Friday, February 15, 2008
IFI Included In Indiana Lawmakers Show

     For a spirited discussion of social issues before the Indiana General Assembly, tune in to the Indiana Lawmakers show on public television outlets over the weekend.  Representing the right at yesterday's taping were State Rep. Matt Bell, R-Avilla, and yours truly.  On the left was State Sen. Sue Errington, D-Muncie, and on the far left was State Rep. David Orentlicher, D-Indianapolis.  The host is Jon Schwantes.

     The main topic was the same-sex marriage amendment, but the pharmacist conscience-clause bill was also debated.

     In central Indiana the shows airs tonight (Friday) at 11 p.m. and Sunday at 1 p.m. on WFYI.  Times vary in other markets across the state, so check the listing if you want an update or you're doing opposition research against Orentlicher 's campaign to serve as the U.S. Representative for Indianapolis.

Comments: (4)



Is a not-for-profit supposed to be endorsing opposition research into a political candidate? Aren't you supposed to be following the guidelines set up to get a 501(c)(3)? While I'm sure you'll call it "advocacy," I'l like to know who it is you're advocating and what, exactly, you ARE advocating - that's not political.

I will be watching the program with interest, and hopefully will be permitted to comment on what was, and perhaps more significantly from my point of view, what was not said concerning the language chosen to be part of SJR7.

I watched “Indiana Lawmakers” and frankly yawned a bit because neither Curt Smith nor David Orentlicher plowed any new ground concerning SJR7. Much of the discussion seemed to center more on the issue vis-à-vis property taxes than anything else. I would have liked it if Orentlicher had made reference to the letter from 56 law professors at three of Indiana’s law schools (IU Bloomington, IU Indianapolis, and Valparaiso) to Representative Scott Pelath expressing a number of concerns over the quality and clarity of SJR7’s language. But I suspect that Curt’s reply would simply have reflected Senator Hershman’s dismissal of these comments as “smokescreen.” Or your Arizona imported colleague Chris Stovall’s astounding remark to the Senate Judiciary Committee recently to the effect that if legislators started being concerned with the meaning of each and every word in our Indiana Constitution, we’d never accomplish anything. I would also have been interested in Curt’s reaction had Orentlicher raised the letter from Georgetown University Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman, who had pointed out the significant disagreement over the first (yes, the supposedly uncontroversial first) sentence of SJR7 between SJR7/FMA author Professor Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame and your folks and your other cited experts. IFI has consistently taken the position that the first sentence permits legislated civil unions like those enacted in Connecticut, but in April 2005 Bradley flatly contradicted that position in public testimony. I guess Curt’s good friend Eric Miller never bothered to convey that to your office, either.

So all in all, it was a rather bland rehash.

Thanks for the analysis of what was NOT said on the show. :)