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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT