On Tuesday, March 19, members of CFI-Indiana joined Indiana Coalition for Public Education and other organizations for a rally against school vouchers at the Indiana State House.  The following day, I sat through nearly 4 hours of testimony supporting the bill to expand the already problematic voucher program in Indiana before the opposition got its turn to testify.  Each speaker (from both sides) was only allowed 5 minutes to state his/her case.  When I got my turn, I first felt the need to correct a person who had missused a word earlier making his statement the opposite of what he meant and then got to give less than half of my prepared speech.  However, my former student on the Senate Education committee was a model student and took  my printed speech, left the room, copied and stapled copies for each member of the committee and passed them out.  Here is my prepared speech: (I borrowed extensively from CFI’s position paper on school vouchers. )  

Speech Against Voucher Bill

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and especially to one of my former students who is on this committee, Pete Miller. Pete is the product of one of the best public high schools in the state of Indiana. Of course, I might be a little biased, but I consider Perry Meridian High School, where Pete graduated as president of his class and I worked for 31 years, as a very high quality school. I am always glad to see that former students are taking an active part in our government and succeeding in other professions, even if we disagree. Senator Randy Head is also one of my former students. Both Pete and Randy were in the Gifted and Talented program at Perry Meridian. As a guidance counselor there during my last 13 years, I had several experiences of parents telling me that even though they were Catholic, they were sending their child to Perry Meridian instead of the local Catholic high school because they felt that Perry Meridian offered more opportunities and higher quality than the local Catholic high school.

I am Reba Boyd Wooden. I am a retired teacher with 37 years credit on teacher retirement. I am presently Executive Director of Center for Inquiry-Indiana which is the Indiana branch of an international educational not-for-profit by the same name. CFI’s purpose is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. Secular means religion neutral where everyone’s freedom of religion is respected but no religion has favored status over other religions nor over non religion. I speak in opposition to HB 1003.

My father was active in the Republican party and at one time held a local office. I think he always wanted to run for the state legislature but never did. There were at least two Indiana Democrats that he held in high regard, State Senator and later Governor of Indiana, Matthew Welch and Senator Birch Bayh. My first visit to this chamber was as a page for then State Senator Welch.

In the mid 70s, my father and mother visited several countries in South America as a part of the People to People program. One of the things that my father talked about and was concerned about literally to his dying day was the state of education there. He recounted many times about their tour guide telling them that she could not get her children into a school because the schools were all private schools and there was not enough room for all the children who applied. Her children were on a waiting list. He was still telling that story on March 31, 1986, the day before his scheduled heart surgery the following day. He died on the operating table during that surgery on April 1, 1986.

While on a trip to Ireland in 2001, I recall our tour guide telling about how because the schools there were mostly all religious schools, sometimes a student had to travel several miles to attend the protestant or Catholic school of their religion and sometimes through hostile neighborhoods. We are all aware of the religious strife that has plagued Ireland for many years.

The United States public education system is the backbone of our democracy, providing a free education for all children regardless of their family’s religious preference. If public funds are diverted to private schools through vouchers, religious and other private interests will greatly expand their presence in the education business. Children will be moved out of religiously and ideologically neutral democratic public schools responsible to elected school boards and subject to laws designed to protect the equal rights of students and staff. Vouchers, if not stopped and rolled back, will ultimately undermine public education, weaken religious freedom, shred our American constitutional principle of separation of church and state, and negatively impact community harmony.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in a dissenting opinion warned of “the risk that publicly financed voucher programs pose in terms of religious social conflict.” He accused the majority of the court of “turning the clock back” on “fundamental constitutional principles” and adopting “an interpretation of the Establishment Clause that the Court rejected more than half a century ago.” He added, “I fear that this present departure from the Court’s earlier understanding risks creating a form of religiously based conflict potentially harmful to the nation’s social fabric.”

Quoting Supreme Court Justice William Brennan : “The public schools are supported entirely, in most communities, by public funds-funds
exacted not only from parents, nor from those who hold particular religious views, nor indeed from those who subscribe to any creed at all. It is implicit in the history and character of American public education that the public schools serve a uniquely public function: the training of American citizens in an atmosphere free of parochial, divisive, or separatist influence of any sort-an atmosphere in which children may assimilate a heritage common to all American groups and religions. This is a heritage neither theistic nor atheistic, but simply civic and patriotic.”

Vouchers not only represent an attempt to circumvent federal and state constitutional safeguards against government support of religion, but they pose a serious threat to public education in this country. Compounding this threat is the misleading way in which vouchers have been marketed, resulting in the public not being aware of the dangers posed by vouchers.

