SB 47 loosens up the restrictions on Indiana gambling a little bit. It further allows us to move away from the riverboat pretense by allowing the riverboat to be converted into a permanently moored craft. It also creates a procedure for the licensed casinos to conduct card tournaments in land-based structures adjacent to the dock.

The bill also allows the casinos to outsource food and beverage service caterers who are independent contractors. Furthermore, it removes some accountability provisions attached to giving away free booze to patrons. Current law requires the facility to register free drinks on the cash register and for the license holder to actually pay the tab at the end of the night. This bill dispenses with that kind of record keeping. And, it allows a casino or horse track to get paid for advertising alcohol by brand name.

It passed the House on third reading by a vote of 58-41 and was returned to the Senate without amendment and, so, should be on its way to the governor.

SB 36 allows the horse racing commission to issue permits to people who hold an interest in other horse racing permits if the commission determines that doing so is in the best interest of the state and the Indiana horse racing industry. Currently, the commission is not allowed to issue such a permit. I imagine this prohibition was put in place out of concerns related to consolidation and monopoly power.

In any event, the bill passed the House 89-9 on third reading without amendments and should be on its way to the governor.

SB 156 addresses a law I thought was pretty unfair as a college student. Current law makes it a misdemeanor to be in a public place in a state of intoxication caused by the persons use of drugs or alcohol. That seemed unfair because if you were drunk (and, dear reader, sometimes I was) it shouldn’t be a crime if you weren’t hurting anyone.

SB 156 qualifies this to say you can’t be drunk in public if you’re endangering your life, the life of another, or breaching the peace or are in imminent danger of breaching the peace. That’s probably closer to fair, but I think it probably also makes a police officer’s job tougher. It’s no secret that drunk people cause more trouble. And, if you see someone who is really drunk but not actually “breaching the peace,” it’s probably just as well to get that person headed home. Probably the police can still make strong suggestions to that effect, but I imagine it creates some ambiguity about how to proceed if the drunk isn’t compliant.

SB 500 gives me the opportunity to, once again, go over the three main types of professional regulation in the state. (The crowd goes wild!)

The three primary types of regulation are registration, certification, and licensure. Registration lets pretty much anyone perform the activity, as long as they sign up with the proper authorities. Certification doesn’t prohibit anyone from performing the activity, but prohibits you from calling yourself a certified practitioner of whatever it is unless you’ve met the criteria for certification. And, licensure prevents a person from performing a particular activity unless they’ve received a license.

SB 500 moves massage therapists from a certification regime into a licensure regime. At the same time, it preempts local government from establishing its own licensing requirements on massage therapists. Massage therapists that are currently certified would automatically become licensed under the bill.

The funeral industry has always seemed to me to have oversized influence in the General Assembly. So, I’d assume SB 417 would pass. “Criminalization” probably isn’t the right word — but I wanted a 4th “C”. SB 467 makes it a deceptive act, if you’re selling or supplying a casket, to remove, cover, alter, or makes unreadable a country of origin marking on the casket.

I guess I don’t have any particular objection to the legislation, but it’s one of those things that seems oddly specific.

Fresh from protecting us from the gay peril, the Indiana General Assembly is unleashing the crazy in the fight against abortion. In particular, the debate is underway as to HB 1210.

Along with other risks, it requires a physician to tell a patient that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. That it does no such thing does not seem to be important. Might as well require doctors to tell patients that abortions will make them fat and give them halitosis. Notably absent is any requirement that a physician advise of the risks of carrying a child to term. Obviously, this isn’t about informed consent.

What really got the Internets chirping though was a comment made by Rep. Turner while debating an amendment proposed by Rep. Riecken. The bill as written forbids a health plan offered pursuant to the federal health care reform bill from providing coverage to pay for an abortion. Rep. Riecken’s amendment would have made an exception for abortions made necessary by rape or incest. Rep. Turner said he couldn’t vote for such an amendment because women might lie about rape or incest to get their abortions. (Angry Black Lady at Balloon Juice is not amused.)

The Indiana Law Blog reposted some of the tweets from Indy Star reporter, Mary Beth Schneider during the debate:

#House defeats amendment requiring women be given “objective, scientific” info. on abortion. Really.

#Rep. Lawson, D and former sex crimes investigator, in tears as she tells House women do not lie about rape. Amendment defeated, tho, 42-54

#Rep. Turner, author of abortion bill, opposes exemption for women who have been raped, saying woman could lie about rape.

