the reaper is back

[rod anode]

With barely a word said about it, the panel voted 3-2 to attach a physician-assisted death bill to the tanning bed bill, a maneuver that sets up a possible Senate floor vote on the controversial end-of-life issue that had failed to make it out of another committee

[Rev. Elizabeth]

What a bizarre combination of bills.....

[rod anode]

your tellin me

[Carolyn Branagan]

Things are wild here at the statehouse. The Death bill is one reason we call this the 'crazy season.' Several legislators have told me the process makes no sense because the bills are not related to one another .  I'll try to keep all of you up to date.
Carolyn

[ohhman]

Don't you just love the way they can attach a bill that has been defeated to another bill they think will pass, so that it goes through??!!  Recently childcare workers against a union hosted an evening of questions/answers with a Franklin Cty senator in regards to the H97 bill.  She said the bill had been defeated but she was sure it'd be attached to another education bill in hopes of pushing it through & guess what?? She was in favor of the bills to go through, may have been behind the bill being attached to another, regardless of the more than 100 petitions handed to her that night against the bill!  So, I guess it will be our turn to have a say when she comes up for re-election!

[rod anode]

and this is how they get extra pork with the meal

[Chris Santee]

The Reverend got me thinking of odd combo's.

http://washingtonindependent.com/42641/senate-approves-coburn-gun-amendment

[Thor]

My biggest concern is that only "several legislators" mentioned to Carolyn, "that the process makes no sense, because the bills aren't related to one another". What were all the others doing? This might explain why we are in the condition we are in.

The fact that the bills are not related is irrelevant. This is the typical political gamesmanship. Played at all levels of gov't. If it wasn't so sad, it would be humorous.

Perhaps in some odd way the bills are connected, and no one has read deep enough into the document to figure out how. Maybe it stipulates that there can only be Physician Assisted Suicide if it is conducted on a tanning bed.

Another point to consider is.... why are politicians even remotely giving consideration to this tanning bed bill, when that would appear to be a parent/child discussion and decision. Totally ridiculous. Where as, the PAS bill, would seem to be more of a legitimate concern at the state level. And it has already been presented and defeated.

That's the problem with lawmakers, they suddenly feel empowered to delve into issues they should not be involved in, but they believe they have been granted the power to do so.

[rod anode]

'"but they believe they have been granted the power to do so. "" appointed by GOD

[Thor]

Don't get me going Ed.

[Chris Santee]

Freud would have wanted me to leave the typo untouched:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 10, 2012
CONTACT: Adam Necrason – 802-338-0792 / necrason@snlawvt.com
Letter also posted at: http://patientchoices.org/pcvscottltr.pdf

April 11, 2012
OPEN LETTER TO LT. GOVERNOR PHIL SCOTT
RE: Death with Dignity; Germaneness (H.157)

Dear Lt. Governor Scott:

It is has become abundantly clear that your ruling tomorrow on germaness of the Health and Welfare Committee’s Death with Dignity (DWD) amendment to H.157 could very well dictate whether or not the people of Vermont will ever see their Senators vote and be on record on this important civil rights issue.

We have read your quotes in the media, and implore you to consider the following:

As expressed in the committee’s legislative findings, 80-90% of Oregonians who have chosen Death with Dignity for themselves over 14 years were suffering from terminal cancer with a prognosis of less than six months to live. H.157, which the committee seeks to amend, clearly deals with preventing cancer to begin with.

Death With Dignity adds a treatment choice for the terminally ill - overwhelmingly for cancer patients - which they presently do not have under the law. If a senate committee wanted to allow a clinical trial or encourage another new cancer treatment to a DWD bill, surely that would be germane. If other cancer treatment options were germane to a DWD bill, why would not cancer prevention also be germane? Wouldn’t you find, for example, the addition of money for cancer treatment, research or prevention to be germane to both H.157 and DWD? How do policies v. money promoting policies change the germaneness question?

Certainly DWD will be of great import and comfort to many cancer patients. But if we can reduce the incidents of cancer, as H.157 seeks to do through cancer prevention. We can improve matters for all even further. Clearly the issues “relate” to each other and, therefore, meet the standards of germaneness under Mason's rules of procedure (see back).

We also must mention that the public appears to be well ahead of the legislature on this issue, with recent respected polls showing 64- 25% favorability for this issue (results on back). We fully understand that polls are generally of little relevance to the question of germaneness. However, in questions like this, that have been well discussed and bottled up for many, many years, and where opinions have crystallized, we would respectfully ask you to consider allowing the entire Senate to fully debate and vote - as opposed to yourself or 2 or 3 Senators (on either side of the issue) being the issue’s final arbiter.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Respectfully yours,


Dick Walters
Chair

[Rev. Elizabeth]

..is germaneness a word!

..can we have the details of H.157...

[Thor]

I believe it is. I could be wrong though, I didn't excel in academia. I did do pretty good with crayons and paste.

[mkr]

What a crazy season indeed! Hope you can round up some support down their Carolyn to get some real work done!   

[Carolyn Branagan]

Rev., 

Here's H157:

BILL AS PASSED THE HOUSE H.157
2011 Page 1 of 3
VT LEG 261587.1
1 H.157
2 Introduced by Representative Ancel of Calais
3 Referred to Committee on
4 Date:
5 Subject: Health; tanning facilities; minors
6 Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to prohibit the use of tanning
7 facilities by minors.
8 An act relating to restrictions on tanning beds
9 It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
10 Sec. 1. 18 V.S.A. § 1513 is added to read:
11 § 1513. TANNING FACILITIES; MINORS; PENALTY
12 (a) As used in this section:
13 (1) “Operator” means a person designated by the tanning facility owner
14 or tanning equipment lessee to operate or to assist and instruct in the operation
15 and use of the tanning facility or tanning equipment.
16 (2) “Tanning equipment” means any device that emits electromagnetic
17 radiation with wavelengths in the air between 200 and 400 nanometers used for
18 tanning of the skin, including a sunlamp, tanning booth, or tanning bed.
19 (3) “Tanning facility” means any location, place, area, structure, or
20 business that provides persons access to any tanning equipment, including
BILL AS PASSED THE HOUSE H.157
2011 Page 2 of 3
VT LEG 261587.1
tanning salons, health clubs, apartments, and condominiums, 1 regardless of
2 whether a fee is charged for access to the tanning equipment.
3 (b) This section shall apply to any tanning facility in Vermont; provided,
4 however, that it shall not apply to any physician duly licensed to practice
5 medicine who uses, in the practice of medicine, medical diagnostic and
6 therapeutic equipment that emits ultraviolet radiation or to any person who
7 owns tanning equipment exclusively for personal, noncommercial use.
8 (c) It shall be unlawful for a tanning facility or operator to allow any person
9 who has not yet reached the age of 18 to use any tanning equipment.
10 (d) Any tanning facility found to be in violation of this section shall be
11 subject to a civil penalty of up to $500.00 for the first violation, not less than
12 $750.00 and not more than $1,000.00 for the second violation, and not less
13 than $1,000.00 and not more than $1,500.00 for the third violation and each
14 violation thereafter.
(d) Any tanning facility or operator that allows a person under 18 years of
age to use any tanning equipment shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $100.00 for the first offense and not more than $500.00 for any
subsequent offense. An action to enforce this section shall be brought in the
judicial bureau pursuant to 4 V.S.A. chapter 29.
15 (e) The commissioner of health shall adopt such rules as are necessary to
16 carry out the provisions of this section.
BILL AS PASSED THE HOUSE H.157
2011 Page 3 of 3
VT LEG 261587.1
(f) A tanning facility owner, lessee, or operator shall post in a conspicuous
place in each tanning facility that the individual owns, leases, or operates in
this state a notice developed by the commissioner of health addressing the
following:
(1) that it is unlawful for a tanning facility or operator to allow a person
under the age of 18 to use any tanning equipment;
(2) that a tanning facility or operator that violates the provisions of this
section shall be subject to a civil penalty;
(3) that an individual may report a violation of the provisions of this
section to his or her local law enforcement agency; and
(4) the health risks associated with tanning.
Sec. 2. 4 V.S.A. § 1102(b)(23) is added to read:
(23) Violations of 18 V.S.A. § 1513, relating to minors using tanning
facilities.