 |
2007 Legislative Bill Watch |
|
2007 Legislative Bill Watch |
A bill, by State Senator Linda Higgins (DFL, SD 58) that would allow Minnesota municipalities to extend domestic partnership benefits to partners of municipal employees. Currently, Minnesota Statute § 471.61 states that municipalities can only extend benefits to employees, employees’ spouses and employees’ dependent children. The bill would likely amend the statute to include same-sex partners of employees.
The Minnesota Family Council would oppose such a bill, as it would redefine marriage and family by extending domestic partnership benefits to same-sex partners of public employees at the taxpayers expense.
UPDATE - 4/5/07: Four different bills have been introduced establishing domestic partnership status for homosexual and / or cohabitating couples.
- H.F. 1618 / S.F. 1369 Establishing domestic partnerships for state employees
- H.F. 1097 / S.F. 960 Authorizing local governments to establish domestic partner benefits
- H.F. 219 / S.F. 1128 Establishing domestic partnerships for personal sick leave
- H.F. 1589 /S.F. 1398 Establishing domestic partnerships for patient visitation rights
The first three proposals are included in the House State Government Operations Omnibus bill.
The first two are included in the Senate State Government Operations bill. Governor Pawlenty and Republican legislative leaders oppose the proposals and the Governor said he would veto a bill containing them.
MFC Testified against the four bills in both the House and the Senate on several occasions and provided legislators with amendments, background information, and reasons for opposing it.
UPDATE - 3/24/07: The Minnesota State Senate passed omnibus budget bill (S.F. 1997) that contains an amendment mandating state government to provide benefits to same-sex couples and redefines marriage (domestic partnership) to include persons of the same sex.
The Minnesota State House received the bill from the senate and referred the bill to the finance committee.
UPDATE - 3/9/07: MFC President, Tom Prichard, and Lead Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, Jordan Lorence, presented at the hearing for SF 1369 in the "State and Local Government Operations and Oversight" committee. The committee on a voice vote passed the bill, which will next be heard by the finance committee. Click Here to watch their testimony.
UPDATE - 3/1/07: Just days after introducing a bill that would allow municipalities the option of extending benefits to same-sex couples, a new bill (S.F. No. 1369) has been introduced by Senators Pappas, Cohen, Bakk, Rest and Koering that would "require" state government to provide same. The bill would also redefine domestic partner as person of same sex.
UPDATE - 2/22/07: HF 1097 & SF 0960 were introduced on Monday. Each bill would allow for a modified definition of "dependent" for employee benefits of local government officers and employees. (T)he word "dependents" is defined as: spouse and minor unmarried children under the age of 18 years, dependent students under the age of 25 years actually dependent upon the employee, and others as defined by governmental units at their discretion.
Many same-sex marriage advocates support this legislation as it would allow municipalities to extend domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples.. Click here to see which Legislators are currently supporting this bill
UPDATE - 2/14/07: According to an email update to constituents, State Representative Jim Davnie (DFL, 62A) will be introducing a domestic partner bill this week.
The Minnesota Family Council opposes the smoking of marijuana for medical purposes. THC, the active ingredient in marijuana is available in other controlled forms. There is sound, scientific evidence that smoking marijuana is harmful and can lead to abuse. Smoked marijuana as medicine has been rejected by the American Medical Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, American Glaucoma Society, American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Cancer Society. The Food and Drug Administration does not support smoking marijuana for medical purposes. The bill allows users to posses huge amounts of marijuana. (12 plants will yield 12 to 60 lbs. Per year 5,448 to 27,240 joints.) The bill lacks safety standards for administration and use. (For example: potency, side effects, dosage, interaction with other medications, frequency and refills.
UPDATED - 4/5/07: Bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate (H.F. 615 / S.F. 345). MFC testified in both bodies against the bill on more than one occasion and provided materials explaining our objections. Click Here to read the latest actions on medical marijuana.
UPDATE - 3/20/07: The House Public Safety and Civil Law Committee approved the bill by an 11-8 vote after an amendment was added taking away a provision that would have allowed individual patients to grow their own marijuana. Under the amended bill, only sanctioned nonprofit organizations would be permitted to grow up to 12 plants and 2.5 ounces per patient. The individual plant provision remains in a Senate version
UPDATE - 2/14/07: The Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee passed SF0345 and sent it to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. An identical bill (HF0655) was introduced in the House last week and is expected to have its first committee hearing soon.
This curricula allegedly take a middle position, providing a strong abstinence message while also teaching about contraception. In reality, this claim is misleading. Comprehensive sexuality education curricula contain little or no meaningful abstinence material; they are simply safe-sex programs repackaged under a new, deceptive label.
Comprehensive sex-ed curricula focus almost exclusively on teaching about contraception and encouraging teens to use it. These curricula neither discourage nor criticize teen sexual activity as long as "protection" is used. In general, they exhibit an acceptance of casual teen sex and do not encourage teens to wait until they are older to initiate sexual activity. For example, the curricula do not encourage teens to abstain until they have finished high school. "Protected" sex at an early age and sex with many different partners are not treated as problems. Sexuality is treated primarily as a physical phenomenon; the main message is to use condoms to prevent the physical problems of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Comprehensive sex-ed curricula ignore the vital linkages between sexuality, love, intimacy, and commitment. There is no discussion of the idea that sex is best within marriage.\
UPDATE: 4/5/07: Bills wereintroduced (H.F. 588 / S.F. 615) mandating all public middle and high schools provide pro-condom materials and authorize the state Department of Education to promote homosexuality in the schools. The bill was heard in both the House and the Senate, however it was only included in the House Omnibus K-12 Education bill - not in the Senate.
UPDATE: 3/7/07: MFC Presenter and Researcher Barb Anderson testified in opposition to SF 615. Click Here to see Barb's testimony. Warning: Some of the statements made during the testimony are graphic and may be inappropriate for children. We post this material for the purpose of educating parents on what comprehensive sex ed teaches.
A bill (SF0243 and HF530) that would require mandatory HPV vaccination for female children.
Although protecting children from disease is important to every Minnesotan, MFC opposes this bill because parents, not government should decide if/when their children receive vaccinations, and, it undermines abstinence and excuses pre-marital sex. Since HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer, and scientists now have a drug to prevent it, requiring students to be vaccinated seems to make good sense. However, unlike polio which is transmitted by casual contact, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and therefore not in the same class as other diseases that warrant mandatory, school-based vaccination. Merck & Co., who has cornered the market and spent thousands to lobby in 18 states, produces the vaccine in question – trade name Gardasil. Each vaccination costs about $360 dollars of which 65% goes straight into Merck’s pockets.
UPDATE - 2/22/07: According to a Pioneer Press article, "Political support is unstable at best for a proposed law that all preteen girls in Minnesota be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer." click here to read the full story
A bill (H.F. 992, S.F. 838) by Representative Mary Ellen Otremba (DFL, Long Prairie) and State Senator Tom Neuville (R, Northfield) preventing taxpayers from being forced to pay for elective abortions.
The Minnesota Family Council supports this bill that would prevent taxpayers from being forced to pay for elective abortions. The bill would end the more than $1 million annual reimbursement payments to abortion centers for thousands of abortions. According to statistics from the Minnesota Department of Human Services, taxpayers paid $1.39 million for more than 4,100 abortions in 2004; nearly 30% of all abortions performed in Minnesota (most recent figures). Taxpayers have been forced to pay more than $9 million for elective abortions since June 1994, when the Minnesota Supreme Court imposed taxpayer funding of abortions in its Doe v. Gomez decision.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research - 2/7/07
Sen. Dick Cohen, DFL-St. Paul, is sponsoring a bill (SF100) that would commit an unspecified amount of money toward state-level research, including on stem cells derived from unused, donated embryos. Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, is sponsoring a similar bill (HS034).