Now HB 12 was the act of a zealot who could not think beyond sending a message to the arch-conservatives out there that Carl Wimmer is numero uno when it comes to anti-abortion bills, so you should probably send him money so that he can get reelected.

Now, HB 12 was not just pulled out from nowhere. A Vernal woman paid a man to beat her until her child was aborted – truly a horrific act. But, instead of thinking about why this woman went  to such extremes to abort her child, Wimmer simply did the knee jerk thing and tried to pass a law.

Well, Wimmer got away with it, with the bill flying through the House and the Senate with little resistance from fellow Republicans; after all, it was an abortion bill from a good fellow Republican, so there should be no harm in voting for the bill. Indeed, as we speak HB 12 is waiting for the signature of the Governor.

Well damn liberals like me, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and ABC (just to name a few) rightfully called this a barbaric abortion bill as it  had the consequence of charging women with homicide in the event of a miscarriage.

So Wimmer, in order to save face and pretend to be the victim has proposed HB 462, a relatively good bill that makes it very clear that a miscarriage does not an abortion make. Basically this bill does what Wimmer intend to do in the first place, make sure that women are not intentionally harming themselves to prevent a birth.

But we should ask ourselves why Wimmer was not so careful in the first place when proposing HB 12.  Is it possible that he is a bad lawmaker and does not think about the consequences of his bills? Is it possible that he does think about it, but simply does not care about those who disagree with them – even if they raise very real an very valid points? Is it possible that Wimmer cares more about being the golden child of the Republican Party than doing the will of the people in his district and of the state? Is it possible that Wimmer is a bad legislator?

Well, I know how I feel.

I hope this bill passes, it really is a reasonable abortion bill when you get right down to it – it is just a shame that this bill had to be proposed because we already passed a radical bill before hand. Finally, I would like to point out that if this bill does not make it though in time, HB 12 will (probably) be signed into law and miscarriages could be illegal in Utah until at least next year – when we will have to clean up Wimmer’s mess by proposing a bill similar to this one.

Now, sadly, SB 275 has already passed, so this “bill to watch” is a bit of a moot point. I write only to draw your attention to this matter and to the dirty tactics Senator Stephenson is willing to stoop to when he feels threatened. Furthermore, I would like to point out that my good friend, Carl Wimmer, sponsored the bill in the House…so this bill is a double whammy. Finally, there was a part of me that felt that, as Director of Operations for Fair Boundaries, I could, theoretically threaten our organization by writing about this bill before it went through the system. Well, now, the only thing standing between a truly unfair law and justice is an unlikely veto from the governor.

What is the problem, you may ask? Well SB 275 makes it easier for people to remove their signature from a petition after signing if and when they gain more information and no longer wish to support the cause…and if the bill stopped there, I would support it completely – but the bill takes it one step further.

You see, petitioners can remove their signatures even after petitions have been submitted to clerks many weeks after the submission.

Aye, and there is the rub. You see, when you submit petitions, your name becomes public and people opposed to a particular petition now have a few extra weeks to put specific pressure on specific list of people in an attempt to have names removed from the list of supporters; meanwhile groups supporting the petition do not have the opportunity to collect signatures – opponents have a marked advantage in making sure that petitions are not successful. The debate should take place during the campaign, and neither side should be given an advantage in the court of public opinion.

Think about it. Is it fair to the 95,000 people who signed a petition thinking they were improving their democracy only to be told it failed because one person changed their mind after the campaign was over? To put it more broadly, is it fair to the winning team to allow the looser to keep playing for an extra five minutes after a game is officially over?

It should also be noted that these rules would take effect the moment the governor signs the bill…meaning that the petitions currently circulating would be subject to this rule – the legislature is changing the rules mid-game because they can, much like a petulant five year old that is not getting its way.

A final thought. Supporters of this bill claim that this bill was fair because signers may not know what the petition says, so it adds a level of fairness to signing a petition.  This is, perhaps, the most offensive argument possible. It says two things 1) groups, such as Fair Boundaries, are somehow concealing what we want they do – I would dare argue that these groups are far more open about the ramifications of our proposed legislation as opposed to, say, this bill. 2) Arguments such as this imply that your opinion is only valid if you know the issue inside and out.  By this logic, there should be tests to see if you are competent to vote in the first place. Perhaps we should have literacy or civics tests at the polls and tell people that their vote does not count if they fail any number of tests.

Talk to any legislator and ask them if they read the 1,000+ bills that move through the legislature over the 45 day session and ask them if they vote only on the ones they know well.

Shame on you Senator Stephenson for directly attacking our democracy and flaunting how much you hate the will of the people. Furthermore, Representative Wimmer, once again, proves that he does not care about the Constitution, only about maintaining power.