Public school budgets are being slashed while public funds are diverted to nonpublic schools not responsible to taxpayers and not subject to the reasonable regulations applicable to public schools. Class sizes are being increased while programs for special needs children are being reduced. Class sizes of 30 to 40 children are becoming more common even though large-scale demonstrations, such as Tennessee’s STAR program, have shown that K-3 classes of just 15 students produce beneficial effects that last through high school graduation.

A quarter of America’s children live near or below the poverty line, yet insufficient attention is paid to the effects on school performance of poverty and its concomitants. Here is just one example among many. The National Center for Education Statistics has shown that while the gap between racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups is very slowly narrowing, it is still too wide. The danger of vouchers has to date escaped the attention of much of the public. This needs to change. Contrary to the claim by supporters of vouchers that vouchers will make available better schools for children from low income families. The opposite is true. Vouchers will destroy the equal opportunity afforded children independent of their socioeconomic status.

Fortunately, more than 50 national education, religious, humanist, civil rights, civil liberties and other organizations-among them the Center for Inquiry-have been working together for years in the National Coalition for Public Education to oppose efforts to channel public funds to nonpublic schools. Failing to do so risks allowing taxpayer dollars to support sectarian education and damage public education-a prospect that should trouble all Americans, religious or not.

We need to put every dollar we can into improving our public school system so that every child has not only a local public school to attend but one that is of the highest quality. We need to put more money into our all day kindergarten program to make sure that every school system offers this and expanding that into a comprehensive early childhood education program in the public schools.
This is the best way to improve the level of education, especially for children of low income families, not by stripping dollars away from public education.

I strongly urge you to vote against HB 1003. Do not destroy our Indiana public education system by expanding this already problematic voucher program. Further, it is my hope that the courts will stand up for public education and strike down the already existing voucher program in Indiana which is already one of the most expansive in the country.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee.

{link}

In an effort to make terminating a pregnancy even more difficult than it already is in Indiana, the Senate Health and Provider Services committee passed SB 371 requiring that a women requesting medication to terminate an early pregnancy have an ultrasound before she takes the medication and after she takes it. Because medically induced abortions can only be performed in the very early stages of a pregnancy, a regular ultrasound will not detect the pregnancy. Hence, a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be required. This is an unnecessary and costly procedure when a simple blood or urine test would be sufficient.
This bill also requires that any clinic providing the medication must meet the same standards as clinics that offer surgical abortions. Why? This is not a surgical procedure. These requirements do not apply to private physicians who dispense the same medication. Thus, a middle or upper income woman can go to her family doctor with none of this hassle. Only low income women will face these barriers to a safe and convenient way to terminate an unwanted or problem pregnancy.

The stated intent of school vouchers is to provide a choice to low income students and their parents so that they can leave failing schools and get a better education. The present voucher law is being challenged in the Indiana Supreme Court but that doesn’t stop the General Assembly from passing more legislation to expand it. One only has to observe who is testifying in favor of the expansion of vouchers to surmise the real intent of these bills. Testifying in favor of HB 1003 was the lobbyist for the Catholic church, an evangelical church school, Catholic school administrators, parents who attested that their child was getting a better education in the private school of their choice mainly because of smaller class sizes, and, of course, the Chamber of Commerce. If public schools had the money to hire more teachers and did not have to take all of the students who come to them, they could have small class sizes too.

Nearly all of the private schools receiving voucher money in Indiana are religious schools. When the lobbyist for the Catholic church was asked by one of the legislators if a student attending their schools wanted to opt out of the religious education classes could they, he said without hesitation that the answer was no. If a student chooses to attend a Catholic school, they have to do everything required of every student at that school. Clearly, tax dollars are paying for the religious indoctrination of students. The real reason these groups are pushing for vouchers are (1) to bail out financially troubled Catholic schools (2) to allow for profit companies to make money from educating children. They don’t care about the quality of teaching or programs. Profit is the bottom line.

Watching this train wreck is infuriating. While local organizations, individuals, and some legislators speak out against these devastating bills, the majority sits there stoic and unmoved. Their minds are already made up. I have spent several hours in the past few weeks observing in person and online this fiasco. I have testified against both of these bills.

In the case of SB 371, through the HAPA (Health Access and Privacy Alliance) coalition of which CFI-Indiana is a member, a totally awesome team of speakers testified in opposition. This included doctors from the OBGYN department of Indiana University School of Medicine, two protestant ministers, the lobbyist for the local Jewish community, Indiana Religious Coalition to Support Reproductive Justice, Planned Parenthood of Indiana, League of Women Voters, Indiana NOW, and myself representing CFI-Indiana. But who do they listen to? Indiana Right to Life, American Family Instituite, Focus on the Family, and the lobbyist for the Catholic church. These legislators think that they know more about women’s bodies and health than the doctors at their own state medical school. Insane!!

On the voucher bill, every educational organization that I can think of testified against it -Indiana School Board Association, Indiana School Superintendent’s Association, Indiana State Teachers Association, Indiana Federation of Teachers, among others including me speaking on behalf of CFI. However, the religious institutions and the chamber of commerce win. It is obvious that the motives are religious indoctrination, saving the religious schools, and companies who want to make a profit are behind this plan to destroy public education.

To the few who stand up against these bills, it must be incredibly frustrating. There was a lot of passion from these folks in defense of sanity. Many thanks Senators Stoops, Becker , Breaux, Taylor, and Mrvan for voting against SB 371 in the senate committee. Senators Stoops, Becker, Breaux and Taylor posed great questions to the proponents of the bill and were very emotional at times in their voices of opposition. In the House, Representatives Battles, Errington, Austin, Vanderburgh, and Vernon Smith gave impassioned speeches against HB 1003.

When will these voices of reason prevail? Will it happen before it is too late?

{link}

If I heard of a shooting at any of their schools as the parents in Newtown did, I would have been beside myself with fear and apprehension. The many parents who rushed to the school and waited for their children to come out to them were no doubt panic stricken. For the parents whose children never came out, the grief has to be overwhelming. Psychologists say that the hardest death for anyone to cope with is the death of a child. As a parent, I can see how that would be true. Now that I am a grandparent, to lose one of my grandchildren would be at least equal.

In the children I was seeing on TV leaving that school and in the picture of the little girl who was killed, I could see my youngest grandchildren. I also spent 37 years in public education as a teacher and then a guidance counselor. I always worked with teenagers at a high school. After the shooting at Columbine, security was increased at the school where I worked. We had crisis training and a crisis team setup. I was a member of the crisis team. As a guidance counselor, my role would have been to work with students, parents, staff-anyone who needed someone to talk with. Fortunately, we were never called into action except in isolated incidents such as the death of a student.

I could identify with the teachers in that school and how they tried to protect their students. Teachers have been vilified and denigrated in recent years. I hope that the examples of the selfless caring of the teachers in this tragedy will cause people to have more appreciation for what teachers do. My soon-to-be 18-year-old grandson is considering becoming a teacher and is doing cadet teaching with a third grade class during his senior year.

When a tragedy happens, the religious clergy seem to descend on it. Most of this is very well meaning and well intentioned. Churches and other religious facilities many times are the largest places available for people to meet together. Most of the clergy are there to console and support the grieving.

However, the religious overtones of the vigils may not be what everyone wants. What about the people who are not religious? Is there anyone there to support them? Being in this religiously charged atmosphere can be very upsetting to someone who is not religious.

At the time of a tragedy and when people are hurt and grieving is not the time to challenge or criticize a person’s faith if they are religious. However, what real answers does religion have for them? I heard one woman say that there were 20 new angels now watching over the town. While this might comfort her and others, is it psychologically good in the long run to believe in a fantasy rather than face reality?

Why did God let this happen? Why didn’t he protect those little children? Why didn’t he help the person who did the shooting with his problems so that this did not happen? Religious clergy will come up with all kinds of rationalizations but none that will satisfy us secular people.

Being a Secular Humanist takes away all of that need to try to figure out these answers about why God did or didn’t do something. What was the meaning in this and why (from a religious viewpoint) did that happen. It is enough of a quandary to try to understand it from a realistic viewpoint without trying to understand God and his/her motives.

As a Secular Humanist, we want to try to understand what caused the young man who did the shooting to commit this horrible act. What could have been done to prevent it? Etc. We want to lend human support and caring based in reality. What religions do best is provide community and support for people.  We need to make it a high priority to develop secular communities in as many local locations as possible in order to provide this support to secular people.

I really don’t think that religion provides viable answers in the time of tragedy. Religious leaders promote a belief in fantasy at best and lay blame on the wrong people and wrong circumstances at worst.

{link}

 I just went to a notary and got mine solemnized. My brother(friend, etc.) just went online and got ordained as a minister and he/she solemnized ours. Glad that is not a problem in my state. What is wrong with Indiana? Why can’t people just have a civil official do it? Atheists don’t want a religious wedding anyway so the civil official is OK. Who wants to get married anyway? Marriage is a legal contract why can’t a lawyer just do it? The Humanist Society has a program to certify Humanist Celebrants and they can solemnize marriages in any state so why did CFI create their own program to certify Secular Celebrants? Humanists did that years ago. There is no need for the CFI program. Atheists/Secular Humanists, etc.don’t want ritual and ceremony. Shouldn’t that whole solemnization step just be done away with? Why can’t the license which is the legal contract be enough? Why require the second step? That should be left up to the couple if they want a ceremonial ritual of some kind but should not be a requirement for the marriage to be legal.

