| We have an yet another Republican from Jefferson Parish in our State Legislature who thinks he knows better than the framers of the U.S. Constitution. State Rep. Cameron Henry has written an amendment to the language of the ยง 8 of the Louisiana Constitution, which currently copies, word for word, a portion of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
State Rep. Henry's amendment is this addition after the sentence above: (pdf alert)
"No person acting under color of law shall burden the free exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government proves that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing upon the specific expression, act, or refusal to act at issue, and that there is no other less burdensome alternative. The free excessive of religion shall include the right of every person to freely express his sincerely held religious belief and to engage in or refrain from activity based on a sincerely held religious belief."
Now, State Rep. Henry will tell you that he wrote this bill to allow religious people to refrain from dispensing contraceptives. But, let's consider some other scenarios here: (hat tip to stephenhandwerk)
Say it is 2am and you are in a horrific car accident in New Iberia traveling home. The hospital to which you are taken sends you to the only ER that is open and equipped to deal with trauma such as yours. The Doctor on duty is of Pakistani decent (not unheard of) and you are Jewish. The Doctor objects to treating you due to his "sincerely held moral objections" and the next closest hospital is over 20 minutes away: you will likely die en route. Should this bill pass, it is completely legal to do that. At least until it is challenged in court and the State Attorney General has to prove a case that it was AGAINST the "compelling governmental interest." Of course with our court system - that challenge is likely years down the road - which is little help to you at this point - you are dead.
Too extreme? Perhaps.
How about something less extreme? Say you married someone from a different race - an African American and you happen to be Caucasian. You go to your favorite new restaurant just down the street and before you are seated the Manager tells you that it is his "sincerely held religious belief" that the races should not mix and that you are not welcome in his restaurant. Again, no problem in this situation and I would also challenge that the State Government would have a difficult time proving a "Compelling Governmental Interest" in this matter. I mean, nobody's life is at stake.
Now, here's the other part, fellow Democrats ... take a look at the co-sponsors of this legislation ... a couple of Democrats in there, but overwhelmingly Republican Members of the State Legislature. I bring that up because this is an amendment to the State Constitution, which means that it must go to the voters for approval before it becomes law.
I believe that it would go to the voters at the next regularly scheduled statewide election, which in this case, would be November of 2010 August 28, 2010. (See update below). Guess who is running in that election?
The Sinning Senator David Vitter.
What does this bill do? It will ensure that religious conservatives get out to vote for yet another manufactured issue for the GOP base.
Do we really want to make it easier for the Sinning Senator to win re-election?
UPDATE on 6/11 at 11:59 AM: State Rep. Cameron Henry graciously replied to an email asking when the issue would go before the voters. His answer: August 28, 2010.
This still helps the Sinning Senator, as it allows his campaign to ID the religious conservative voters on that issue, and use those ID's for the November election. It also gives the Sinning Senator an issue to campaign on to rile up the conservative Christian base he so desperately needs in order to win re-election.
|
