Otsego Bill Analysis

On Wednesday February 20, the WMLDL will meet at Otsego High School. The bills under consideration are mostly bills from previous meets. So if they sound familiar, they should.

Resolution 1 -- Support Student Maternal Leave (Sen. Boehme, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. This was first put forward at State. As a Resolution, the measure can pick up what might first seem like a state issue. A Resolution involves no money and so has no real implementing power. As to the measure itself, the bill addresses the social status of teen-age, unwed mothers. By creating the option of maternal leave, the idea will be to help the woman continue in her education while also keeping the baby (and not aborting it). As a measure to address the abortion question, this is an especially nice back door approach.
  
  
• Instrumentality. See above, this is a Resolution, so normal issues aren't really germane. One might raise up the questions of whether or not there is an epidemic (ln 4), or whether current schools in fact are so uncaring. One question to explore will be the degree of healthcare that will be made available to the young mother -- if any. A good starting point for this discussion would be exploring the issue of unwanted pregnancy (see Guttmacher Institute).
  
  
• Clash. Remarkably, this bill can be attacked from the Right. Clash One: Are schools really the place for this kind of care? How accommodating should schools be to such conditions? Doesn't this make the school a kind of social work agency? Is that it's real purpose. So its Social Work v. Education grudge match. Clash Two: What message does this send? Doesn't this measure end up with the schools sanctioning immorality? How do we respect the choices students make? Shouldn't there be a penalty for a bad decision? See, there are all sorts of interesting issues on the Right just waiting to be explored. For those on the Left, Instrumentality will be your best bet.

Bill 1 -- Global Roaming (Senator Le, Grand Rapids City)

• Overview. The United States lets the individual cell phone providers use different spectrums and so different standards. Lack of standardization imposes a variety of economic costs on the United States economy, particularly compared to countries in Europe and Asia. This measure would produce a gradual roll out of the program. This gradual roll out does impose costs on smaller companies if they have to maintain two systems.
  
  
• Instrumentality. As noted, costs are the hidden problem here. Who picks up the extra service charge here for the two systems? A possible amendment will be to create a mandatory phase out date after passage, say 5 years from passage. This limits costs to the company
  
  
• Clash. Should the government really determine what system is best? Doesn't this sound like the government picking (economic) winners? Against this, there is a clear precedent for the federal government to promote commerce. A second issue is the status of the poor. Are they at risk with this kind of change? Could a sudden change end up with less cell-phone coverage? Is it just to require the poor to invest just to stay in touch? Or do we count on the telephone companies to extend options to them (you think?).

Bill NO. 2 -- Reduce the Age of Alcohol Consumption in Michigan (Senator Huang, Otsego)

• Overview. Section II says it all: old enough to join the Army, old enough to drink. Although this is considered as a state level bill, a national perspective will focus on a common standard for all states. At its heart, the bill is about one legal standard for adulthood. When are you an adult? Why should it be considered as a rolling event? Why not have a date fixed, and call it good?
  
  
• Instrumentality. Lowering the drinking age raises some interesting problems regarding abuse. The dangers of abuse are obvious one of the key issues. The extension of drinking to younger ages may also be another area to explore. As noted, this is framed as a Michigan-specific measure. This is an easy point of attack. Noting that, suggest that the bill really be understood as an establishment of a common age of majority for youth in the nation. You may want to pay attention to the final Section. Does this mean that 18-year olds can bring beer with them in their lunch to school? Clearly you don't want to be wiping out useful laws.
  
  
• Clash. The principal clash is that of who determines when adulthood is legally recognized. Isn't that really the property of the State? One area for consideration is that of who pays. While no direct funding is required, could there be indirect expenses? For instance, does such a measure increase insurance premiums for families with 17 and 18 year olds? There may be many other examples of hidden costs. Bring them up. Look again at Section V. What about schools? When do we say that youth are fully adults? Is it just an age function? When are you ready to be a citizen? is 18 right? or 21? Some interesting areas to think about.

Bill No. 3 -- Provide Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research (Senator Cramer, Otsego)

• Overview. Bill is seeking to expand funding for and access to stem cell research. This double focus, keeps the issue centered on that of stem cells generally. Again, we're in the area of what are termed pluripotent cells, i.e. those stem cells from which a variety of cells can be developed -- at least hypothetically. The problem in all stem cell research is the source of the cells. Where the embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos they can be seen as debasing or otherwise destroying a potential life. This is the source of most controversy regarding stem cells.
  
