State Senate Bills I Find Interesting (SB 222 – SB 235)

Conclusions:

SB 222: OPPOSE
SB 223: OPPOSE
SB 224: SUPPORT
SB 225: OPPOSE
SB 226: OPPOSE
SB 227: OPPOSE
SB 228: OPPOSE
SB 229: OPPOSE
SB 230: SUPPORT
SB 231: OPPOSE
SB 232: OPPOSE
SB 233: OPPOSE
SB 234: OPPOSE
SB 235: OPPOSE

SB 222 is incredibly long and complex, but according to the summary would eliminate two State agencies and create 3 out of their ashes, as well as create a board for each agency, reconstitute the Board of Community Health, abolish the Board of Human Resources, establish the position of State Health Officer, and establish the Behavioral Health Coordinating Council. I believe a book could be written on the reasons to OPPOSE this measure, but I’ll be brief: 1) because it represents, apparently, a net INCREASE in the size of government, 2) because the State being involved in Behavioral Health reeks of thought and morality police, and 3) because the State should not be involved in any aspect of health care to begin with.

SB 222: OPPOSE

SB 223 would create the Women’s Reproductive Health Legislative Oversight Committee. So not only are we creating ADDITIONAL bureaucracy, this particular government bloat is going to deal specifically with incredibly personal issues that the government has ZERO legitimate interest in. Interesting… Clearly, I strenuously OPPOSE this measure, and I’m beginning to question whether those that would actually support it actually want to REMAIN in the General Assembly!

SB 223: OPPOSE

SB 224 is really long and honestly I didn’t read all of it, so there may in fact be something in the details that warrants opposition. From what I DID read, however, it sets up the mechanism and allows execution of psychiatric advance directives. In other words, not only would you have the ability to legally bind a doc in the event of your physical incapacitation, you would also have the ability to bind your doc in the event of your mental incapacitation. To me, this is a good thing and I wholeheartedly SUPPORT this measure.

SB 224: SUPPORT

SB 225 would force State agencies to create a privatization plan before they could privatize. This plan would have to include consideration of state employees and what will happen to them, and will be reviewed by a Review Board appointed by the Leadership of the General Assembly (3 members each appointed by the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the President of the Senate, the Senate Minority Leader, and three members of the general public from specific employment areas appointed by a joint decision of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate). Because the plan would have to take into consideration the employment of current State employees and because it would have to be overseen by this new bureaucratic entity, I must OPPOSE this measure.

SB 225: OPPOSE

SB 226 is about truth in advertising as it relates to musical performances, and normally this bill would rank as SUPPORT because it aids in the enforcement of implied contract. HOWEVER, this bill also has future crime language, specfically ‘Whenever the Attorney General or a district attorney has reason to believe that any person is advertising or conducting or is about to advertise or conduct a live musical performance or production’. emphasis mine. Because of this future crime language and its Big Brother implications, I must most strenuously OPPOSE this bill.

SB 226: OPPOSE

SB 227 is all about police use of GPS tracking devices, not including those built in to cell phones nor those which are installed with the knowledge and consent of the owner or user of the device. Specifically, this bill deals with how these devices will be allowed for search warrant purposes. I must OPPOSE this bill due to its language of a crime that ‘will be’ committed. In other words, no crime has actually taken place, but we’re going to allow the cops to track you anyway. This REEKS of Big Brother and must be most strenuously OPPOSED.

SB 227: OPPOSE

SB 228 would force a 25 foot buffer for erosion control around all tidally influenced state waters. Because it limits the property rights of land owners, I OPPOSE this measure.

SB 228: OPPOSE

SB 229 would force administrative law judges to defer to the rules of the Evironmental Protection Division, the Shore Protection Committee, or the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee. Because this measure would violate the separation of powers in that it is the legislative branch directing the judicial branch to defer to the executive branch, I must OPPOSE this measure.

SB 229: OPPOSE

SB 230 appears to streamline State and local government involvement in community health by combining multiple agencies into one and eliminating regional centers. Because of this reduction of government intervention in an area that government has no business intervening, I SUPPORT this measure.

SB 230: SUPPORT

SB 231 would create the PROMISE III teacher scholarship for those in alternative preparation programs to become teachers. I OPPOSE this measure due to the facts that government should not be involved in education to begin with, nor in the business of granting monies to pay for private endeavors such as a college education.

SB 231: OPPOSE

SB 232 would require dogs and cats to be exterminated via lethal injection only, or by putting the lethal injection drugs in pills mixed in with food if the animal absolutely cannot be injected. I’m going to OPPOSE this measure as unnecessary pandering to animal rights activists and unnecessary limitations on private businesses.

SB 232: OPPOSE

SB 233 forces whatever board certifies EMTs (the board name isn’t specified in the bill) to approve or administer an examination for purposes of certifying or recertifying EMTs and cardiac technicians no later than July 1, 2010. Because tests are meaningless measures of what a person knows – and I speak as both a former student and teacher here – I must OPPOSE this measure.

SB 233: OPPOSE

SB 234 is a hate crimes bill that allows a judge to impose up to 50% extra sentence and fine for misdemeanors or an additional 5 years for felonies if the ‘defendant intentionally selected ‘any victim or any property of the victim as the object of the offense because of the victim’s race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or national origin’. Because ‘hate crimes’ are nothing more than ‘Thought Crimes’ of Orwell’s 1984 or Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, I must strenuously OPPOSE this measure.

SB 234:OPPOSE

SB 235 would allow anyone forced to have a microchip implanted in them to seek criminal and/ or civil complaints against those who forced the implantation within 2 yrs of the discovery of the implant. It would also regulate that only a physician shall perform voluntary implantations and these implantations would be regulated by the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners. While I agree that forced implantation is bad, I must OPPOSE this bill on the grounds that a) it further involves the State in medical decisions via the voluntary implantation clause and b) limits victims’ rights via the statute of limitations clause.

SB 235: OPPOSE

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. […] State Senate Bills I Find Interesting (SB 222 – SB 235) « SWGA … […]

  2. […] State Senate Bills I Find Interesting (SB 222 – SB 235) « SWGA … […]

  3. […] SB 222: OPPOSE SB 223: OPPOSE SB 224: SUPPORT SB 225: OPPOSE SB 226: OPPOSE SB 227: OPPOSE SB 228: OPPOSE SB 229: OPPOSE SB 230: SUPPORT SB 231: OPPOSE SB 232: OPPOSE SB 233: OPPOSE SB 234: OPPOSE SB 235: OPPOSE SB 222 is incredibly long and complex, but according to the summary would eliminate two State agencies and create 3 out of their ashes, as well as create a board for each agency, reconstitute the Board of Community Health, abolish the Board of Human Resources, establish the position of State Health Officer, and establish the Behavioral Health Coordinating Council. I believe a book could be written on the reasons to OPPOSE this measure, but I’ll be brief: 1) because it represents, apparently, a net INCREASE in the size of government, 2) because the State being involved in Behavioral Health reeks of thought and morality police, and 3) because the State should not be involved in any aspect of health care to begin with. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: