A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

The digest for Sen. Kruse’s SB 130 is labeled “Indiana Firearms Freedom” act as is the title of the main chapter. I can pretty well guarantee you that “freedom” didn’t find its way into these parts of the document through the normal Legislative Service Agency drafting process. Someone likely insisted.

Anyway, it basically declares that firearms or firearm accessories manufactured entirely in the state are not subject to federal firearms laws and regulations because, the legislation asserts, they are not part of interstate commerce.

Senators Banks and Yoder have introduced SB 179 which imposes artificial barriers on medical service providers who dispense “abortion inducing drugs”; by which they doubtless mean RU486.

Mifepristone was approved for abortion in the U.S. by the FDA, in September 2000. It is legal and available in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico. It is a prescription drug, but it is not available to the public through pharmacies; its distribution is restricted to specially qualified licensed physicians, sold by Danco Laboratories under the tradename Mifeprex.

This is, I’m sure, in response to the brouhaha in Lafayette. Per the legislation introduced by these champions of small government, in order to get their prescription drug, women would have to go to a physical structure that meets particular safety standards and is inspected by the State Department of Health.

There is no rational basis for imposing regulations on the physical structures to which women go in order to get their prescriptions filled that is unique to RU-486 or other abortion inducing drugs that do not require any on-site medical procedures or examinations. This is a fairly transparent effort to indirectly make it more difficult for women to get prescribed medications where doing so directly would be unconstitutional.

It also repeals 410 IAC 26-17-2(f) which provides that abortion clinics in operation before July 1, 2006 are exempt from the administrative code section which provides a great deal of detail about the specifics of the required physical attributes of an abortion clinic (including, under this legislation, a place that is an “abortion clinic” by virtue of dispensing particular drugs even if no procedures are performed.) Abortion clinics have to have a reception desk, a waiting area, a lavatory, and a drinking fountain among other things.

Sen. Becker has introduced SB 154 concerning mopeds. It updates the Indiana Code to refer to mopeds instead of motor scooters and requires them to be registered and insured. The operator has to have an ID card or a driver’s license. So, people who have had their license yanked because of DUIs and whatnot can continue to clog the lanes in front of other motorists.

Not specifically about Sen. Kruse or Indiana’s situation, but Fred Clark has a post entitled Your lips say ‘school prayer,’ but your eyes tell me ‘desegregation’

He has a Venn diagram suggesting an overlap between people upset about the Supreme Court’s 1962 Engel v. Vitale decision concerning school prayer and those upset about its Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.

In any event, school prayer advocacy isn’t really about piety and prayer so much as it is about asserting cultural hegemony. (In my prior posts, I’ve frequently used the concept of marking territory). That’s also what the “we want to take our country back” business is about.

Sen. Waltz has introduced SB 156 which would prohibit police from downloading cell phone information for purposes of determining whether a person had violated the “no texting and driving” statute or other ordinance violation; unless the officer has a warrant or probable cause to believe the device has been used in the commission of a crime. (The texting and driving statute is penalized as an infraction and, therefore, not a “crime” I believe.)

I would suggest amending this to include probable cause that the telecommunications device contains evidence of a crime rather than solely in commission of a crime — or at least specify that an officer is allowed to secure the device long enough to get a warrant where he or she has probable cause that it contains evidence of a crime. If the cop saw a person taking a video of a robbery with their phone, chased them down and stopped them while they were driving and texting their buddy about the crazy thing they just saw, the officer should probable be allowed to at least take custody of the phone until he or she was able to get a warrant from a judge authorizing them to look for the video of the robbery.

Rep. Crouch has introduced HB 1051 concerning the certification of music therapists.

In the licensure world, there are three basic approaches: licensing, registration, and certification. Licensing generally prohibits an activity unless you have demonstrated certain qualifications and the state has issued you a permit to perform the activity. Registration says that pretty much anyone can do the activity, but you have to sign up and provide the state with certain information first. (This can bleed over into licensure inasmuch as you might have to jump certain hoops before you’re allowed to sign up.) Certification says that anyone can perform the activity but only people who meet certain qualifications can hold themselves out as “certified”; the idea being that the consumer can then decide whether credentials or price is more important.

This bill is an odd hybrid. It looks a lot like a certification bill – it says that you can’t call yourself a certified music therapist unless the “the individual holds and maintains the credentialing administered by the Certification Board for Music Therapists.” (CBMT). CBMT is apparently an outfit based in Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, it also simply prohibits people from practicing music therapy if they aren’t credentialed by CBMT. However, there is an exception for other credentialed or licensed professions to perform music therapy where that therapy is within the scope of their practice.

So, on reflection, I think this bill would be better if it referred to licenses instead of certifications.

As to “music therapy” it is defined in the legislation as, “the clinical and evidence-based use of music interventions to accomplish individualized goals within a therapeutic relationship.” That’s a nice piece of jargon right there.

In any event, the motivation of these bills always has a mix of protecting consumers and the public as well as protecting professionals from competition. The first is a legitimate public interest. The second seems more likely to drive the sort of lobbying necessary to get these bills passed.

Sen. Glick’s SB 20
would give Sheriffs more flexibility in the purposes for which they can spend money in their extradition funds. Currently certain money from forfeited bail goes into the Sheriff’s extradition fund. The Sheriff is limited to using that money to offset the costs of extraditing criminal defendants. This legislation would rename it the Sheriff’s extradition and assistance fund and could also be used for training and equipping officers, and for providing law enforcement services.

Sen Tomes has introduced SB 20 concerning the use of drones to monitor people. The bill would make it a Class D felony to monitor or observe an individual by using an “unmanned aerial vehicle” without the consent of the subject of the observation. It would also prohibit the use of evidence obtained through such monitoring by law enforcement as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding.

I’m not unsympathetic to this legislation, but I think the genie is out of the bottle in terms of being observed surreptitiously. If I’m reading this correctly, it would prohibit Google from using satellite imagery to update its maps. I think we’re in the Panopticon and we might just need to come to grips with that.