week I read in the mainstream media a column by a popular, evangelical minister setting forth his solution to racism and the on-going rioting. It sounded great. I would have agreed with it in the past. But I now find his diagnosis incomplete and, consequently, his suggested remedy ineffective. If the rioters really want to start riots that will change the world, then Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount provides the blueprint.

Wednesday was one of my most unpleasant legislative experiences in 25 years, because I was compelled to speak critically of a pro-life bill proposed, sponsored, and supported by people I like and respect and whose pro-life convictions I would never question. What made it so unpleasant is that I probably would have supported the bill a few years ago. But I can’t now, because I don’t believe what I used to believe. Here is my public confession.

The Tennessee General Assembly reconvenes June 1, and it is still up in the air as to how much regular business it will conduct. I suspect it will be rather short, because primary season will be around the corner. But I have come to believe that perhaps the thing voters most need to know about legislative candidates isn’t where they stand on policy issues; it is something more fundamental.