Idaho Chooses Life

The Idaho House voted 51-18 to approve SB1353, legislation designed to protect the conscience rights of all licensed health care providers practicing in Idaho. Only two Republicans voted against the measure (George Eskridge of Sandpoint and Tom Trail of Moscow).

Two courageous Democrats, Jim Ruchti (Pocatello) and Branden Durst (Boise) broke with the majority of their party to support the measure; in fact, Rep. Ruchti was a co-sponsor of the bill.
After some two years’ work on this issue, today’s floor debate was somewhat anti-climactic.

Reps. Rusche and Burgoyne made formal statements of opposition and debate was closed. Much of the energetic opposition to the legislation was spent yesterday during a floor session, in which Rusche attempted to move the bill to the amending order in order to remove conscience protections in end-of-life situations.

As the legislation moved through the Capitol, the focal point of opposition shifted from emergency contraception to end-of-life treatment and care.

By the time the legislation arrived in the House, the AARP became the most vocal opponent, expending big resources to mislead seniors into believing that SB1353 would deprive them of rights under Idaho’s Living Will statute. In fact, the legislation which gained final legislative approval today does nothing to change patient rights.

But it does make clear that no patient can force a medical professional to violate his or her conscience.

This legislation may, in fact, become a vital part of protecting patients under the threatened health care rationing now on the verge of passage by Congress.

There are many heroes in this long struggle, but the victory belongs to the Lord.

Thanks to all who carried us through prayer and legislative contacts and financial support.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Some fear it, while others extol it. The quantification of demographic information is perhaps the most mundane thing the government does, but don’t let that mundaneness fool you. Its results are at the heart of the politics and federal funds allocation for the next several years which makes it even more imperative that the decennial census be accurate and reliable.

Many have fears of the census gathering process. People who are here illegally fear discovery of their status which will lead to deportation (which it cannot, by law) and some fear the data will somehow be used to curtail or abridge their constitutional rights. Yet neither fear is justified as long as the constitutional intent and the US Code upon which the census is based are followed.

Authorization for the census comes from the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 2 of our constitution reads: “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” Subsequent US Code, Titles 13 and 26, guarantee the private nature of the data gathered, which should mollify concerns of those who have fears about it. In short, census data cannot be used to prosecute, extradite, or deport anyone living in the U.S.

Not only are the quantitative data generated by the census important for providing the demographic composition of the country, but they’re used to determine how many congressional seats, and electoral votes, each state has. It’s also used in the formulas for distributing nearly $400 billion in federal funds each year.

The 2000 census results led to significant changes in the electoral and congressional landscape. Eighteen states changed the number of electoral votes and congressional seats they have. Two states, New York and Pennsylvania, lost two votes each. Four states, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and Florida, gained two votes each. Four additional states gained one vote and eight states lost one vote. Utah was 86 people short of gaining a seat, which led to a court challenge which later afforded them that seat.

Politicians know how important this process is, which is why the White House announced last year they were going to have the Chief of Staff to the president oversee the census, rather than the Commerce Department, where it has been handled since 1902. This was one of the issues which precluded Senator Judd Gregg from accepting his appointment as Secretary of Commerce. A firestorm erupted, exacerbated by the fact that the dubious group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was slated to be one of the partner organizations for this years’ census. ACORN was dropped from participation last September. And even though the official census form and correspondence identify the Commerce Department as the source of the census information, I’ve not seen any recantation from the White House that Rahm Emanuel is overseeing the operation which is of concern from a manipulation and politicization perspective.

The 2010 version of the census features one of the shortest questionnaires ever with only 10 questions, and should take all of three minutes to complete. There used to be a “long form” with nearly 100 questions sent out to roughly 20% of respondents, but that is being discontinued in favor of continuous data gathering by the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a nationwide, continuous survey designed to provide reliable and timely demographic, housing, social, and economic data every year. The ACS will replace the long form in 2010 and thereafter by collecting long-form-type information throughout the decade rather than only once every 10 years.

The 2000 census was considered the most accurate to date with 98% accuracy, according to the Census Bureau. Still, with 2% error, that means roughly 6 million people were not accurately tabulated from the most accurate census yet. That equates to roughly $9 billion not properly allocated because of lost head count.

