Topic Tuesday #102 2014/07/01 "Slippery Slope"

Topic Tuesday #102 2014/07/01 "Slippery Slope"

Like you, I am really tired of talking about this. But alas... I need to at least mention it here or I would be sorely remiss in my task of talking about topical things, for Topic Tuesday... Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc. case.  I touched on it in Topic Tuesday 94, should you want to revisit, prior art. As you likely know by now (as the ruling has become as virulent as wildfire in California) the ruling was 5 to 4 in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products. I'll sum up the case. These companies, being mandated to provide women birth control as part of the Affordable Health Care Act, decided to sue as the birth control was against the corporations religious freedom as stated in the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act of 1993. The jist of this, is best served by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She wrote a 35 page dissent (starts on page 60 of the verdict) of the verdict and was echoed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and almost entirely by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

• "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
• "[T]he Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993...  dictated the extraordinary religion-based exemptions today’’s decision endorses. In the Court’’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’’ religious faith——in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’’s judgment can introduce, I dissent."
• "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
• "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
• "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
• "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

...and to the detractors that say, "just pay for it yourself." 

• "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
• "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

... And the logical conclusion that is likely to occur...

• "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

I think she said everything that needs to be said, and is obviously more qualified than I to speak to the matter. I would like to stab at the heart of the entire thing, from my perspective. 

This is about 2 main points. 1. Money. The companies did not want to be forced to pay for ACA at all, and certainly not a good or service their founders saw as (and here is point 2) Abortion. I have written many time elsewhere on the matter of abortion. I will touch lightly on it here in the context of this example. The only reason they have an issue with it is because of their religion, which of course brings up the religious freedom issue. But... this tramples on the religious freedoms of their employees... the ones with actual human rights, opposed to some made up entity rights that corporations are issued to protect their shareholders from the acts of the company. This stinks. Everyone knows it stinks. Justices Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Anthony Kennedy are all Roman Catholics; an organization with a long history of opposing birth control. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is also a Catholic, but also has the distinction of being a woman, which in this instance may have been a deciding factor in her decision. If you were curious, the rest of the Justices: Ginesburg, Breyer, and Kagan - are all Jewish, in addition to being more liberally minded and progressive. I'm not saying that this background is the reason for the rulings, but it is foolish to think it does not inform their opinions on such matters. Scalia is rather infamous for his belief in literal demons and all that entails, as referenced by his statement, "Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that." . Here; I'll share it with you.

Jennifer Senior -You believe in heaven and hell?
Antonin Scalia - Oh, of course I do. Don’t you believe in heaven and hell?

Jennifer Senior - No. 

Antonin Scalia - Oh, my.

Jennifer Senior - Does that mean I’m not going?
Antonin Scalia - [Laughing.] Unfortunately not!

Jennifer Senior - Wait, to heaven or hell? 
Antonin Scalia - It doesn't mean you’re not going to hell, just because you don’t believe in it. That’s Catholic doctrine! Everyone is going one place or the other.

Jennifer Senior - But you don’t have to be a Catholic to get into heaven? Or believe in it? 
Antonin Scalia - Of course not!

Jennifer Senior - Oh. So you don’t know where I’m going. Thank God.
Antonin Scalia - I don’t know where you’re going. I don’t even know whether Judas Iscariot is in hell. I mean, that’s what the pope meant when he said, “Who am I to judge?” He may have recanted and had severe penance just before he died. Who knows?

Jennifer Senior - Can we talk about your drafting process—
Antonin Scalia - [Leans in, stage-whispers.] I even believe in the Devil.

Jennifer Senior - You do?
Antonin Scalia - Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that.

Jennifer Senior - Every Catholic believes this? There’s a wide variety of Catholics out there …
Antonin Scalia - If you are faithful to Catholic dogma, that is certainly a large part of it.

Jennifer Senior - Have you seen evidence of the Devil lately?
Antonin Scalia - You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn't happen very much anymore.

Jennifer Senior - No.
Antonin Scalia - It’s because he’s smart.

Jennifer Senior - So what’s he doing now?
Antonin Scalia - What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.

Jennifer Senior - That has really painful implications for atheists. Are you sure that’s the ­Devil’s work?
Antonin Scalia - I didn't say atheists are the Devil’s work.

Jennifer Senior - Well, you’re saying the Devil is ­persuading people to not believe in God. Couldn’t there be other reasons to not believe?
Antonin Scalia - Well, there certainly can be other reasons. But it certainly favors the Devil’s desires. I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament.

Jennifer Senior - Right.
Antonin Scalia - What happened to him?

Jennifer Senior - He just got wilier.
Antonin Scalia - He got wilier.

Jennifer Senior - Isn't it terribly frightening to believe in the Devil?
Antonin Scalia - You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.

Jennifer Senior - I hope you weren't sensing contempt from me. It wasn't your belief that surprised me so much as how boldly you expressed it.
Antonin Scalia - I was offended by that. I really was.

Now... I don't want to bore you with legalese, but there is something noteworthy that should be brought to light in this case. In the Affordable Care Act, it indicated a very specific type of medical service, especially ““with respect to infants, children, and adolescents." It's "evidence-based". "Evidence-informed." Here, read the section for yourself.

U. S. C. §300gg––13(a)(1)––(3) (group health plans must provide coverage, without cost sharing, for (1) certain ““evidence-based items or services”” recommended by the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force; (2) immunizations recommended by an advisory committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and (3) ““with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration””).

I wish everything in this case could be evidence-informed. We haven't heard the last of this one. See you in the funny papers.

Topic Tuesday #98 2014/06/03 "Guns. Lots of Guns."

Topic Tuesday #98 2014/06/03 "Guns. Lots of Guns."

How do we speak rationally to all parties about the topic of guns? This is a tough one, as no matter what side of the argument you talk about, you are going to deeply offend someone. Let me start by saying that is far from my intention, so please let's let feelings, no matter how strong fall away for a few minutes and let's calmly look at the situation we have in the United States.

Gun violence is an issue.

Gun control is an issue.

Would you agree to that? That we have issues about guns and how they are being used? I think everyone can at least swallow that.

First off, let me state that I personally think guns are fun. I enjoy going shooting, not hunting mind you. I was a weapons master in college and taught gun safety to those that had never held a firearm before. These were props, and had to be handled with the utmost care. If you will recall, Brandon Lee was killed when a firearm was mishandled on the movie set for "The Crow". Accidents happen, even to those that are highly trained. That said, there are many that are not highly trained that are handling their own weapons incorrectly. You cannot peruse the news without coming to at least one story involving a firearm discharge or the threat of its use interwoven with the story. Remember, a threat constitutes "Assault" while the physical violence represents "Battery" in an Assualt and Battery charge.

We have a certain expectation as a "polite" society that we can walk about and not be threatened or physically harmed. Unless you are particularly paranoid and believe the world is out to get you, you should see this pretty clearly. We also have certain expectations as legally set in our beloved Constitution. For clarity I will append the Second Amendment (as ratified and on display at the National Archives) here.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I am, at best, a hobbyist when it comes to history and the law. This topic has been droned on about ad nauseam  and though I am touching on it, I refuse to reinterpret it beyond plain english.

First, this section states a well regulated Militia. I am not part of a Militia, well regulated or otherwise. I certainly believe that the security of a free state does mean that the state has the ability to defend itself from threats, foreign and domestic, which is implied. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By itself, which is how we most often hear this phrase, it is plain that this can be taken to mean that it is the right of every citizen to have a weapon and defend themselves if needed. It does not indicate that it is any particular armament, though it is always assumed to be guns. It could be knives, swords, cannons, bola, crossbow, etc... The number and types of weapons that we could list is staggering, but we always default to guns. I am not sure why, but I suspect it is a vocal minority with an agenda that has passed that idiom our way over many years. Now, the part about not being infringed.... That is a sticky point, so we won't go into how it makes sense that bazookas and heavy weapons should not be personal protective devices... Because... if we go past that line, we are taking things to their extreme positions and this is not the time for that.  Instead, let's just allow that you can own whatever weapon you like. Now... Let's talk about regulation. To draw a comparison to something else that can be used for harming others, let's look at automobiles. By law, we are required to have a class, pass a test, be licensed, keep a vehicle in proper working order to the point of passing annual checkups in some states, and we are required to keep insurance. We have accepted this across the board. You do not have to own a car, but to do so, you need to follow the rules that are put in place. This makes sense, as these rules are in place to protect everyone on or near the road, including others that do not have a car. 