#House’s lone physician, Rep. Tim Brown, R-Crawfordsville, supported Welch’s amendment which went down 41-52.

#House rejects attempt by Rep. Welch, who is pro-life, to delete requirement that women be told abortion is risk factor for breast cancer.

#Hah! Rep. Reardon notes that majority of sponsors of anti-abortion bill in House “don’t have a uterus.”

Meanwhile, down in Indianapolis, the ACLU is attempting to help defeat the prosecution of Bei Bei Shuai. The issue generally is whether a woman should be subjected to harsher penalties simply because she is pregnant. The way the ACLU tells it:

On December 23, 2010, Shuai, a 34-year-old pregnant woman who was suffering from a major depressive disorder, attempted to take her own life. Friends found her in time and persuaded her to get help. Six days later, Shuai underwent cesarean surgery and delivered a premature newborn girl who, tragically, died four days later.

On March 14, 2011, Shuai was arrested, jailed, and charged with murder and attempted feticide. Had Shuai, who is being represented by National Advocates for Pregnant Women and local attorneys, not been pregnant when she attempted suicide, she would not have been charged with any crime at all.

Of course, no one would deny that what happened in this case is terrible and tragic, and probably no one feels that more than Shuai herself. But this case is about so much more than whether attempted suicide should be a crime — in Indiana it is not — and the death of her daughter; its implications go much further.

The state is misconstruing the criminal laws in this case in such a way that any pregnant woman could be prosecuted for doing (or attempting) anything that may put her health at risk, regardless of the outcome of her pregnancy.

Indiana is coming to resemble that old quip: Government small enough to fit into your bedroom.

The Indiana Senate has passed HJR 6 which prohibits recognition of a legal status similar to marriage for unmarried individuals and prohibits gay couples from getting married. No surprise. It passed 40 – 10. Many Senators were undoubtedly voting their consciences, but I suspect many have also done the political calculus and concluded that they might get penalized for voting against the amendment more than voting for it. I see that Sen. Richard Young, former Senate Democratic leader, voted in favor of the amendment. Along with House Minority leader Bauer, that’s a disappointment.

The bill really does no practical, immediate good (and I have argued that it does harm). The state has a so-called defense of marriage law on the books. The courts have upheld it. That won’t change as long as there is popular resistance to gay marriage. But, such resistance seems to be fading. Maybe the trend will continue, maybe it won’t. But if it does, this amendment will effectively tie the hands of future generations. And, maybe that’s the point. But, in this, I think it’s wrong to substitute impose our current sensibilities on them.

Matt Tully has a column that calls this an opportunity for the people to repudiate an unabashed, mean-spirited display of discrimination. Abdul says “let the people decide,” suggesting that this is a generational issue — his otherwise civil rights minded parents are just boggled by the idea of gays getting married; his teenage nieces and nephews don’t see why anyone would care to stop it. A referendum is apparently how this thing will have to play out. The Constitutional amendment process requires the same language to pass again in 2013 or 2014 and then go on the ballot sometime after that.

It’s a crazy system where there’s resistance to a referendum on a simple issue of general interest like Daylight Saving Time, but we get to vote on whether to constitutionally mandate inequality for our gay friends and neighbors. I’m something like 6th generation Hoosier, and I love my state. But, I’m not exactly brimming with confidence that my fellow citizens will make what I consider to be the humane decision on this one.

I doubt anyone is prepping the fatted calf for slaughter, but rumor has it the Democrats are going to be returning from their self-imposed exile. Eric Bradner of the Evansville Courier Press says that Speaker Bosma says that it’s a change to HB 1216 that ended the stalemate. HB 1216 has to do with public works projects and has labor relations language in conjunction with the public works projects.

Bosma says it’s an inconsequential change to that bill. Presumably Bauer will characterize it as a critical change. It’ll be interesting to see what shakes out. Probably the Democrats can be credited with some minor victories and, maybe more importantly, give Republicans who are so inclined just a small amount of cover to allow them to negotiate a bit on issues where their constituents would prefer a hard line. From here on out, the Democrats will presumably cover up, take their lumps, and ride out the session. (But, I could certainly be wrong — I wouldn’t have anticipated this kind of walk out.)

The Senate passed HB 1386 by a vote of 49-0. It allows the state chemist to inspect and, if requested by a commercial feed manufacturer or distributor, audit and certify the manufacturer or distributor that export commercial feed.

Sen. Head explains that this bill is necessary to allow Indiana farmers to export their product to Brazil which won’t allow the export absent a certification.