According to my dear friend Rogerio Castro, who works with the Census Bureau, over 2000 people in Pocatello were not counted ten years ago. That represents a loss of federal revenue of roughly $2.8 million annually for infrastructure, highways, community improvements, education, veterans support, senior citizen support, and health services.

The decennial census is constitutionally mandated, and the results are critical to our electoral representation and distribution of funds to Southeast Idaho. Take the three minutes to complete the census. It’s time for all of us to be counted.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

I like to get to the State House early in the morning, before the committee secretaries are in the building and even better, to avoid the heavy traffic as it descends on downtown Boise. It works most days and it provides me with a few minutes to plan for the day and get ready for things I have to get done.

The Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee for the most part wrapped up its work for now, having set most of the budgets for the next fiscal year. That triggers about a two week process to get those bills passed and close down the session. The trick will be to get that done without a hitch. Intent language (specific direction on how to spend the money) in the budget bills has more policy altering mechanisms than we have ever seen before.

That may not seem like a big deal to most people but there are consequences. In previous years there have been specific details for schools to spend funds and if it could not be used it was lost to the districts. This year intent language gives more flexibility than ever before. The words, “I hope this works,” are heard quite a bit among legislators.

In other areas the language will be giving new direction to agencies that will in large measure negate provisions in statute. There is a danger to this approach. A lot of these items were put into law after a great deal of deliberation and for good reason. Making changes in this manner will not allow for public comment on the changes, mostly because JFAC is not equipped for public interaction.

Let us say for example that in the Health and Welfare appropriation there is language that will discontinue some services that were shifted to Medicaid to relieve the counties of the obligation for those services. The favorite phrase is “Notwithstanding the provisions of law to the contrary,” a stroke of the pen that would shift programs back to counties and the property tax. That is a huge shift in policy without the ability of the public to be engaged in the discussion. I have seen some of the language, and will be reviewing it carefully in an effort to prevent the shift from occurring. In all fairness, the language will attempt to get at what most people think is the biggest problem with medical care in the US today, and that is the pricing structure.

Some people think that dealing with all of this budget stuff this year is hard to do, and it really is. For too long we have spent way too much money and now we find ourselves in a time of readjustment. My dad always used to counsel about raising our standard of living too high and warned of the consequences that would necessarily follow when things fall apart.

In these last two weeks (I hope no more than that) there will meetings to plan for, bills to read, debates to prepare and tough votes to make, and the work starts early.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The House State Affairs Committee approved SB1353 this morning on a party-line vote, 13-5.

After two days of testimony, the committee voted for Rep. Crane’s motion to send the bill to the floor with a “do-pass” recommendation. Democrats Higgins and King made substitute motions to kill and/or amend the legislation. Those motions failed both failed 4-14.

The legislation will now go to the House floor for final legislative action.

more to follow …

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Despite the serious threat posed to every Idaho family by ObamaCare, three Idaho Senate liberals joined with their Democrat compatriots in opposing the Idaho Health Freedom Act this afternoon.

The legislation is part of a strategic defense of Idaho against the threatened federal take-over of health care called for by Gov. Butch Otter. It authorizes the state to resist federal legislation, and prohibits the enforcement of mandatory provisions by any state or local official.

Senators John Andreason, Joe Stegner and Chuck Coiner are the only Republicans in the Legislature to oppose this crucial bill.

These gentlemen also joined Democrats in undermining the religious liberties of Idaho health care professionals when they voted against SB1353 – the Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Professionals Act this session.

With candidate filing now open to the voters of Districts 7, 15 and 24 – one can only pray that righteous men and women will answer the call to public service at this difficult time in our nation’s history.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

It appears that a storm is brewing. This is an ideological storm, and is of monumental proportions, and it appears to be sweeping the nation with hurricane force. It is, intrinsically, a grass roots movement to its very core. The forces converging to create the political disturbance are motivated by a visceral reaction to what we’ve come to recognize as “hope” and “change,” the Obama version of which is antithetical to those principles upon which this nation was founded.