  
• Instrumentality. The weakness in the bill will be the lack of definition. E.g. $40 million, but for what year? That is presumably an increase. Likewise, there is a loose definition of "stem cells" when what is meant are "embryonic stem cells" or even "pluripotent stem cells". A second issue worthy of discussion is whether the bill is too broad: it has a budget function, then includes donation of umbilical cords, as well as excess embryos from fertility clinics. This last is the problem child. It may make it more palatable to delete ln 5 "and excess fertility clinic embryos."
  
  
• Clash. The moral question will occupy many. The principal clash will be that of pragmatism -- we do what works -- and that of ethical policy -- we do what's right (even if it seems to limit oru options0. So where do you fall on this? What works? What's right? Can there be a greater good which you could pursue? What kinds of decision making would you use? This is a philosophical approach. Remember that no matter what side you choose, you will still need to back up your point with some kind of reference.

Bill No. 4 -- Firearm Permits for Qualified Classroom Teachers (Sen Milliman, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Is there a place for guns on campus? Perhaps after the shooting at Northern Illinois, there might be a place. This is a return of an earlier bill. Generally, states have determined that the classroom is among those places where firearms are not permitted. This bill would change that, and so allow your favorite teacher to also pack some heat.
  
  
• Instrumentality. The key clause in the bill is definition of "districts deemed at high risk of gun violence" --- no standards are specified. In the course of debate, this would be a good place to clarify. How do you know what districts this applies to? Likewise, you will want to raise the question of jurisdiction -- is this really a federal issue? On what basis? An interesting aspect is the number of barriers presented to the teacher: it's all at her expense, which presumably will decrease the applications for such a permit.
  
  
• Clash. At first blush this looks like a purely state issue. There is however a Second Amendment aspect: can the state restrict where guns are allowed anywhere? Another clash can take place on the role of education itself: What makes a safe school? Do we think of schools as a community? Or as a place of confrontation? Guns in the classroom suggests that the teacher does not trust the students in the desks. Is that the case?

Bill No. 5 -- Legalize the Sale and Purchase of Human Organs (Sen. Walley, Otsego)

• Overview. The bill sets up a government market for the sale of human organs for transplant purposes. At present organs are donated; the notion introduces a market mindset. One might get more organs if a price were paid. Essentially this incentives the donation of your own organs (or presumably granny's if you have power of attorney). Organ trafficking is found elsewhere in the world, chiefly in Eastern Europe (illegally) and in India (of dubious legality).
  
  
• Instrumentality. The bill covers most of the obvious bases fairly well. Two questions merit more exploration. First, what about power of attorney? Can a third party enter into a contract, provided they have legal rights (e.g. you have power of attorney over your great aunt Sue, can you therefore auction off her kidney?). Second, the bill is unclear about who purchases? The managed fee structure is not spelled out. Does the bill also allow for third party or middleman contracts? This latter has been the bane of India.
  
  
• Clash. The heart of the real debate will be about the nature of donation v. sale, paid or non-paid? While incentives do provide for more organs, it can also raise the question of self-interest. Money does strange things (think of reality TV), how do we keep self-interest properly focused? Second, since we are talking about money, does this measure place the poor at greater risk? A useful analog to research would be problems with blood donors.
  

Bill No. 6 -- Required Food Labeling (Sen. Smith, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Bill focuses on labeling requirements for foods. There are three aspects: country of origin, status as an organic product, elimination of the word "natural" on food labels. The bill focuses on Title 21, the section of the US Code governing labeling.
  
  
• Instrumentality. Article II is already in Title 21, so it can be deleted -- certainly do not debate this one. Optional organic labeling is already provided by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). There already exist extensive labeling requirements, found in US Title 7. What is missing in the bill, are the various levels of organic labeling. The code is actually quite supple, here. The ban on "natural" is perhaps most controversial with respect to the labeling of meat. As with many bills, the penalty phase is too extreme. (e.g. Who exactly goes to jail?).
  
  
• Clash. This bill turns about how you understand its purpose. Is this for the consumer? If so, then how much is enough information? Does the required Organic tell the buyer anything? Here the clash is that between Market and Regulation. Is virtue (Organic = good) something best protected by the Organic industry? Or should these be a part of the required labels? There is no automatic position here -- sometimes the Market is best, sometimes Government (especially when companies are prone to cut corners.) A second possible clash arises if you think this is really an organic farm bill -- does it require non-organic products to label themselves as "non-organic"? If so, then we have a bill that actually markets a product, disguised as a regulation. So the clash: how do we make sure that we have needed regulation, and not simply rules that help this or that special interest? What makes a good regulation?