I have heard all of these arguments and more from people in the Atheist/Secular Humanist/ Freethought world. Federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker said in her decision to dismiss our case:

In fact, there are several readily available avenues by which a Secular Celebrant may facilitate a marriage ceremony in Indiana: she may (1) preside at a wedding and then instruct the couple to go before one of the individuals listed in the Solemnization Statute to have the marriage solemnized; (2) become a member of the “clergy” by seeking immediate Internet ordination from the Universal Life Church; or (3) seek certification to solemnize marriages from the Humanist Society.—page 9

Presently, our Secular Celebrants use the first avenue. This is legal and if the couple does not mind taking the two step process, that can be done. However, why should they have to do this when a religious person can go to their clergy and take care of it all in one process. Granted, some couples are satisfied with using the civil route only and that is fine if that is their preference. However, for a couple who wants a more personalized wedding in front of their friends and family that is not satisfactory to them. We refuse to use avenues two and three because it is our stance that we should not have to work under a religious designation.

We consider The Humanist Society to be a very fine organization with Humanist Celebrants certified to perform the type of ceremony that the couple desires. Being pragmatic, I solemnized over fifty weddings in Indiana when I was certified by The Humanist Society. I saw this as a way I could provide this service to couples not wanting religious weddings but wanting more than just a civil ceremony. However, it is my opinion and the opinion of CFI, that we are Secular Humanists and we should not have to declare ourselves a religious organization in order to have the same right to solemnize marriages as do religious clergy. So, in 2009 we launched a program to train and certify Secular Celebrants.

I have tried to discuss and explain the arguments put forth in the first paragraph of this blog many times to many people in person, comments on blog posts, etc. It seems to be more complicated for people to understand than I ever imagined. 

I won’t try to address all of these issues in this blog, but will tackle a few of them. Indiana is not the only state where this is a problem. Our Secular Celebrants cannot solemnize a marriage just under our certification in any state in the union while religious clergy can in all states. Some states have easy ways for our Secular Celebrants to do it under a civil designation and other variations. Most do not. Because we are trying to make a case against religious privilege, we do not allow our Secular Celebrants to solemnize a marriage under any religious designation.

True, athiests/Secular Humanists, etc. generally see less need for ritual than religious people. However, we feel that we should be able to offer it to those who do. Personally, I would agree that the solemnization step should not be a part of making a marriage legal. The license should be enough. Then if the couple wants it solemnized by their personal religious clergy or by a secular person, that is fine. That would be their personal option. However, that is not the case today in any state. Sometimes change has to come in baby steps.If religious people can have their clergy make their marriage legal then secular people should be able to have a representative of their secular community do so.

The most important reason for bringing this case is that it has wider implications. It, in the big picture, is standing up for equal rights for nonbelievers. It is not just about who can solemnize a marriage. The notice of appeal was filed today to the United States Court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit by our lead attorney, Kenneth J. Falk, ACLU of Indiana.  It will probably be more than a year before the final outcome in known. 

Summary of Decision by Judge Sarah Evans Barker, United States Distric Court, Southern District of Indiana

[The complete document is 30 pages long.  I have picked out statements that I think are the major statements against our case.]

In fact, there are several readily available avenues by which a Secular Celebrant may facilitate a marriage ceremony in Indiana: she may (1) preside at a wedding and then instruct the couple to go before one of the individuals listed in the Solemnization Statute to have the marriage solemnized; (2) become a member of the “clergy” by seeking immediate Internet ordination from the Universal Life Church; or (3) seek certification to solemnize marriages from the Humanist Society. - page 9

the remedy CFI seeks . . . implies a claim to vindicate positive rights rather than to restrain government action,” and, consequently, is not a true Establishment Clause claim.-page 11

At least two of the plaintiffs (Ms. Landrum and Mr. Kiel) also believe that the statute forecloses their ability to wed in a single ceremony. (expressing the couple’s desire not “to have to go before a clerk to make [the] marriage legal . . . and then have to go to [Ms. Wooden]” for another ceremony). Further, Plaintiffs contend, Indiana’s Solemnization Statute denies non-religious couples the ability to marry without “limitations on time and place ceremonies may occur” or “the governmental overtone that the [secular solemnizing] official’s presence carries.