Most of us are familiar with the Tea Party movement, motivated by the spending binge Washington is engorging itself with and the dilution of individual liberty. Aside from the obvious anti-incumbent demeanor of the Tea Partiers, they seem to be finding their voice in positive ways by coalescing around the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment which would constrain government spending to a percentage of the U.S. economy which would require a declaration of war or a two-thirds vote by Congress to waive the spending constraints. That should be an amendment any sound-thinking American find logically acceptable.

Another manifestation of the anti-Washington mood is the Mount Vernon Statement, posted on the Heritage.org website. The Statement is garnering significant attention, and serves as a reaffirmation of our founding principles. The statement posits, in part, “We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government. These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.”

Illustrating the profundity of the grass-roots movement against “hope and change,” ecclesiastical leaders are also fighting back against the secular, anti-religious and specifically, anti-Christian elements of the amoral, if not immoral cancer spreading out from our nations’ capital. As the Washington Times reported in December, “unlike the signatories of other declarations that are long on rhetoric and short on calls to action, the more than 300,000 people who signed this declaration (including 55 Catholic bishops who have oversight of more than 600 of the nation’s private hospitals) agree to engage in civil disobedience regarding laws that reject mainstream values.”

Signers pledge “that no power on Earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence” on the sanctity of life, the divinely ordained nature of marriage, and religious liberty.” Those truths, they agree, are open to neither compromise nor revision.

With conviction and clarity, the signatories vow, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

Further, the Oathkeepers’ movement shows how concerned our first responders and military personnel are over the possibility of being issued orders clearly unconstitutional. The movement was spawned by reports from General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s office early last year that the new president wanted their oath made to him rather than to the Constitution. The Oathkeepers declare, “We each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic,” they vow to disobey orders contrary to the constitution, including disarming of citizens, warrant-less searches, unlawful detention of citizens, and several others.

The media and the ruling party leaders in Washington, attempt to portray all of these as “radicals,” “extremists,” and “dangerous right-wingers.” It appears to me they couldn’t be more mainstream American. Those who assert their fealty to the Constitution are not radicals or extremists, except to those who disdain the principles and limitations it’s based upon. They rather epitomize the American spirit.

These reactions to “hope and change” are to be expected, and even applauded. Nationally polls indicate that just 30% of us feel the country’s headed in the right direction. Even Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton reminded us just a few years ago that dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism. Well, the country seems to be teeming with patriots who are being awakened out of their passivity and political agnosticism incentivizing them to fight for the preservation of the republic they love.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

We are still on target to have adjournment before the first of April, that is if someone does not move the target. In a way targets get moved around here quite frequently and one of them got moved some this week as rumors about the February revenue numbers spread all over the state. How far down they may be will not be official for a few days.

The heavy workload of bills has arrived in the House with action on the floor taking more time every day. One issue known as the Any Willing Provider bill took all of the floor time one day. After reading the bill (yes, I do read bills) I had concerns about the effect it would have on small businesses and potential cost increases for health care. I voted no on this one and the majority in the House did the same and the bill failed.

In the State Affairs committee we have kept pace with the workload and have just a few House Bills left to consider. Then we will move on to the items that have come from the Senate. If all goes well and the targets don’t get moved on us we should finish in short order. You would think that everything would be in the hopper by now, but legislators just don’t seem to ever run out of ideas. The stream of new stuff has tapered off dramatically.

This was my nine hundred mile weekend having attended Lincoln Day activities all over the district. Turnouts were great and it was good to get back to the part of the world that really matters.

With all of those miles of Idaho to look at, I was paying particular attention to the snow pack or the lack thereof. Western Idaho is bare. Even though that may not be too unusual it is not typical for eastern Idaho to have snow receding as fast as it has been over the last few days (at least for this time of year). Someone told me about the water meeting at the end of the week and that puts a different light on things.

It is now projected that the reservoirs will fill but natural flows and runoff are predicted to be at historic lows. There are a couple of areas that I have observed in my travels this week where there is still good snow pack. Camas County is one of those but unfortunately that won’t do the Bear River any good, and it won’t help in the Snake River Basin either.

