Election 2008: New Laws in Your State

[AGDee]

I've posted this in other threads too, but Michigan passed both proposals: One allowing for the use of medical marijuana (including details about people becoming licensed growers) and Two to allow the use of embryos for embryonic stem cell research if they are the product of in vitro fertilization, no more than 14 days after cells begin to replicate, if the parents agree and if it would just be thrown away if it wasn't used for research. It clarified that nobody could be paid for embryos and embryos could not be created solely for this purpose. It also stated that no other more restrictive laws could be passed in the future.

A very controversial proposal in South Dakota did not pass. It would have made abortion illegal except in the case of rape, incest or for the health of the mother. It was thought that if it passed, it would have gone to the Supreme Court and would be the big Roe v. Wade challenge. I'm surprised, but pleased, that this red state did not pass it. I do not see how it would have been enforceable, which could be why it didn't pass. How would you "prove" that it was a rape or incest that impregnated you? Would someone have to be convicted? Wouldn't it be too late to get the abortion if you waited for a rape trial to happen? Too many issues with it, even if you're against abortion.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I've posted this in other threads too, but Michigan passed both proposals: One allowing for the use of medical marijuana (including details about people becoming licensed growers) and Two to allow the use of embryos for embryonic stem cell research if they are the product of in vitro fertilization, no more than 14 days after cells begin to replicate, if the parents agree and if it would just be thrown away if it wasn't used for research. It clarified that nobody could be paid for embryos and embryos could not be created solely for this purpose. It also stated that no other more restrictive laws could be passed in the future.

This is the part of that proposal that would have really creeped me out. I probably wouldn't have voted for it anyway (I have a smidgen more regard for Catholic teaching that that*), but it's the attempt to legislate in the future that I would have expected to trip people up rather than the actual permission granted in this case. I think you commented on this aspect before. But honestly, all you'd have to do would be repeal that law if you wanted to change legislation in the future, right?

ETA: I'm not trying to call out any Catholics who voted for it. I just mean that current Roman Catholic teaching about embryonic stem cell research would affect my own vote just enough to prevent me from personally voting for it. I don't think I'd be super troubled that it passed though. I think most people are pretty accepting of what's described. EATA: Isn't it weird though the stipulations they add on. Why would it be wrong to pay people for the embryos? Why would it be wrong to create embryos especially for this purpose if there isn't anything wrong with doing the research itself?

[UGAalum94]

Amendment 1

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide that the General Assembly by general law shall encourage the preservation, conservation, and protection of the state's forests through the special assessment and taxation of certain forest lands and assistance grants to local government?"

The voters said yes.

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize community redevelopment and authorize counties, municipalities, and local boards of education to use tax funds for redevelopment purposes and programs?"

The voters said yes.

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide by general law for the creation and comprehensive regulation of infrastructure development districts for the provision of infrastructure as authorized by local governments?"

The voters said no.

I said no to all three because I'm a jerk like that or because I don't really like to see government or government taxing and spending ever expand, you decide. The forest one was the most tempting to me. The second one is going to be really messy. I think it's going to be a way that City of Atlanta Schools (actually Atlanta Public Schools), who don't do a particularly good job with education and schools, will now be able to tax people at some pretty high rates and use the money for things other than education, which I suspect they will also do poorly and probably very self-interestedly if history is any predictor. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure they were the only school district interested in this. Most of the discussion focuses on TADs and no shifting of funds from education to redevelopment, but look at that amendment and tell me where that's made clear.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

This is the part of that proposal that would have really creeped me out. I probably wouldn't have voted for it anyway (I have a smidgen more regard for Catholic teaching that that*), but it's the attempt to legislate in the future that I would have expected to trip people up rather than the actual permission granted in this case. I think you commented on this aspect before. But honestly, all you'd have to do would be repeal that law if you wanted to change legislation in the future, right?

ETA: I'm not trying to call out any Catholics who voted for it. I just mean that current Roman Catholic teaching about embryonic stem cell research would affect my own vote just enough to prevent me from personally voting for it. I don't think I'd be super troubled that it passed though. I think most people are pretty accepting of what's described. EATA: Isn't it weird though the stipulations they add on. Why would it be wrong to pay people for the embryos? Why would it be wrong to create embryos especially for this purpose if there isn't anything wrong with doing the research itself?

I had to think long and hard about the "no more restrictive laws" part of it. I decided that you can't really get more restrictive than what was already there, so I was ok with it.

The "scare tactic" ads were horrendous against this proposal. They showed futuristic buildings with fake names implying that they were embryo factories. I think they included that clause about not making money off of the embryos to emphasize that this was only going to be done with embryos that already existed for other reasons but would be thrown away, so why not use them for research instead? You could save lives with these embryos that exist anyway or you can throw them away. That seems like an easier choice for even pro-lifers to make. But, like I said, the ads against it were horrendous. One showed a half cow/half human sitting in a classroom. One compared it to the Tuskegee Experiment.

[BetteDavisEyes]

So a bunch of friends are telling me to get over the fact that Prop 8 passed and laughing about it but then got pissed when I told them to get over the fact that Obama won the election and said it wasn't the same thing. What a bunch of tools.