These allegations are, if not slightly disingenuous, unsupported by the evidence of record. -page 17

But we must gently remind Plaintiffs that the Free Exercise Clause is not a guarantee against inconvenience. Similarly, the Constitution does not obligate the State of Indiana to perform heroics to fashion Plaintiffs’ ideal remedy. Pages 17-18

“[T]he Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can extract from the government.” - page 18

“[L]ong before marriage was a civil institution regulated by any of the . . . States, it was a religious contract . . . . [B]ecause marriage as an institution owes its origins to religious roots, it is both natural and logical that when state government regulates entry into marriage, it accommodates those deep religious traditions.” -page 19

government may accommodate religious groups’ free exercise of various
traditions and practices. “[V]oluntary governmental accommodation of religion is not only permissible, but desirable.”) -page 20

We fail to see how the Solemnization Statute poses a hint of a threat, let alone a real one. In our view, the State of Indiana is entitled to uphold the idea that marriage is not final upon issuance of a license. By permitting diverse religious groups to place their “stamp of approval” on marriages,
this statute preserves “the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions.” -page 21

Nothing about Indiana’s statutory scheme would prompt a reasonable observer to interpret the Solemnization Statute as state-sanctioned endorsement of religious (over secular) marriage traditions. -page 21

We conclude that the Solemnization Statute is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of alleviating significant governmental interference with pre-existing religious beliefs about marriage. Additionally, the statute bears a rational relation to the equally reasonable purpose of allowing the government to assume responsibility for the marriage regulation function without ostracizing its religious constituents. -page 24

To rule otherwise “would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups . . .preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” -page 24

This group has no “immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth,” ;moreover, it is not “saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection.”-page 26

We have already determined that the Solemnization Statute does not arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of religion. -page 26

Laws aimed at accommodating religious practices need not “come[] packaged with benefits to secular entities.” -page 28

{link}

As Americans we are in a hurry. We don’t have the patience to wait for delayed gratification. We grab and eat the first marshmallow instead of waiting for the second one. We are accustomed to having every dilemma, every problem solved in the space of an hour—which includes commercial breaks.

Not all change is good. Sometimes it is wise to wait and let nature take its course. Some problems just naturally solve themselves. Sometimes drastic and quick action is necessary. Most change takes time. The great social changes evolved over a stretch of many years—the abolition of slavery, civil rights, women’s rights, rights of workers, etc.

Some situations and problems are very complicated. There is no simple solution and for every positive consequence of an action there may well be a negative unintended consequence. It is a delicate balance.

On January 27, 2010, just one year after the inauguration of President Barack Obama who promised hope and change, many Americans are very disillusioned. They believed in “The Audacity of Hope” in “Change We Can Believe In.” They supported, admired, and placed their trust in a new charismatic leader. The first President with African ancestry symbolized a triumph over racism. It sent a message that if a child of mixed race, raised by a single parent, grandson of average middle class Americans and native Africans could become President of the United States, any child could achieve that dream.

However, overshadowing the triumphant celebration loomed many dire problems. Thousands of people were losing their jobs and their homes. Thousands did not have health care. The whole economy was way out of balance. Businesses were closing. There was a war going on and many, many problems worldwide involving hunger, disease, corrupt governments, and religious and territorial rivalries.

Yes, many Americans expected this new, awesome President to solve all the problems in the space of an average TV show—well at least between his inaugural and his first state of the union address.

But then there were other Americans, who saw in this new President a challenge to their universe. Was it racism? Was it fear of losing their special privileges? Was it fear of the government taking over services that had traditionally been left to the private sector? There were media figures and politicians who fanned and exploited that fear with misinformation and exaggeration. There were politicians who said “no” to anything and everything that the new President proposed. Was it purely for their own political gain? Were they following the lead of the media pundit who stated that he wanted President Obama to fail?

Looking ahead to the second year of the Obama administration, we Americans need to be more patient. It is my fear that especially the young voters who worked so hard for President Obama’s campaign will be so disillusioned that they will be reluctant to continue to participate. If this happens, the opposition wins.

Those who believe in the programs advocated by President Obama need to continue to support and speak out. Those who are spreading misinformation, fanning the flames of hysteria, and thinking only of their own political future need to stop and think about what they are doing to our country. People of all opinions need to think rationally, weigh the evidence available, and work together to solve the problems of our country and the world.

Change we can believe in takes time. We can’t just sit and wait for it to happen. We need to work toward it. However, we should not expect miracles to happen in the space of a TV show (including commercials).

{link}

More than 250 million Americans—80 percent of the U.S. population—live in a community today with a courtroom vacancy.  And 150 million live in districts awaiting a Senate confirmation vote. Courts matter to all Americans regardless of where they live, what issues they care about, and what their income is. Americans must have equal access to a fair hearing in court, but an obstructionist minority in the Senate is preventing that from happening.  This crisis was the subject of a briefing at the White House on Monday, May 7 which I was invited to attend.

I was invited by Alliance for Justice, a coalition of which Center for Inquiry is a member. Other organizations represented at the briefing included People for the American Way, American Constitution Society, Southern Center for Human Rights, National Conference of Women’s Bar Associations, The Leadership Conference, National Association of University Women, National Council of Jewish Women, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Native American Bar Association,  National Bar Association, and Society of American Law Teachers.

The goals of this meeting were (1) Make a collective demonstration of solidarity by community leaders, advocates, the White House, and the Senate in support of prioritizing the confirmation of all of President Obama’s nominees to the federal courts, including those in the pipeline. (2) Set the stage for a redoubled and even more focused effort, beginning in 2013, to improve the judicial nominations and confirmations process and to confirm more well-qualified nominees of diverse backgrounds to the federal judiciary. (3) Provide an opportunity for organizational allies, community leaders, advocates and individuals working on critical policy issues within states to network and share best practices with one another and with administration officials to help build more robust in-state coalitions focused on judicial nominations. (4) Engage a broader group of allies to help communicate the message about why courts matter and what’s at stake in the courts today. 

Speakers at the briefing were: Jon Carson, Deputy Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Public Engagement; Eric Holder, United States Attorney General; Kathy Ruemmler, Assistant to the President and White House Counsel; Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change; Eric Schultz, Associate Communications Director; Ed Pagano, Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, Senate Liaison; and Chirs Kang, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Counsel. 

In the afternoon, Kellye McIntosh of Alliance for Justice accompanied me to the offices of Indiana Senators Lugar and Coats. None of Senator Lugar’s staff members were available to talk with us but we left materials for the Senator.  In Senator Dan Coats’ office we spoke with Legislative Correspondent, Cory Palmer, who was very friendly and easy to talk with and indicated that Senator Coats is also concerned about these vacancies and the time lag in getting them filled.   We asked him to urge Senator Coats to do what he could to make this happen and encourage other Senators to do the same.

I felt very privileged to be a part of this briefing and to put CFI’s face at the table in the White House.   I urge all of you to contact your Senators and encourage them to do what they can to end this crisis of judicial vacancies. 

{link}

On Saturday, February 11, the first Indiana Civic Day sponsored by Center for Inquiry-Indiana and the Indiana Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State was held at the Indiana State House in Indianapolis. Over 100 people came together to hear Ron Lindsay, CEO of Center for Inquiry and Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State along with speakers from local organizations detail the problems and advocate for activism to maintain this separation. ACLU of Indiana also had representatives in attendance.

The speakers and those in attendance came from nonreligious and religious backgrounds. Speakers included David Sklar, Director of Government Affairs for the Jewish Community Relations Council who detailed “How a Bill Really Becomes a Law in Indiana” and Rick Sutton, President of Indiana Equality Action,  who is active in St Luke’s United Methodist Church. All have one issue in common—keeping religion and government separate.

Indiana is one of many states in which fundamentalist religious zealots are a threat. Every year bills are brought up and many times passed which restrict the reproductive rights of women in particular. Betty Cockrum, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, is the leader in the fight for these rights. In her speech she very passionately detailed this struggle and asked for people to speak out and be active to preserve these rights for the women of Indiana. Her speech was appropriately titled: “Your Legislator. In Your Doc’s Office. In Your Bedroom.”

This same faction is pushing for an amendment to the Indiana Constitution to outlaw same sex marriage (there is already an Indiana law to this effect). They have succeeded in getting a voucher bill passed which sends taxpayers’ money to parents to take to private schools over which the state has little control of accreditation or curriculum. According to the Indianapolis Star (8/28/2011), all but six of the 242 non-public schools so far approved for the voucher program in Indiana have religious affiliations. The program included a dialogue on the voucher issue in which Joel Hand, representing Indiana Coalition for Public Education spoke in opposition to the voucher program while Robert Enlow, of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice defended it.

For you who have been following mine and Michael De Dora’s blogs you know, a bill to allow “creation science” to be taught in Indiana Public schools passed the Indiana Senate recently. Fortunately, the Speaker of the House, Brian Bosma,  has decided not to pursue it in the House this year for fear of lawsuits. However, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Dennis Kruse,  has vowed to bring it back again next year. He believes that the present Supreme Court will overturn previous precedents and allow “creation science” to be taught in public schools. As he said in an interview with the Indianapolis Star(2/14/2012), “We have five pretty decent Supreme Court members who have been ruling pretty conservative on a lot of different things and they might have had a different ruling,”

The purpose of the program was to make people more aware and informed on these issues so that they can actively speak out and make their voices heard. We must be diligent in these efforts.

{link}

Indiana’s Senator Dennis Kruse has introduced a bill (SB 89) in the Indiana General Assembly to allow the teaching of “creation science” in Indiana public schools. In a report just released by the Fordham Foundation, Indiana is listed as one of just seven states that earned an “A” for its science standards. This has been the case for many years. Indiana has been a shining star in the midwest on the map of those receiving that rating.

Not only does he seek to erode the Indiana science curriculum at a time when state leaders are trying to encourage high tech/scientific businesses to locate in Indiana, he is planning to waste Indiana taxpayer’s money on costly lawsuits. When questioned about the constitutional issues involved, Senator Kruse replied, “This is a different Supreme Court. This Supreme Court could rule differently.”
He made these remarks both on the Senate floor and in interviews with reporters. He called evolution a “Johnny-come-lately theory” and that religious “theories” have more merit because they have been around longer than evolution. According to Senator Kruse, the Constitution does not contain any statement about Separation of Church and State. Well, of course, those exact words are not there but the concept is defined in the establishment clause in the first amendment.

I was in the Senate gallery yesterday and one of our CFI-Indiana Friends of the Center captured the discussion from the live feed on the General Assembly website. Incredible!!

SB 89 in its original wording was:

The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.

On second reading an amendment was approved which changed the wording to:

The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.

This version of SB 89 was passed by the Indiana Senate yesterday by a vote of 28-22. I was told in a conversation with a senator who was part of crafting and supporting the amendment that the intent was to make the bill unacceptable to the supporters of the original bill because they would have to include other religions and they were surprised when the proponents approved the amendment by acclamation the previous day.

What effect did this strategy have on the final vote? The sponsor of the amendment voted against as did others who had helped craft it. Senator Brent Steele told an Indianapolis Star Reporter that he voted against the bill because it included other religions. However, in a conversation I had with Senator Randy Head outside the Senate chamber, he told me that he would not have supported the original bill because of constitutional issues but voted for the amended bill because he thought it would not present these constitutional issues. In all, 10 Republicans, including Senator Steele, voted against the bill and one Democrat, Senator Lindel Hume voted for it. One of the Republicans who voted against it was my own Senator Brent Waltz. He had indicated earlier that he would vote against the original bill and voted against the amended bill. In an email reply to a person who contacted him, Senator Waltz stated, “Evolution is an accepted scientific fact and has been for almost a century. While good and honest people can derive different conclusions as to who or what began Life in the universe, the teaching of creationism should not be taught in Indiana schools.”

In the discussion, Senator Tim Skinner spoke against it primarily because of the precarious position in which it would put teachers and local school corporations. He asked very probing questions of Senator Kruse. Senator Skinner had raised the same concerns in the committee hearing and was one of the proponents of the amendment introduced by Senator Vi Simpson but both he and Senator Simpson voted against the amended bill. I had a very good conversation with Senator Skinner in the hallway outside the Senate chamber and he indicated to me that the intent of the amendment was to defeat the bill by making it objectionable to its proponents.

The best speech of the afternoon was made by Senator Karen Tallian. She nailed it and hit it out of the ballpark with a rousing speech in defense of the Constitution and Separation of Church and State. You can listen to her speech here. Among her remarks were that she couldn’t believe this was even being considered and that “the Constitution sheds a tear today that we are even talking about this.” I sent a note in to call her out to talk to her but it seems she had already left. I did email her and thank her very much for her support and ask for a copy of her speech.

Now SB 89 is headed for the Indiana House where it must undergo the same procedure as it did in the Senate. As far as I can tell, a committee hearing has not yet been scheduled. The House is not scheduled to reconvene until Tuesday, February 7.  We will be watching.

{link}

Wednesday, January 25,2012 was a very frustrating day. Beginning at 8:30 am and again at 1:30 pm, I sat in on Indiana Senate committee hearings. Among the bills being discussed were SB 72 in the Health and Provider Services Committee and SB 89 in the Education and Career Development Committee. The most controversial statement in SB 72 as debated in the committee hearing is: “Specifies that only a physician who meets certain conditions may administer to a pregnant woman an abortion inducing drug, and sets forth the procedure the physician must follow. ” After hearing expert testimony from doctors and medical school staff among others who opposed the bill, the committee passed it with a 5/4 vote seemingly ignoring the testimony against it. Health Access and Privacy Alliance (HAPA), a coalition of civic, educational, religious, professional, and health organizations from all over the state working together to improve access to healthcare and protect reproductive choice in Indiana, has released this statement:

We strongly oppose SB 72 because it puts patients at risk; intrudes on the physician-patient relationship; takes the medical decision-making out of the hands of physicians and puts it in the hands of legislators; restricts the ability of physicians to use evidence-based medicine, preventing them from choosing the most effective and preferred medical protocols while treating their patients.

Physicians use evidence-based medicine to improve patient outcomes and make medical advances, which should be supported, not inhibited by our General Assembly. SB 72 was introduced based on personal beliefs, and the personal beliefs of elected officials should not interfere with the ability of physicians to provide patients with the best medical practices.

Physicians, not politicians, should decide what is best for patients.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana has released the following statement:

The Senate Health and Provider Services Committee passed Senate Bill 72 out of committee yesterday. Planned Parenthood of Indiana is opposed to SB 72 because it puts women at risk, it intrudes on the doctor-patient relationship, it takes medical decision-making out of the hands of doctors and puts it in the hands of legislators, it restricts doctors’ ability to use evidence-based medicine, and, finally, it prevents doctors from using the medical protocols proven most effective and preferred.

SB 72 exists because of personal beliefs. Personal beliefs should not be the basis for lawmaking. They certainly should not dictate to doctors how best to practice medicine, particularly under the threat of criminal offense. Doctors should be in charge of their protocols and their practices, not politicians. Simply put, SB 72 is politics at its worst.

Senator Vi Simpson was again a champion, observing that the committee was “legislating by anecdote instead of science” and “setting a terrible precedent”. She went on to say that “the legislature doesn’t trust women and now they don’t trust doctors”. Senator Vaneta Becker said that the legislation “increases risk for women, criminalizes physicians” and was extremely disappointed that the Committee would hear it. We applaud their opposition to this bill and also commend Senators Jean Breaux and Senator Earline Rogers for voting against SB 72.

I personally would like to commend Senator Becker who crossed party lines to do so. Senator Jean Leising asked some very probing questions during the discussion and I had hopes that she might vote against it. However, in the end she followed party line and voted in favor of the bill.

Betty Cockrum, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, will be addressing the issue of legislative interference in reproductive health care in her speech, “Your Legislator. In Your Doctor’s Office. In Your Bedroom” at Indiana Civic Day on Saturday, February 11. Indiana Civic Day is being sponsored jointly by CFI-Indiana and the Indiana Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The afternoon didn’t get any better. At 1:30, I attended, testified, and answered questions at the Education and Career Development committee’s hearing of SB 89 which would give local school corporations the authority to require the teaching of creation “science” along side scientific theories of human orgins. The letter that CFI sent to the committee members prior to the hearing and links to my testimony are also contained in Michael DeDora’s blog, “Indiana Senate Panel Approves Creationist Bill Despite Center for Inquiry’s Letter, Testimony,” which was posted on January 26.

Testimony against the bill stressed the unconstitutionality of teaching creation science, established by the Supreme Court in 1987. Among those testifying against the bill were John Staver, professor of chemistry and science education at Purdue University; Chuck Little, executive director of the Indiana Urban Schools Association; David Sklar, the Director of Government Relations for the Jewish Community Relations Council; the Reverend Charles All en, a chaplain for Grace Unlimited, a campus ministry in the Indianapolis area; and myself. I pointed out that testimony from an esteemed professor from one of Indiana’s prestigious universities was a great explanation for them as to why creation “science” is not science.

I did not detect much understanding of science from any of the committee members who talked or asked a question. This is very scary being that they are the Education committee for the Indiana Senate. The vote was 8-2, with the bill’s sponsor and committee chair Dennis Kruse (R-District 14), Carlin Yoder (R-District 12), Jim Banks (R-District 17), Jim Buck (R-District 17), Luke Kenley (R-District 20), Jean Leising (R-District 42), Scott Schneider (R-District 30), and Frank Mrvan Jr. (D-District 1) voting for and Earline S. Rogers (D-District 3) and Tim Skinner (D-District 38) voting against the bill. A big shout out to Earline Rogers who voted against both SB 72 and SB 89 !!! Tim Skinner, a teacher himself, seemed most concerned about the position it put the individual teacher in because it would put them in the position of violating the Constitution. Luke Kenley wants the bill amended and the language changed but still voted to send it to the full Senate for discussion. Senator Jean Leising remained silent (as I recall) during the discussion as did many of the committee members but voted in favor of the bill.

Lawmakers should respect the medical and scientific professions and trust them with making medical and science education decisions instead of legislating on matters they do not understand. At Indiana Civic Day on Saturday, February 11, you will learn how the Indiana legislative process works and hear the leaders of several organizations speak. Go to this link to register for this important conference.

{link}

Tuesday, November 2 is Election Day—the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even numbered years. This election (as most are) is very important for the future of our country and the world. As a
not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, CFI cannot advocate for a particular candidate or party. However, CFI does take stands on issues. Be sure to vote for the candidates who most closely represent your personal viewpoint.

My fear is that many people are so disillusioned that they will not vote. Many people are still out of work. Many are discouraged by the lack of progress made by their elected representatives and feel that promises have been broken. There is a deep division in the country between political ideologies and factions. Some are just fed up with all the rhetoric and don’t want to have anything to do with any of the candidates. Many may think that they are outnumbered in their particular district or state and may decide that it is futile to cast their vote. They may think that no candidate represents their point of view. However, even if it is the “lesser of the evils” for whom you cast your vote, please exercise your Constitutional right.

I would urge everyone to take the advice of Edmund Burke and do not remain silent on this Election Day, 2010. The future for our children and grandchildren is too important.

{link}