Is there some good news out there? One of my older friends told me the other day that he considers every day above the grass to be a good day. While that may be true there is more good news than that. Even though my time at home was quite short this weekend, I did get a chance to go through the cattle and see the calves that a have been born. Some may not think that is much in the way of good news, but I still get a feeling of awe to see those little critters up and taking nourishment from their mothers. To me it is one of life’s miracles. And good news to boot.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Imagine yourself preparing to pay for your purchase at a local grocery store, and the clerk asks you, “Paper or plastic?” Innocuously, and preferring the diverse functionality of plastic bags, you reply, “Plastic.” Next thing you know your head is being smacked against the scanner and you’re being cuffed by some fearsome-looking officer dressed in green and white, and he declares, “That’s the magic word. Green police. You picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy.”

On returning home you see similarly attired officers scavenging through all your neighbors’ garbage cans, obviously looking for contraband. One officer yells out ecstatically, “Batteries!” at which time a swarm of green and white clad police leap into action and converge on the perpetrator of the heinous crime. What? You missed the crime? He threw away batteries. You can’t be much more egregious in your crimes against humanity and the earth than that!

That evening, after indulging in one of your favorite fruits, you go to the sink to dispose of the orange peeling in the garbage disposal. Before you even have a chance to place the offending rinds into the sink, a spotlight blinds you from a helicopter circling overhead, and an authoritative voice commands, “Put the rind down.” You should have known, it should have been composted instead of chopped up in the disposal. You abruptly turn and run for your life from the omnipresent green police as you see them swarming up your driveway to arrest you.

You next observe your neighbor doing a “perp-walk” down his driveway, while a live television crew covers the horrific incident. The announcer declares, “Tragedy strikes tonight for a man who has just been arrested for possession of an incandescent light bulb.” The bulb was undoubtedly a 100 watt variety, which is now banned from production and sale in the United States. He should have known better, you think to yourself, and had his incandescent bulbs replaced with those squirrelly mercury-based bulbs that require a HASMAT team to clean up when they’re broken.

You notice a couple of youth nearby being detained by the green police who are ostentatiously pouring the water out of their plastic water bottles, declaring, “What do you think of your plastic water bottles now?” They should have used bota bags, as long as they weren’t made of leather. That would have made them subject to harassment from the PETA police.

The green police have swarmed into another neighbor’s yard where a young couple is relaxing in a hot tub. You notice one officer attempting to place handcuffs on the young man, while another is proclaiming their crime, “The water setting is at a hundred and five.” The young man flees for his life.

These scenarios were played out during the Super Bowl a few weeks ago in an Audi “clean diesel” car commercial. All good humor (if we accept the premise that the ad was designed to be humorous) has an element of truth which provides the foundation for jocularity. The element of truth here is that there are no doubt many who would support such fascistic efforts to protect the environment and “save the planet.”

Those who would dogmatically adhere to such a creed would no doubt like to see legislation and enforcement by “Green Police” supporting their pantheistic pet peeves. Those who either worship the earth on a par with God, or in lieu of God, who believe all the earth’s inhabitants should be forced to abide by their personal pantheistic or environmentally conscious standards. But would not such legislation and enforcement be on a par with their accusations against protectors of the unborn, of “legislating morality”? Would that not that also be on a par with refusing “the right to choose,” which ostensibly is the sacrosanct precept upon which abortion rights are argued? The dichotomy makes for a delicious debate. Based on that value system, it’s okay to choose to kill the unborn, but it’s not acceptable to choose plastic over paper. Now that’s a warped value system!

There are parts of the country well on their way to such “Green Police” enforcement. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom twittered, “Ok. That ‘green police’ Audi commercial hits home.” And no wonder it hits home for him. His city currently requires citizens to compost their food waste, or face a $500 fine for violation. Nationally, President Obama and the majority leadership in Washington want to enact an energy policy (Cap and Trade) that will impose punitive fines for what they deem excessive carbon emissions, and impose drastically higher electricity costs and lower standards of living. New York has its own trans-fat police forcing restaurants into municipal ordinance compliance. That’s just a tip of the iceberg.

Freedom has a price, and part of it is vigilance by the citizens to prevent fascistic and tyrannical coercions of do-gooders who seek to impose their extremist environmental morality on the rest of us. While intended as humor, the Audi Super Bowl ad can serve as an awakening to the intentions of such extremists. Heaven forbid that the ad should serve as a portent of things to come.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-31

I can’t remember a time when we have had a chance to look at a preliminary budget blueprint that has had so many red numbers (budget decreases) on it. As it came to us at week’s end, it took the breath from some of us who have been busy with other committee assignments. It came as no big surprise, but to see it on paper jarred the senses a little. These first numbers include an anticipated decrease in the number of funded state positions by 400. That does not mean there will necessarily be 400 less employees, just 400 less positions available.

Sometimes legislation is introduced around this place to fire a shot across the bow of an agency, to get their attention and/or get their help on a problem. Rep. Gibbs and Senate Pro Tem Geddes came before State Affairs with our little bill to solve the septic tank issue that has caused problems in Franklin County. Little did we know that this has been a big problem elsewhere in Idaho and the committee’s response was quick to have it introduced. Rep. Anderson who sits next to me expressed pretty much what we have heard from others, “I like this bill!” It may have been a warning shot, but it has garnered not only the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality, but the support of a large number of legislators and others.

It must be the year of firsts, and another event took place that has not happened before. Governor Otter requested to come to the House Republican Caucus to discuss what happened with the public employee retirement increase. After the meeting the Associated Press did its best to try and get some comments from me about what had happened and what the Governor had said. I don’t think it appropriate to quote the governor, nor do I think it is my job to question his motives. Do I think less of the Senate for what happened? No, this is just what seems to be normal around here. And as Forest Gump said, “That’s all I have to say about that”

Another first this year has to do with the Speaker of the House Lawrence Denny. It has been traditional in the House to have some entertaining production on the Speaker’s birthday which was on Friday. Before we convened I asked him if there was another “skit” planned for the celebration this year. He has told me other years that he dreads what is about to happen, but I think he has been a good sport about the fun and games. Expecting something to happen as we were about to adjourn, the annual production conspicuously didn’t happen. I couldn’t tell if he was relieved or disappointed. It reminded me of the story I heard of the family that lived along the railroad tracks and were never awakened by the 3:00 AM train. Then one night it didn’t run and they all woke up and said, “What was that that?” It was sort of the same reaction.

And also for the first time, there seems to be a plan to get this wrapped up before April arrives. Now that is really a first. And if the wheels stay on this wagon it is doable. Just one little hiccup along the way could alter this. For the first time ever the Senate co-chair of JFAC is going to share the intent language for the education budget before it is set. It is a year for firsts indeed.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

By a vote of 21-13, the Idaho State Senate gave its approval to SB1353 this morning following lengthy debate.

In contrast to the committee hearing, much of the debate this morning was focused on the consequences of acknowledging the conscience rights of providers in end-of-life situations.

Sen. Les Bock (D-Boise) made one of the more emotional arguments against the bill by describing the decision-making of his family when faced with the challenge of creating a “peaceful resolution” for their mother’s life. He lamented the notion that a doctor or nurse might impose their moral or ethical concerns into a family’s plans for administering legal procedures designed to hasten death. Bock contended that acknowledging the conscience rights of medical professionals would only complicate already-difficult situations for families.

But, of course, what Bock failed to acknowledge is that families in such difficult circumstances do not have the right to forcibly implicate another – even their doctor — in immoral actions. Moreover, his argument failed to recognize that SB1353 only protects the right of a nurse or pharmacist or doctor to withdraw from treatments they find morally challenging.

Sen. Russ Fulcher responded by noting that it was the medical community itself which offered the language referring to “end of life treatment and care”, and that this broader definition would afford medical professionals an opportunity to exercise their moral and scientific judgment when faced with difficult situations.

Sen. Chuck Winder skillfully led the debate on behalf of the legislation, arguing that it struck a practical balance between the rights of medical providers, employers and patients.

Sen. Shirley McKague joined in defense of the legislation by reminding senators of the constitutional principles at stake in safe-guarding liberty. She offered a quote from Thomas Jefferson which featured conscience rights as our most precious liberty.

Republicans John Andreason, Joyce Broadsword, Chuck Coiner, Tim Corder, Shawn Keough, Joe Stegner and Gary Schroeder joined Senate Democrats in opposing the legislation.

SB1353 now goes to the House for a committee hearing.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.