Note especially that SB 5373 would give the government the authority to intervene in a family's life just because a child has a disability, because the child has a "right" to government services. It does say parents get to be fully involved in the decision-making processes, but not that parents get to make the decisions.
And from what I can tell, HB 1526 would exempt a lot more tribal land from taxation. And HB 1528 apparently does not exempt religious and political organizations. And does Senator Pflug suspect there may be some shenanigans pulled with the budget?
Senate Joint Resolution 8210 (Prohibiting budgets that result in projected deficits)
Introduced by Sen. Cheryl Pflug, (R-Maple Valley) (R) on January 22, 2009, proposes an amendment to the state Constitution that prohibits enactment of an operating budget if at the time of enactment the projected general fund and related funds and costs of maintaining services and expenditures in the next ensuing fiscal biennium exceed the officially projected combined state revenues and reserves for those accounts.
House Bill 1441 (Concerning distributors and producers of malt beverages)
Introduced by Rep. Steve Conway, (D-Tacoma) (D) on January 21, 2009, modifies liquor statutes to clarify that preservation of three viable, independent tiers of entities involved in the distribution and sale of malt beverages and wine is necessary to orderly marketing of alcohol, to protect the public interest in limiting consumption, and to facilitate collection of taxes.
Senate Bill 5372 (Creating a school-based influenza vaccination pilot program)
Introduced by Sen. Ken Jacobsen, (D-Seattle) (D) on January 21, 2009, directs the department of health and the superintendent of public instruction to jointly initiate a school based influenza vaccination pilot program. Directs a working group to be formed and a report to the governor and legislature their recommendations for implementation.
Senate Bill 5373 (Concerning intervention services for children with disabilities)
Introduced by Sen. Claudia Kauffman, (D-Kent) (D) on January 21, 2009, identifies the need for state funded early intervention services for infants and toddlers identified as developmentally disabled. Recommends coordinating all federal, state and local resources to include education, health and social services to support the implementation of individualized family service plans. Places authority for implementation of services under the department of social and health services and directs appropriate funding to that department. Creates a caseload forecast council to be appointed by the governor and cites this act as the infant toddler equity act.
House Bill 1500 (concerning recording devices in cars)
Introduced by Rep. Deborah Eddy, (D-Kirkland) (D) on January 22, 2009, requires motor vehicle manufacturers to disclose the presence of recording devices installed in vehicles, the nature and type of information being recorded and where the information is transmitted. Requires insurers to insure vehicles without providing information from recording devices.
House Bill 1507 (ending sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for juveniles)
Introduced by Rep. Mary Helen Roberts, (D-Edmonds) (D) on January 22, 2009, for crimes committed when the juvenile was under seventeen years of age and in other special considerations, such mental impairment, this bill would allow for resentencing of such cases and offer standard sentences or relief from the sentence, when appropriate.
House Bill 1511 (requiring drug testing of peace officers)
Introduced by Rep. Charles Ross, (R-Naches) (R) on January 22, 2009, allows for voters in local communities to require drug testing of peace officers and gives guidelines on voter approval and how testing will be conducted along with specific testing policy procedure.
House Bill 1526 (regarding property tax exemptions of federally recognized tribal property)
Introduced by Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos, (D-Seattle) (D) on January 22, 2009, removes essential government services as a condition to exempt from taxation property belonging to any federally recognized Indian tribe located in this state.
House Bill 1528 (Prohibiting employer communications about political or religious matters)
Introduced by Rep. Mike Sells, (D-Everett) (D) on January 22, 2009, prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to attend a meeting, or listen to, or respond to communications that relate to political or religious matters or are intended to influence the employee's beliefs, opinions, or actions about political or religious matters.
Senate Bill 5431 (Regarding placement of a child returning to out-of-home care)
Introduced by Sen. Val Stevens, (R-Arlington) (R) on January 22, 2009, provides that if a child has been previously placed in out-of-home care and is subsequently returned to out-of-home care, it shall be placed with a relative. If an appropriate relative is unavailable, the child shall be placed in the previous foster home.
If the Dems want to force you to read The Communist Manifesto, or The Heritage Foundation wants to force you to read Atlas Shrugged, what's wrong with that? Don't like it, then get another job.
Posted by: pudge on January 23, 2009 07:49 AMIf you think the bill was ever intended to control liberal(TM) indoctrination, think again.
It is intended to stamp out any and all dissent from both the conservative and religious right.
