Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
After confabbing in secret for several days, the Republicans have now released their healthcare bill (the secrecy was reprehensible). You can read it at CNN here, and I haven’t yet gone over it, but I offer it for your delectation.
I had no idea that state-funded adoption agencies in Texas could refuse to allow children to be adopted by gays, non-Christians, or single parents—on religious grounds alone. Although some of these organizations are faith-based, all concerned with Texas bill HB 3859 also get taxpayer funds. That means that discriminating against adoptive parents on religious grounds would seem to violate both the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In practice, these agencies are Christian, and so could (and have) denied adoption rights to couples (or single people) of the “wrong” faith (read Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.)
Here’s one bit of that bill, protecting those agencies from being sued for discriminating (my emphasis); note the gratuitous clause 3, which protects those agencies that refuse to help people get contraceptives or abortions:
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PROVIDERS PROTECTED. A governmental entity or any person that contracts with this state or operates under governmental authority to refer or place children for child welfare services may not discriminate or take any adverse action against a child welfare services provider on the basis, wholly or partly, that the provider: (1) has declined or will decline to provide, facilitate, or refer a person for child welfare services that conflict with, or under circumstances that conflict with, the provider ’s sincerely held religious beliefs; (2) provides or intends to provide children under the control, care, guardianship, or direction of the provider with a religious education, including through placing the children in a private or parochial school or otherwise providing a religious education in accordance with the laws of this state; (3) has declined or will decline to provide, facilitate, or refer a person for abortions, contraceptives, or drugs, devices, or services that are potentially abortion-inducing; or (4) refuses to enter into a contract that is inconsistent with or would in any way interfere with or force a provider to surrender the rights created by this chapter.
As PBS reported on May 7:
Five other states have passed similar laws protecting faith-based adoption organizations that refuse to place children with gay parents or other households on religious grounds — but Texas’ rule would extend to state-funded agencies. Only South Dakota’s is similarly sweepingly.
The bill had been scheduled for debate and approval Saturday in the state House, but lawmakers bogged down with other matters. It now is expected to come up next week.
Republican sponsors of Texas’ bill say it is designed to support the religious freedom of adoption agencies and foster care providers. Many of the agencies are private and faith-based but receive state funds.
But opponents say it robs children of stable homes while funding discrimination with taxpayer dollars.
“This would allow adoption agencies to turn away qualified, loving parents who are perhaps perfect in every way because the agency has a difference in religious belief,” said Catherine Oakley, senior legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign. “This goes against the best interest of the child.”
On May 9, the Texas House passed that bill 94-51, and then it was sent to the Texas Senate.
Last Sunday, the Texas Senate passed the bill, It now goes to Texas Governor Greg Abbott. who will sign it because, according to CNN, it was a bill he wanted. Further, to add discrimination to discrimination, Texas passed a bathroom bill the same day:
The same day, the Texas House of Representatives approved a limited “bathroom bill” that would require public high school students to use restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificates. The measure now goes back to the Senate, which previously approved a broader version mandating that standard for everyone using public restrooms.
Abbott had made the issue a priority for the legislative session. Meanwhile, Texas lawmakers also have proposed bills or amendments allowing “religious liberty” exemptions for lawyers, pharmacists and nurses.
Opponents of the bills, who say they target vulnerable children, are outraged. One critic on Twitter called it “discrimination Sunday.”
Indeed it was. Since children aren’t born with a stamp that says “Christian,” or have genes that make them accept Jesus, discriminating against adoptive parents this way not only is government-funded proselytizing, but deprives children of loving homes. Let us hope that some aggrieved and deprived parent takes this bill to Federal court, and, that with respect to the bathroom bill, Texas will suffer the same opprobrium as did North Carolina, which repealed a similar bathroom bill in March after nationwide criticism and the creation of economic boycotts.
We are two countries now, but I hope this won’t hold. Bills like these are the last gasp of Christians and homophobes against an increasingly secular (and moral) populace. Yes, Trump was elected, but it was close, and I have my trust in the thesis of Steve Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature, which shows pretty convincingly that the world is getting better. (Do read that book; it’s great and only $13 in paperback.) That improvement also means a country less religious and less bigoted.
Texas is swimming against the current.
This is the kind of stuff the Science March was designed to prevent. As yesterday’s New York Times reported, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, whose name encapsulates its mission, has just dismissed five or more members of its scientific review board, the Board of Science Counselors (BSC). The BSC’s job is to review and vet the science produced by the EPA, which is used in its mission to regulate industries and protect the environment.
The Board was in bad odor after having recommended more work on climate change, and their punishment was to ditch the scientists off the Board—after those scientists had already been told they wouldn’t be let go under the new administration.
So who’s going to guard the environmental henhouse? Why, members of the regulated industries, of course! Read and weep:
A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate, as part of the wide net it plans to cast. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” said the spokesman, J. P. Freire.
The dismissals on Friday came about six weeks after the House passed a bill aimed at changing the composition of another E.P.A. scientific review board to include more representation from the corporate world.