So, why is there opposition to gun safety? Mandating locks, has been opposed. In fact mandating any ordinance involving firearms has met with stiff opposition. I recall when even a waiting period to buy a handgun was opposed. I do not understand why there is such opposition to things that could make the world safer, without taking away your gun, or the right to own one. Recently there was a firearm manufacturer that built a smart gun. one that would prevent the trigger from being pulled if it was too far away from a transponder the owner would wear. There are problems with the implementation, but it is sound in principle. The NRA and several other groups put extreme pressure on vendors to not sell the gun. Why?

There have been many tries to implement a mandatory national firearm registration. Where the Federal law stands today is with four key laws.

National Firearms Act of 1934 (written with the help of the NRA I might add)
This law regulates the transfer of a particular class of weapons known as Title II weapons. Title II weapons include machine guns, certain parts of machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and destructive devices such as grenades or mortars. Title II weapons also include a category called, "Any Other Weapon." This is a generic term used to describe a concealable weapon that can shoot, but doesn't quite fit into any other category. An example of an "any other weapon" would be a cane gun or pen gun. The fee is $200.

Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) 
The Gun Control Act has the broadest reach of any federal gun control law as it pertains to the sale or transfer of any firearm and ammunition. This act established the Federal Firearms License (FFL) system which requires gun dealers to be licensed and prohibits interstate gun sales by anyone other than a licensed dealer. The GCA also made it unlawful for certain people to purchase firearms. These "prohibited persons" include:

• Anyone currently under indictment for a crime punishable by more than a year in prison
• Anyone who has been previously convicted of such a crime
• Fugitives
• Users of any controlled substance
• Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution or deemed mentally defective
• Illegal aliens
• Anyone who has been dishonorably discharged from the military
• Anyone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship
• Anyone who currently has a restraining order against him or her from an intimate partner or child of said partner
• Anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor

Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) 
The Firearm Owners Protection Act was enacted to make changes to the Gun Control Act of 1968. One of the most notable changes banned civilian ownership of machine guns that were manufactured and registered after May 19, 1986. The act also introduced the “Safe Passage” provision. This provision protects gun owners who are traveling through a state from being prosecuted for breaking that state’s gun laws—under certain conditions. The gun owner must not spend any extended time in the state and must have his or her firearms unloaded and stored in a separate compartment such as a trunk or a lockbox.
Before this change to GCA, a dealer was defined as someone “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. Under FOPA, the definition was modified to specify that a dealer must be selling firearms for profit or livelihood. This allows unlicensed individuals to sell firearms from their private collection without performing a background check on the buyer. This change created what has become known as the “Gun Show Loophole.” The GCA still requires that guns not be sold to a “prohibited person” but without a background check, it may be impossible to determine if a buyer is prohibited.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1994)
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires that Federally Licensed Dealers conduct background checks on any individual who purchases a weapon from them. The background check is to determine if the individual is a “prohibited person” as stated in the GCA. The act does not circumvent the Gun Show Loophole, provided the seller is not in the business of selling guns. In addition, federally licensed collectors of Curio and Relic (C&R) firearms do not have to undergo a background check when purchasing a C&R gun.

This is all we have right now. Some states hae their own laws but nationally I can buy a gun and it is not readily traced back to me, especially if it was sold at a gun show 3 or 4 times. No one would know I had a gun. No one is making sure I know how to use it, take care of it, and what safety measures should be taken.  Why not? 

It is my personal opinion that we should be required to register our guns. Keep in mind that every (modern) gun has a serial number and a unique "blast" pattern and grove combination. Every gun sold (to my knowledge) is test fired for before sale. There should be a record of this information. Something to hold the owner accountable for every discharge of their weapon. Also... just like with a car, you should have to have training and liability insurance to own one. Background checks should also be compulsory, even at gun shows and personal sales would require the registration to change hands, just like a car. Of course, I understand that any additional steps and paperwork would raise the cost of a gun. But I can't look at a headline and think that those extra dollars that could have prevented a tragedy or made bringing the perpetrator to justice faster... is not worth it. I would rather people go to jail for having an unregistered firearm than for drug possession. Is that unreasonable?