Rep. Davisson’s HB 1067 adds pneumonia immunizations as one the kinds of immunizations a pharmacist is allowed to administer; joining flue and shingles immunizations. Allows the pharmacist to administer the immunizations to kids as young as nine as opposed to fourteen currently. It also adds reporting requirements for the immunization data registry.

This might cut into some physicians’ work, I suppose; but the doctors I know would mostly be happy to farm out a little more of this stuff and concentrate on their patient’s bigger problems. And, I get the sense that pharmacists are a little more able to help patients navigate the pharmaceutical bureaucracy in a way that keeps costs down a bit.

With respect to the incessant push for “right to work” legislation and the ensuing walk out, the Republicans and the Democrats in the General Assembly lately remind me a little of Aesop’s The Hare and the Hound:

A HOUND started a Hare from his form, after a long run, gave up the chase. A goat-herd seeing him stop, mocked him, saying: The little one is the best runner of the two. The Hound replied: You do not see the difference between us: I was only running for a dinner, but he for his life.

In this case, the Republicans are running for their dinner, and the Democrats are running for their life. Neither is running for Indiana, particularly. I have no idea if the hound will run out of steam first this year. That’s certainly what happened last year.

I don’t really trust that Republicans care if “right to work” helps Indiana workers any more than they really cared if restrictive Voter ID laws actually addressed any real problem with voter fraud. They’re doing it because it hurts Democrats politically. And, for that matter, I’m not entirely convinced that Democrats are so protective of unions because their presence helps workers. Certainly they have not gone to the wall like this on economic issues that didn’t directly implicate significant campaign contributions. My sense is that the positive effect on the economy, or lack thereof, on either side, is incidental.

I’m not a big fan of “both sides do it and are equally to blame” political analysis; so I’ll note that, in this case, the Republicans are the aggressors — ignoring all of the other things they (or the state) might want to get done in favor of returning immediately to the one thing almost guaranteed to bring the General Assembly to a halt; as we saw last session, there are a good many things Democrats might not like but which they will suffer. (Inserting a prohibition on marriage equality in the state constitution, for example.) Personally, I think that “right to work” legislation ends up being a net loser for workers — I recently read that, adjusted for cost of living, jobs in right-to-work states pay about $1,500 – $2,000 per year less than those in other states. (There are reports that argue otherwise as well). Bottom line on the policy is that I don’t believe this legislation will result in more or better jobs any more than I believed it when lawmakers suggested that trickle down tax cuts or daylight saving time would result in more jobs or a better economy.

But, like I said, I don’t think either party has anything more than a rhetorical interest in the economic effects of this particular legislation. It’s a fight over political power; and the citizens of Indiana aren’t the hound or the hare — we’re more like the grass on which the animals run and rest.

This one goes under “issues I would have thought had been addressed before now.” Sen. Charbonneau’s SB 190 allows a rape victim to file a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship between the rapist and a child that resulted from the rape. The rape victim has to show the court by clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived as a result of the rape and (by a preponderance of the evidence, I guess) that terminating the parent-child would be in the best interest of the child.

The fact that the child was conceived because of the rape is designated as setting forth a prima facie case that termination of the relationship is in the best interest of the child; but, that could (theoretically) be rebutted by the rapist.

Sen. Waltz’s SB 196
would restrict the ability of law enforcement officers to download cell phone (or other wireless telecommunications device) information in conjunction with determining compliance with the ban on texting while driving or in conjunction with a stop related to a suspected infraction or ordinance violation. Exceptions are made and such a download is permitted where the officer has a warrant or probable cause to believe the cell phone was used to commit a crime.

The Indiana Law Blog has a good round up of State House access issues. The upshot is that the State House has new restrictions on who can get into the State House, how many can do so, and the process for getting into the “People’s House.” It appears to be a response to last year’s labor protests and anticipation for this year’s; given the state G.O.P.’s apparent intention to double down on “right to work” legislation.

The trouble with the access requirements is that they are swiss-cheese full of holes with exceptions for preferred groups; e.g., lobbyists, today’s prayer group, attendees of special events, school tours, people given special dispensation by lawmakers. We all know that lobbyists have better access to lawmakers, but institutionalizing the disparate treatment by way of giving lobbyists the State House equivalent of a fast pass while forcing ordinary schmoes to wait in line and hope for a spot is a step too far.

If the governor and a majority of the General Assembly is determined to limit permissible conditions of employment and interfere with contracts by forcing through “right to work,” they should probably hunker down for the backlash; because the optics on this State House access restriction are just horrible.

Update The Governor seems to have taken my suggestion to heart and rescinded the new access rules.

Rep. Randy Frye’s HB 1056 would require the State Fire Marshal to make a list of “novelty lighters;” the manufacture, sale, or distribution of which would become a crime.

A novelty lighter is defined as:

A lighter that has one (1) or more of the following characteristics:
(1) A toy-like appearance, including the physical form of an animal, animated character, a vehicle, weaponry, a telephone, or food.
(2) Entertaining audio or visual effects. For purposes of this subdivision, visual effects do not include logos, decals, decorative artwork, or heat shrinkable sleeves.
(3) Any other feature or appearance that would reasonably be expected to make the lighter:
(A) appealing or attractive to; or
(B) seem to be intended for use by;
a child less than ten (10) years of age.

HB 1043 would allow out of state health insurers to issue policies in Indiana without complying with Indiana health insurance laws, so long as they are licensed to do business in some other state and meets certain financial solvency requirements.

This looks like an effort to enhance competition in health insurance, according to a certain kind of dogmatic approach to improving the health insurance industry. The problem is the real likelihood that what this really does is encourage a race to the bottom wherein health insurers relocate to the state that requires the least accountability and oversight. This seems to have happened with banks and credit cards and has resulted in national consolidation, a dysfunctional financial industry, and customers who often get steamrolled by superior firepower. (This is already largely the case with the health care system we’ve had for the last generation or so; but it seems like this kind of legislation stands to add steroids to the equation.)

HB 1041 requires that parolees and probationers be prohibited from installing or using surveillance equipment at the person’s residence that could be used to detect a law enforcement officer, probation officer, or parole officer who is at or approaching the residence unless the parolee first obtains a waiver.

Rep. Cheatham’s HB 1026 would prohibit a court from considering a reduction or elimination of a parent’s income due to the parent’s incarceration when establishing or modifying a child support order.

I sympathize with this one — why should a parent benefit and a child suffer because the parent got themselves arrested? But, it seems to me, you’re setting the system up for failure if you’re requiring courts to set child support levels based on what amounts to fiction.

HB 1014 states that a physician, nurse, pharmacist or someone studying to do one of those jobs can’t be required to dispense a drug or medical device if the person believes it would be used to cause an abortion or assist a suicide. It appears to grant the person civil immunity if the person’s refusal injures someone else and can’t be reason for an employer to discipline the individual.

It’s a tough old world out there; and, if your morals conflict with your job, you should probably do a different job. And, if acting on your morals causes harm to someone else who was relying on you to do your job, you should probably be accountable for such injury as you cause.