President Trump has directed Mr. Pruitt to radically remake the E.P.A., pushing for deep cuts in its budget — including a 40 percent reduction for its main scientific branch — and instructing him to roll back major Obama-era regulations on climate change and clean water protection. In recent weeks, the agency has removed some scientific data on climate change from its websites, and Mr. Pruitt has publicly questioned the established science of human-caused climate change.
In his first outings as E.P.A. administrator, Mr. Pruitt has made a point of visiting coal mines and pledging that his agency will seek to restore that industry, even though many members of both of the E.P.A.’s scientific advisory boards have historically recommended stringent constraints on coal pollution to combat climate change.
Mr. Freire said the agency wanted “to take as inclusive an approach to regulation as possible.”
“We want to expand the pool of applicants” for the scientific board, he said, “to as broad a range as possible, to include universities that aren’t typically represented and issues that aren’t typically represented.”
Everybody knows what’s going on here: the Republicans don’t give a rat’s patootie about the environment, and if those pesky scientists get in the way, well, fire ’em! Let the coal industry determine pollution standards and the industrialists prosper. (And we can also ditch the Paris climate accords.)
You can march for science until your toes wear off, but the real way to stop this is to quit electing Republicans.
It’s unbelievable what Republicans try to do when making law. They are overturning Obamacare simply to go after Obama—a move that will lead, foreseeably, to the deaths of thousands of Americans. But now the GOP in North Carolina has passed a bill that’s just as ludicrous and almost as dangerous.
What happened, according to multiple and credible sources (see, for instance, here, here, and here) is that the House wing of the North Carolina legislature passed a bill (HB 330) immunizing drivers from civil lawsuits who hit protestors in the streets. One of the impetuses for the bill was a protest that occurred recently in North Carolina, and HB330, which passed by a vote of 67-48, was of course introduced by a Republican, Representative Justin P. Burr.
Last year, people protesting the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott by a Charlotte police officer blocked roadways during at-times chaotic protest-related activities.
“These people are nuts to run in front of cars like they do … and say, ‘Me and my buddy here are going to stop this two-and-a-half-ton vehicle,’” GOP state Rep. Michael Speciale said in support of the bill, The News & Observer reports. “If somebody does bump somebody, why should they be held liable?”
The bill does not allow drivers to deliberately target protestors, but, as far as I can see, if a driver simply drives through a crowd or protestors, killing or injuring some, that driver is immune from civil prosecution. I’m not sure about criminal prosecution on the grounds of reckless driving or other infractions, and perhaps a lawyer can weigh in here. But I suspect you’re free and clear legally and civilly. What does seem clear is that the object is to eliminate protests in the streets, including ones that constitute civil disobedience. And the bill seems superfluous, anyway:
Democratic state Rep. Henry Michaux, however, points out North Carolina is one of just four states with a pure contributory negligence rule, which means it’s already impossible to collect a payout if the injured party is even 1 percent at fault for an accident.
Michaux, an African-American attorney, tells U.S. News the bill therefore would not give drivers additional protection from liability. Instead, he sees it as an unconstitutional invitation to mow down protesters or weave through parades, and he feels the motivation behind the bill may be racial.
“Who demonstrates more than people of color?” Michaux says. “It would give some folks the idea,” he says, to intentionally run over people “because you’ve got a group of black folks out here or a group of Latinos out here.”
WFAE points out other problems:
“We all know this is being done to try to make a point about protests,” said Democrat Greg Meyer. He’s just one of the lawmakers who saw a problem with this bill. “It is just going to embarrass us. There is no good reason to pass this bill.”
Even those in favor of the measure saw problems.
When first introduced this bill was incredibly broad. Amendments followed. One to make it clear it was just for protesters on the street, an earlier version could have included those on the sidewalk.
Another amendment made this bill only pertain to protesters who did not have a permit to be on the street. But there’s a problem with that, as pointed out by Democrat Pricey Harrison. “There is Supreme Court case law that there is a constitutional right to protest without a permit even in the streets when the protest is in rapid response to unforeseeable and recent events.”
Just like the events which Burr said spurred this proposed law.
Here’s a pdf of the bill, which will now be taken up by the state Senate:
It seems crazy to me to even consider such a bill. When there are people in the street—for whatever reason—you don’t drive over them unless you’re in fear for your own life. You can’t just kill protestors because you need to buy milk at the 7-11.
It is obvious to anyone that this is a way for North Carolina Republicans to both squelch protests and allow people to kill or injure protestors. And if you’re wondering if it’s mostly Republicans who did this, the answer is “yes”: the roll call is below. Only one Democrat voted for the bill and just five Republicans against it.
Things are in bad shape in what used to be one of the more enlightened Southern states. (The legislature is also gutting higher education in the state.)
h/t: Grania
Two days ago, the Washington Post ran an article warning of the dangers of theocratic incursions into American public education, “Influential conservative group: Trump, DeVos should dismantle Education Department and bring God into classrooms.” Well, we don’t want that, do we? It certainly violates the First Amendment, and even a staunch originalist, like Scalia was and Gorsuch will be, would be hard pressed to say that the First Amendment allows dragging God into the classrooms.
The Post‘s fears come from a document (removed online, but archived here) produced by The Council for National Policy, a secretive conservative group that had Steve Bannon as a member and Kellyanne Conway on its executive committee. The report is explicitly based on religion:
Here are some of its goals, which include posting the Ten Commandments, teaching Bible classes, and removing “secular sex education materials” from schools:
The document doesn’t explicitly mention evolution, but you know what would happen were these goals implemented.
There’s more religious palaver about Jesus at the end of the document, but you get the idea. This is to education as the infamous Wedge Document was to science: an embarrassing, religiously motivated plan of action that was removed from the Internet because it clearly conflicted with secular public education.
The Post wrings its hands over this a lot, but DeVos, not a known member of the Council for National Policy, has stated that she doesn’t favor elimination of the Department of Education, and in her confirmation said that she would “implement the laws as intended by Congress. That includes the provisions about the prohibition against religious instruction in schools.” Of course, she might be lying, as her history is in favor of religiously based charter schools. And although DeVos’s husband has expressed support for teaching creationism, DeVos herself has kept her nose clean on that issue. So we don’t know, and I think the Post is crying a bit of “wolf” on this one. Still, it’s worthwhile to see the aims of this group, and learn who belonged to it—just as it was worthwhile knowing about the Wedge Document.
Some have joked that the new logo for the Department of Education would be the one below, but that’s a bit premature:
Well, it’s been only about three weeks since the Trumpster took office, and if it wasn’t our country at stake, American politics would constitute a humorous soap opera. Already we’ve had the Failed Mexican-Financed Wall, the overturned immigration orders, the realization that it won’t be so easy after all to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, Nordstromgate (with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics now asking the White House to investigate Kellyanne Conway for telling people to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff”), the resignation of national security advisor Michael Flynn, the new revelation that Trump aides had repeated contact with senior Russian intelligence officials before the election, the criticism of Trump’s attitude to the judiciary by his own nominee for the Supreme Court, the conversion of the Mar-a-Lago Club’s terrace into a national security venue, complete with confidential information open to onlookers, and so on. And it hasn’t even been a month! What will it be like after four years???
And that’s just the administration. The legislature, emboldened by victory, is also up to no good, and one of their dumbest feats to date is the proposal, on February 3, of a House bill to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency. Yes, you heard me right. Here’s the entire short bill:
It was introduced by Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, who had the temerity to put a “black is white” post about it on his Facebook page:
Gaetz’s partners in crime (all Republicans, of course, and all from the South) are the bill’s cosponsors: Barry Loudermilk (Georgia), Thomas Massie (Kentucky), and Steven Palazzo (Mississsippi). All have abysmal stands on the environment, and some have been vocal critics of the EPA. NBC News gives more information on these representatives, but also reassures us that the bill has virtually no chance of passing, especially since a similar bill (though not as draconian) was introduced six years ago. (Go here to see other reasons why it won’t pass.)
While some conservatives are praising the proposal, the legislation has little chance of getting through both chambers of Congress.
“It’s hard to imagine Congress being willing to do so, and the American public would almost certainly virulently oppose such a move,” Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles Law School, told Bloomberg BNA in March.
Since its creation in 1970 under President Richard Nixon, the EPA has grown into an agency with an $8 billion fund. And throughout its history, politicians have called to end the EPA both on the campaign trail and through legislation.
Six years ago, Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, introduced a bill with 15 co-sponsors to consolidate the Energy Department and the EPA, but the proposal never made it through the Senate. And earlier that year, as a 2012 presidential candidate, New Gingrich proposed abolishing the agency, as well
I’m not worried that this bill will pass, as it’s unthinkable to get rid of an agency like this (of course with Trump the unthinkable has become thinkable), but it’s symptomatic of the follies that have now become licensed with the Chief Clown as President.
Here’s today’s right-wing LOL. Steve Bannon, formerly the head of Breitbart News, is now the Assistant and Chief Strategist to Donald Trump, and sits on the National Security Council. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is, of course, the leader of ISIS. As The Raw Story reports, Fox News was angered at a USA Today editorial arguing that both Bannon and al-Baghdadi “share similar world views,” harboring “apocalyptic visions of a clash between Islam and the West.” (To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, when you’ve lost USA Today, you’ve lost America.) The editorial wasn’t that bad, as the shared vision of a religious clash is indeed a fact, though USA Today osculates Islam a bit too much for my taste. But Fox couldn’t stand it.
To retaliate, Fox News host Tucker Carlson invited David Mastio, editorial-page editor of USA today, onto his show to defend the editorial. The clip is below, which includes this hilarious checklist from Carlson’s game, “Who did it?” It proves definitively that Bannon and Baghdadi aren’t identical!
I thought that Mastio acquitted himself well, though I’m not sure I would have agreed to go on Fox News!
h/t: Grania