Posted by: deadwood on January 23, 2009 08:12 AM1526 seems okay since with the tax exemption comes the removal of essential government services. Services that I assume are already being provided by the Tribal councils.
Posted by: Mark Griswold on January 23, 2009 08:14 AMYou have to admit it would be interesting to attend a university or public school faculty meeting where the professors or teachers were not allowed to discuss anything "intended to influence the employee's [ie. other professors or teachers] beliefs, opinions, or actions about political or religious matters".
What would they actually talk about?
Posted by: TG on January 23, 2009 08:21 AMSome of you may remember my previously telling our story of a daughter that they first told us had no chance at life, and was eventually born without her left arm, and with her liver in the umbilical cord.
To my understanding, this would definitely qualify her as an disabled infant/toddler.
I can't express enough how much I don't want this bill to pass. Writing my legislators now.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 23, 2009 08:54 AMSure- build a multi-million dollar theme park in the middle of no where and pay for no services in the local community.
Good gig if you can get it.
Posted by: Andy on January 23, 2009 09:12 AMI would like to share a little bit of our story with you to help you understand why I am asking you to vote no on this bill.
When my wife and I found out we were expecting, we were overjoyed. We had been trying to have a child for years, and we finally had good news!
However, a month later that all came crashing down as the doctor said "so we have some challenging news".
He told us our baby had Trisomy 18; They told us that it was 'incompatible with life' and that they had already scheduled a termination procedure in order to make it as easy on us as possible.
They told us that the good news was that it was a girl. The bad news is that she had an abnormal heart - it appeared to be inside out, supposedly - and an abnormality on her left side, as well as what appeared to be an omphalecele (her insides were still in the umbilical cord). Supposedly she had cleft feet as well. The doctor was apologetic but insisted that we should terminate as carrying the baby to term would be a waste of time and unnecessary risk to my wife's health - no serious risk, mind you, but "there's just no point". They even told us that "We can take care of it all here, just like a car wash" - word for word, I'm not kidding.
Needless to say my wife and I were in tears, hopes for our young family completely dashed. After discussing it and reflecting on our beliefs, principles, and engaging in prayer, we decided over the period of the next couple weeks that we wouldn't take the doctor's advice and carry our little girl to term.
We decided to name her Olivia, because then her nickname would be Liv - Get it? - and prayed desperately that she would be a fighter and pull through.
A month later, they were able to do an amniocentesis. Turns out she didn't have any chromosomal abnormalities.
That unfortunately didn't excuse her from the other abnormalities. Over time we learned that her heart was healthy - Thank God - but it eventually became clear that her liver was in the umbilical cord, having never been pulled inside by the growth process, and that she wouldn't have a left arm at all. Nonetheless if we could get past the omphalecele - many kids with them never do - then she'd live.
In the interest of your time I'll just skip ahead to her birth; She was born and I saw my daughter for the first time with her liver flopping around outside her stomach, and only one arm. She cried a healthy cry, but was whisked away into surgery shortly after her birth so that they could put her liver back inside (well, perhaps not back, but you get the idea) her stomach.
The surgery was successful but she spent the next couple of months in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) on a breathing tube as her lungs strengthened from their tiny compressed state until she could breathe on her own. That little girl is now 16 months old, running around like any other toddler, making messes, and living a happy life.
Why am I sharing this with you? I have what is most certainly classified as a 'disabled' daughter by government standards. As a father, I cannot claim that every choice I make will turn out perfect, but I can promise you that every choice I make will be calculated to be the best possible choice for my little daughter. They will also be more informed choices than anyone else could make, and sometimes they may just have a little faith in her where others clearly don't have it.
To be more direct, I don't want the government or an appointee of the governor intervening in my family. Please, vote no on this bill or at least insist that language be included to give parents the right to participate or not with no consequence or risk to their family.
If it passes in its current form, I know many people including myself that would sooner leave the state than be subjected to this form of 'intervention'.
Please, vote NO on SB 5373.
Best,
Andrew Brown
When the government is deciding health care, you can bet they'll decide who gets to be born or not.
Posted by: dengle on January 23, 2009 09:56 AMNo where.
The law states that a eligible child has the "right" to the services described (similar to the right I have to get a drivers license if I so qualify) but there is no obligation to take the services.
One might disagree that the state should be in the business of providing any services to disabled children, but this discussion has been steered in a direction by a falsehood (on the assumption that no one reads the fine print?).