Finally, please contact Governor Herbert and tell him that the playing field needs to be level – this bill is despicable.

Click here to contact Governor Herbert.

Click here to contact Senator Stephenson.

You see, Sandstrom is proposing HB 432 – Hate Crime Amendments. This bill states that if a hate crime takes place on state or local property, the state will not transfer the criminal to federal agents. So, if you beat up a gay guy in Utah, don’t worry, you won’t actually have to face the charges.

Aside from how horrific this bill is on the face (ignoring hate crime legislation) think about the greater ramifications. We are basically saying that the state of Utah can pick and choose what federal laws it will follow.

This has happened before – ultimately it lead to a civil war.  Brash? Not really. If Utah can choose what laws to follow, why can’t I do the same? We have laws for a reason and we simply do not have the luxury of ignoring them because we don’t like them.

This is a bad bill because it sets a precedent that we really don’t want to go down. It should fail…unless I can pick and choose what laws I want to follow.

Click here to contact Representative Sandstrom.

We have passed the time were legislators can no longer simply submit bills, yes the madness has, somewhat, come to an end…well, except for the boxcars.

For those of you who don’t know, a “boxcar” is a bill that has been “numbered and titled” but does not have anything in it. In other words, if you think of a bill as a book, a boxcar would be one with a cover and a title, but contain nothing but blank pages. Legislators do this for two main reasons – either they want to delay time to mount opposition to a bill or they have not lined up enough support to pass a bill…yet.  In either case, boxcars are scary things because we know that the legislator is up to something, but all we have is a bill title that will only leave us guessing.

It is for this reason that I would like to draw your attention to the following bill titles that hold plenty of interest, but are lacking in actual substance:

HB 329 – Campaign Finance Amendments, B. Ferry
HB 358 – Voting by Mail, N. Hansen
HB 360 – Public Education Grants, K. Sumsion
HB 368 – Election Day Voting Centers, R. Chavez-Houck
HB 372 – Wrongful Death of Unborn Child, C. Wimmer
HB 405 – Transportation Surcharge, D. Ipson
HB 415 – Email Communications, K. Powell
HB 432 – Hate Crime Amendments, S. Sandstrom
HB 433 – Foreign Exchange Student Amendments, C. Wimmer
HB 376 – Monkeys as Pets, C. Herrod
HB 392 – Zero Based Budgets for State Agencies, C. Frank
SB 187 - Requirements for Initiative and Referenda Circulation, W. Niederhauser
SB 193 – Redistricting Advisory Committee, C. Bramble
SB 204 – Mid-Term Vacancy Amendments, B. McAdams
SB 215 – Transportation Revisions, B. McAdams
SB 226 – Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Amendments, C. Bramble
SB 227 – State Energy Amendments, C. Bramble
SB 233 – Wolf Management Act, A. Christensen
SB 255 – State Symbols Amendments, G. Davis
SB 261 – Ethics Amendments, S. Jenkins

At the time of publishing, all of these bills sit silent – if something changes and is interesting, I will be sure to let you know.

Currently, if a victim of sexual assault walks into an Instacare center, they can immediately receive emergency contraception. This bill would change the code and allow Instacares the right to deny EC so long as a hospital is less than 30 miles away from the center.

Now, I do not honestly think that any health center would actually deny care to a victim of such a horrendous crime, but I have to wonder why Biskupski (of all people) would propose this – after all, this is the kind of bill I would expect from a Carl Wimmer or a Chris Buttars – not one of the most liberal legislators on the hill.

But, I have to read the bill on its face, and the implications therein. I encourage Representative Biskupski to explain this bill in greater detail, and I am very willing to change my position. As it stands right now, it looks as though the bill would allow the denial of services to victims of crime.

Click here to contact Representative Biskupski.

For those of you who don’t know, the enacting clause is the portion of any bill that basically says that it is a law if passed, specifically it says “be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah.” If it is removed, it means that it is not enacted and is not, therefore, a law. To have an enacting clause struck is, quite possibly, one of the most dishonorable ways to kill a bill, as it is worse than just not voting on it – having the clause struck it is sort of like the legislature saying to the bill sponsor “we don’t like this idea so much, we are going to spend extra time just to kill it.”

Thankfully, Senator Robles is back with SB 117 – Pete Suazo Memorial Highway. The bill, again, would make Redwood road (from 2100 South to 1700 North officially the Pete Suazo Memorial Highway (see below).

I went to school with the Suazo children, and I remember how vivid the events of his tragic death were to the west side – a strong and passionate leader was removed from us so quickly.  Senator Suazo was the first Hispanic legislator and was a great inspiration to those who often felt disenfranchised – he truly represented what government could and should be about.

I hope this bill passes, it has already made it out of the Senate at the time of writing, and I hope it makes it to the Governors desk.

Click here to contact Senator Robles.

Well, enter Senator Curt Bramble (R – Provo, District 16). He is proposing SB 93 - Gubernatorial Appointment Powers Amendments, a bill that would give unprecedented power to the Senate.

Before I go on, we need a little civics lesson. The governor will appoint various people to various committees and posts across the state.  Often these appointments require the approval of the Senate in order for the individual to actually receive the job the governor has tapped them for.

Well, SB 93 would change the rules and allow the Senate to reject individuals without ever even giving them a hearing.You see, if, after 90 days (or 30, depending on the type of appointment it is), the Senate chooses not to act, the appointment is considered rejected and the post remains unfilled.

Currently, senators have to at least vote on an individual before they are rejected, SB 93 would allow senators to sit by and say that they were not responsible for important posts not being filled – and this process could go on and on and on where, in theory, every state government position sits unfilled.

Is this a possibility? You bet it is.  Suppose the Governor and the President of the Senate get into a spat, but we have a vacancy at, say, the Department of Health just as a outbreak of the next flu starts. With no one at the helm, lives could be lost all because two individuals didn’t like each other and the Senate sat on an appointment.

This bill gives far too much power to the Senate.  I think it is a good thing that the Senate has to confirm individuals, but this bill passed “goes too far” by the tenth line in the bill. I urge the Senate not to pass this and, if they do, I hope the House has enough common sense to reject it.  Finally, if all else fails, I hope the Governor realizes his role in the three branches and veto’s this bill. It does not hold senators accountable and it weakens state government.

Click here to tell Senator Bramble that this bill needs to be vetoed.

Well, that is where SB 60 comes in. This bill would allow vendors to create a voluntary “Utah Outdoor Recreation Search and Rescue Card” that people could buy and carry around with them, costing $3 for a year or $12 for five years. Now, if you don’t buy a card, the state will still come and get you, but this is just a little something extra to pad the budget for search and rescue.

Now, here is where I have the problem – the bill specifies that the vendor will either get $1 or $3 if they sell a card to you (depending on how long the card will be valid). I assume Senator Okerlund’s logic on this is that the vendor will offer some sort of discount program to those that buy the card and that this would offset the cost – but there is no guarantee of this. In theory, the vendor is making money without any sort of product being produced: Making a card is cheep and a person will be rescued regardless of being a “card carrying member.” Granted, it is not a lot of money, but it is still something.

Imagine if we sold 20,000 of these things across the state – that is anywhere from $20,000 to $60,000 that will not go towards search and rescue – to put it another way, that is (I would be willing to bet) the cost of rescuing one to three people.

I think it makes much more sense to raise the cost of hunting, and fishing licenses by, say, a two dollars, raise the registration fees of snowmobiles and off-highway vehicles by five dollars and have those additional fees go towards search and rescue – heck we can even tell people when they are getting their registration and licenses that this is the case.

My other problem with this bill is how it distributes the funds gained from this card. The money will be distributed not based on the number of search and rescues a county conducts, but by where the person bought the card.  Now I am sure that this will short change those living in southern and eastern Utah as they have a low population base but a high number of people visiting the outdoors.

This is a bill with a good idea and a bad execution.

Click here to contact Senator Okerlund.

Having grown up on the West-side of Salt Lake my entire life, I know first hand the effect gang activity can have on a school.  Furthermore, as a volunteer with the Salt Lake Peer Court program, I have seen how many students can easily get sucked into the gang lifestyle and how difficult it can be to get out – let alone receive an education that is of any value.  One of the most common things we hear from parents is that the gang activities their children engaged in started small, but nothing was done to stop it from growing.

That is where SB 59 comes in. The bill would require the State Board of Education to make rules that require local school boards to come up with policies related to gang activity and outlines various provisions that should be included in these rules.

The rules themselves are very straight forward: School personnel will report suspected gang activity,  students who participate in gang activity will not be allowed to participate in athletics, parents will be notified of gang related damage and possibly have to pay, parents will be made aware of serious gang-related incidents, and faculty and staff will be trained to spot gang activity.

My only suggestion to Senator Robles is to remove the suggested mandate to prevent gang members from extracurricular activities. Oftentimes kids join gangs to feel as though they fit in, to remove a possible healthy outlet is not advisable.  These students need something to keep them busy, and after school programs could be the key to a student teetering on the edge to veer away from a gang. Of course, if the student is too far gone, some activities should be removed as a punishment.

Overall, though, this is a good bill and it deserves to pass.

Click here to contact Senator Robles.