Ed Trimmer

This is part two of my mid-point legislative update.  The following issues were some of the more controversial ones we have considered this session.

Religious Freedom or Discrimination?

Recently there has been a large amount of controversy over House Bill 2453.  The bill, titled “Religious Freedom”, extended the right of individuals, who work for government entities, to refuse goods, services, and information to other individuals whose gender or lifestyle violate their religious beliefs.  The bill was created by a national think tank and introduced in several states.The bill did make it to the Governor’s desk in Arizona where it was vetoed.  The Kansas House passed the bill, but the Speaker of the Kansas House called the move a mistake after significant public outcry.  The Senate has indicted they will not work the bill.  While I have supported religious freedom in the past, I voted against this bill because I believe it did not improve the protection of religious freedom, but instead legitimized discrimination.

Proponents argued that, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Kansas constitutional provision that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, there would be a significant increase in lawsuits against businesses.  An example was a Colorado business that was sued because the owner refused to provide services for a wedding involving a gay couple.  In Kansas, gay people are not a protected class in our constitution, which would mean a similar suit would not have standing in this state.  Businesses can refuse to serve people as long as they do not use race, religion, or gender as a reason.

HB 2453 went a step further and said that any individual in a business or government agency could refuse to serve an individual based on “marriage status or gender”.  Later in the bill the term “gender identity” was also included.  There was a clause that required government agencies to attempt to find someone to serve these individuals.  If, however the agency could not find an employee who would serve them, they could be exempted from this provision and would be allowed to refuse the goods or services.

I found this problematic.  Many local agencies have only one worker in an office, and that could mean that an individual whose lifestyle violated someone’s religious beliefs would not be served.  That means the government could discriminate and deny an individual the right to license a car, pay taxes, or receive legal representation, to name just a few services that could be denied.

Under the bill a teacher could even refuse to teach a gay student.  That could be a significant problem in small schools where there is one math, science, music, social science, or English teacher.  The bill would also allow discrimination if a person does not recognize a non-Christian marriage.  The bill further includes “gender” as a reason for refusal of service.  This would directly violate the Kansas constitutional protections for gender discrimination.

According to most legal experts, the bill would actually increase the number of lawsuits in Kansas, not eliminate them because the bill could result in the violation of a number of individual rights.  Bills written by national groups frequently do not consider individual state laws or constitutions and run into trouble as a result.

The carrier of the bill and others, who voted for it, admitted they had not read the legislation before they voted. Many felt they had been lied to about the impact of the bill.  I have learned to trust but verify when it comes to legislation.

I recently heard another Kansas Legislator claim that if we don’t pass this law it could lead to taking away voting rights for women and minorities.  Even after 36 years of participating in competitive debate, I don’t begin to understand this line of logic.  I believe it would be exactly reverse because the bill institutionalizes discrimination.  Every weekday during the session, I say the flag salute in the House of Representatives.  At the end I say “…with liberty and justice for all”, not, “…with liberty and justice for those with whom I agree.”

The Other Religious Freedom Bill

Another bill regarding religious freedom was introduced on the floor of the House, but was referred back to committee.  I supported the motion to refer the bill back to committee because this bill actually took away religious freedom.  Part of a Presbyterian congregation in Johnson County wants to split away from the church.  According to church doctrine, the building belongs to the Presbytery, so the Presbytery would arbitrate the dispute and decide which congregation would own the church. 

The bill would have removed the right of church governing bodies in cases like this and would put the dispute in the hands of a civil court.  The bill was opposed by several church governing bodies, including the Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran denominations.

I found it interesting that many of the people, who voted for HB 2453 on the grounds it protected religious liberty, voted for this bill that would take away the liberty of church organizations to be self-determining.

Spanking Bill

Not all of the legislation, which has received negative publicity was sponsored by ultra-conservative Republicans.  A bill to allow a child to be spanked up to ten times and to the point of allowing bruises, was introduced by a Democratic legislator.  I believe children need discipline, but striking them to the point of leaving bruises is overly abusive.  This bill did not get to the floor of the House, but if it had, I would have voted “No.”

Renewable Portfolio Standards

A recent Americans for Prosperity ad, the funding for which they refuse to disclose, claims that because of the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which they allege were adopted during the Sebelius Administration, your utility costs have increased by more than 50 percent.  As former Republican Senate President, Dave Kerr, pointed out, in an article in the Wichita Eagle on February 25th, the claims are “provably false.”  The following are some of the reasons for this claim:

• The standards were not implemented until the Parkinson Administration.

• According to the Kansas Corporation Commission, which is the governing body that approves rate increases for utilities, only 1.6% of the increases in utility rates have been due to the RPS since its inception. 

• It has been noted, that the RPS may have saved utilities money because the amount of greenhouse gasses utilities are allowed to emit are based on total energy production including renewables.

• The standards require that utilities produce 20% of their energy by 2020 and they are already between 16 and 17%.  Utilities have indicated they will have no problem reaching the 20% by the target date.

• Opponents to renewables argue that these sources should not receive any kind of subsidy because it violates free market principals.  They forget that we have given hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry over the years, and that we have a Keystone pipeline running through Cowley County that will not pay a dime in property tax for 10 years, while receiving possibly $600 million in tax credits.

• Americans for Prosperity is but one of a number of political action groups founded by or financed by the KOCH brothers.  KOCH industries is primarily involved in oil production.

With so many different groups creating political spin about issues coming out of Topeka, I believe it is important to look at the entirety of an issue before making a decision about a piece of legislation.  Some groups are very skilled at giving bills titles that may not always represent what the bill stands for.  That is why I believe it is important for legislators and the public to read legislation and to know exactly what it does not just what someone tells you it does.

The legislature will have the week of March 17-21 for committee work and some debate on the floor.  On March 24^th, 25^th, and 26^th the Legislature will be in full debate, before the April break.  The last few days of March and the first week of April will be devoted to conference committees and voting on any reports they might advance.