Andrew, your story is incredible and I'm glad that you had the resources and insurance to pay for the medical care necessary to save your daughter's life.
What would you have done if you didn't have the money? Seems that would have precipitated a terrible choice.
Posted by: BA on January 23, 2009 12:41 PMThere is no "falsehood." And I did read the fine print: that is how I was able to write what I did. Presumably swatter did too.
It is not explicit, no. However, it gives the *child* a *right* to the government services. And the parent is *involved* in the decision-making process.
That means that a government agency can say, "you've voiced your opinion to not want these services, but we decide that your child's *right* to these services is important, and we're going through with it."
Similar language is used in our state constitution regarding education. Your child has a right to an education. Government must provide education services. Does that imply you can opt out of educating your child? Nope. Indeed, government asserts that even if you educate your child at home, if you don't do a sufficient job they can force your child into government schools.
there is no obligation to take the services
I fully agree with you that this language SHOULD NOT be able to be used to force things on a family, however, I have seen instances where such language has been used for just that. And liberal judges often back the government up. If you think that there are not many government busybodies who will do whatever they deem in their power to do what THEY think is best for children regardless of the familes, you're naive. And if you think they won't try to twist this language (if indeed it was not intended this way in the first place) to be able to push things on the child ...
This could be solved in SB 5373 by granting the right to the PARENTS OR GUARDIANS of the child, or giving the parents or guardians specific right to opt out, as swatter suggested. Simple.
Also, I really have no specific problem with this bill as long as they change the wording to make it clear that parents aren't "involved" in decisions, but instead "make" the decisions.
Sure, I'm pretty libertarian in that I'm not enthusiastic about social programs like this, but if we're going to bail everyone else out, I don't see any reason to not help out folks who really need it like this, and trust me... after seeing bills that total up to almost a half million dollars, I can understand how some folks might need the help.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 23, 2009 01:27 PMI agree that a parent, i.e. me, should be able to make the decisions and not simply be "involved" in the decisions.
Problem of course then is that when it's another parent, they're making decisions with my money and then I want a say in how they spend it.
Maybe a better definition of what services are actually a "right" to be had, and a better definition of what constitutes a "need" for someone to qualify to be able to avail themselves of this "right".
As long as the parents have the explicit right to opt out of any or all of it, I think that solves it ...
Posted by: pudge on January 23, 2009 01:51 PMIsn't it ironic that our Governor flip-flopped completely on the Alaskan Way Viaduct now **Super-Tunnel**, that she claims will only cost State taxpayers $2.8B? And the calculated share of the Obama Bailout for Washington? ... $2.8B! Yet the percent completion of design plans and estimates as the basis for her estimate? 1% **SHE LIED!!!**
Not only is the ENTIRE State share of the Obama Bailout going to Greg Nichols and Seattle real estate owners, who'll bag $1.5B in city taxes and property appreciation and **pay nothing for it**, but this project will add $500M costs of design, city taxes, cost escalation and project overruns, likely saddling Washington taxpayers and bond holders with an ADDITIONAL $2.8B, at least.
Can you spell WPPSS? Do you even remember WPPSS?!
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5482
That's $975 from your wallet for City of Seattle! Remember that next time you attend a sport event at one of Seattle's twin arenas, so nice, we paid for them twice.
$1.5B for Seattle NeoZi's, $975 from your wallet.
And no bailout for you! You'll get N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Isn't it ironic that our Governor flip-flopped completely on the Alaskan Way Viaduct now **Super-Tunnel**, that she claims will only cost State taxpayers $2.8B? And the calculated share of the Obama Bailout for Washington? ... $2.8B! Yet the percent completion of design plans and estimates as the basis for her estimate? 1% **SHE LIED!!!**
Not only is the ENTIRE State share of the Obama Bailout going to Greg Nichols and Seattle real estate owners, who'll bag $1.5B in city taxes and property appreciation and **pay nothing for it**, but this project will add $500M costs of design, city taxes, cost escalation and project overruns, likely saddling Washington taxpayers and bond holders with an ADDITIONAL $2.8B, at least.
Can you spell WPPSS? Do you even remember WPPSS?!
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5482
That's $975 from your wallet for City of Seattle! Remember that next time you attend a sport event at one of Seattle's twin arenas, so nice, we paid for them twice.
$1.5B for Seattle NeoZi's, $975 from your wallet.
And no bailout for you! You'll get N-O-T-H-I-N-G.