Bills, bills, bills

January 12, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
As the 2009 General Assembly session heats up, no doubt there will be bills that cause us to ask, “What were they thinking?” Some seem redundant; others just plain strange. The Senate has until Jan. 15 to file bills; all House of Representative bills have to be filed by the fourth meeting day in January, according to the legislative calendar.

As more bills are added and statuses change, First Impressions seems like a good place to take a look at some of the bills and call attention to what our lawmakers feel is important for Hoosiers.

An issue that I know is pressing on everyone’s mind in this economy is updating our laws on hypnosis. Senate Bill 248  looks to replace the mention of “hypnotism” with “hypnosis” under Indiana Code Section 25-20.5-1. You all will be happy to know that if the bill passes, a hypnotist would be able to perform hypnosis in a group setting for: self-hypnosis, sports enhancement, improvement in test-taking, tobacco cessation, and weight loss.

As I read this bill, it means 1) that doing the above in a group setting right now is considered against the law, and 2) more people than I thought would like to use hypnosis to improve their lives.

Bills like these – and my favorite from last year which attempted to require public access to restrooms in all businesses – make me wonder what prompts the bill’s author or authors to write them. Senate Bill 248 is authored by Sen. Connie Lawson, R-Danville. Did Sen. Lawson use hypnosis and find it helpful? As a result of that, does she now think it should be expanded to a group setting for the reasons above? Or did a constituent or organization approach her about the matter? I wonder how many of these bills are inspired by a legislator’s own personal experience and how many are the result of lobbying.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT