Author Archives: Editor

Ohio Right to Life Applauds Gov. Kasich For Appointing Two Pro-Lifers to The State Board of Pharmacy

The two individuals, Kevin Mitchell (Marion County) and Michael A. Mone (Delaware County), come to the Board with extensive backgrounds in the pharmaceutical field.N

Mitchell first earned a Pharmacy Technology Degree through service the United States Air Force at the Community College of the Air Force and went on to receive his degree in Pharmacy from Ohio Northern in 1989. Mone studied at the University of Florida to receive his bachelor’s degree in pharmacy in 1981, and was awarded his juris doctorate in 1985.

Mitchell has since worked for Rite Aid of Ohio, where he has been a staff pharmacist, pharmacy manager, and pharmacy development manager and also served on the State Board of Pharmacy under Gov. Bob Taft. Mone was Executive Director of the Kentucky Board of Pharmacy and Assistant Attorney General for the state of Florida. He has also served as Vice President of Anti-Diversion & Senior Regulatory Counsel at Cardinal Health, Inc. since 2007. In addition to other pharmacy boards, both are members of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy.

With these two appointments, our governor continues to pave the way for pro-life Ohioans to be heard and represented. With professionals such as Mitchell and Mone on the State Board of Pharmacy, Ohio takes one step closer to becoming a state where the right to life is respected and defended. On behalf of our entire statewide membership, the Ohio Right to Life Society thanks Governor Kasich for his steadfast support.

Note: Appointments of Mitch and Mone became official March 10, 2011.

Tax appeals, parks, libraries, weights & measures: Policy Matters finds erosion of basic state services

A new report from Policy Matters Ohio finds that Ohio has seen a decline in the capacity of state government to deliver basic public services in disparate areas ranging from tax appeals to policing the ethics of public officials. The state’s library and park systems have been eroded. Service to localities has suffered at the Division of Weights and Measures, while new cuts could imperil the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s ability to handle discrimination complaints. The paper focuses on areas outside of human services and education, and it is not comprehensive, it is merely a review of several areas that have been cut in recent years, including:

Board of Tax Appeals: Homeowners and businesses that appeal property-tax valuations now have to wait more than two years for a hearing because of staff cuts and the rising volume of cases. Between Fiscal Years 2005 and 2010, cases nearly tripled, from 1,608 to 4,679, yet the state sliced funding by $815,847 or 41 percent in Fiscal 2010 from FY09. Funding for FY11 slipped another one percent, to $1,149,715. The board was forced to lay off 60 percent of staff in 2009, leaving just three examiners, compared to 10 three years ago. The last full year that the BTA kept up with its caseload was FY2006. In February 2011, the examiners were hearing cases filed more than two years earlier.

Division of Weights and Measures: This division ensures honest commerce by helping ensure that scales weigh items properly and that counties adequately monitor supermarket scanners, gas pumps and other measuring devices. Over the past five years, General Revenue Fund (GRF) funding for Weights and Measures in Ohio dropped precipitously by 81.4 percent, from $1.074 million to $200,000. Field services provided by the state have been slashed, and spot checks in some instances have replaced the previous regular inspections. Ohio and its counties share responsibility for these services, and the state’s retreat leaves hard-pressed counties struggling to pick up the responsibilities in the face of their own budget shortfalls.

Division of Parks and Recreation: Seventy-four state parks in 60 counties encompass 174,212 acres of land and water, attract more than 50 million visitors annually, and generate over a billion tourism dollars per year. According to the November 2010 budget request letter, the General Revenue Fund request for FY2012-13 matches the 1988 request. Over the last decade, funding for parks and recreation has declined in inflation-adjusted dollars by 23.5 percent. The parks have deferred maintenance projects, including EPA-mandated sewer and water upgrades. We’ve seen a 45 percent staffing reduction, a $556 million backlog in maintenance, and a decline in perceived safety by visitors. Ohio is considering selling Jefferson Lake State Park to Jefferson County for one dollar. The County would sell timber and drilling rights to pay for dam repair and campsite upgrades.

“Years of investment in a system of parks and recreational facilities could be lost, hurting tourism and removing affordable recreation options for Ohio families,” said Wendy Patton, report co-author and senior associate at Policy Matters Ohio.

Ohio Civil Rights Commission: In FY 2000, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission had 199 employees; there are now 94. GRF funding of $10.6 million in 2000 was hacked to $4.6 million in FY 2010, a decline of 54 percent. Flat or ten percent reduced funding is expected to result in the elimination of an additional 17 to 23 positions. A loss of 23 individuals would mean 1,600 fewer investigations per year, a 36% decline. More cuts could bring quality problems, negative press, even lawsuits, as in the mid-1990s, when a burst of activity and lack of capacity undermined service provision.

Ohio Ethics Commission: Ethics cases rose an average of 18 percent each year since 2000 and ethics filings are up 30 percent over the past 15 years, but the budget hasn’t kept up. In the Strickland administration’s first year, Ethics Commission funding rose by about 16 percent, inflation-adjusted. But by FY2010, GRF funding had fallen by 19 percent after inflation from the 2007 high. As a result, ethics education was reduced by 19 percent; staffing fell from 25 to 21; the operations budget was cut by 30 percent; and equipment has not been updated for three fiscal years.

Environmental Review Appeals Commission: GRF funding for Environmental Review Appeals Commission has fallen by 20 percent over the past decade after inflation. Staffing has fallen from 14 to 2 since the agency was founded in the mid 1970s. Length of time in investigations has caused legislation and litigation.

Public libraries: Historically, Ohio libraries have dominated the ranks of the nation’s top libraries. Over the past two years, state support for library funding has been chopped by nearly 23 percent. Overall, libraries received $347.9 million from the state Public Library Fund last calendar year, compared to $450 million in 2008, despite a successful grassroots effort that reduced the cuts. In response, libraries reduced hours, closed branches, reduced purchasing, cut programming and shed staff. Overall, Ohio public libraries cut hours by more than 10 percent in 2009. The slashed state support has meant a huge increase in proposed property-tax levies. According to a recent analysis by Driscoll & Fleeter, the 71 library levy proposals that appeared on the ballot across the state in 2010 were twice as many as in any previous year since 1980, except 2009. Greater dependence on local levies will result in disparity of service.

Recommendations include protecting taxpayer return on investment, restoring capacity to services eroded by inflation, and reducing dependence on fees to avoid politicization and disparities between communities. “Cuts to education and human services rightly get a lot of attention,” said Zach Schiller, report co-author and Research Director at Policy Matters. “This report shows that we also need to pay attention to some of the very basics. Ohio has slashed staffing and funding to ensure that your public library is open, your park’s sewage system is safe, your tax appeals are reviewed and your community’s employers are not discriminating. Such cuts threaten business, individuals and communities in Ohio.”

Policy Matters Ohio is nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

President Obama and DOMA: Why Obama’s Position is Unconstitutional

The Justice Department announced last month that it would no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the president and Attorney General Eric Holder now believe the law is unconstitutional.
“After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act…as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment,” Holder wrote in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on February 23. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama believes DOMA is “unnecessary and unfair.”

But as CNSNews.com reported, critics of Obama’s decision said the president of the United States, who is sworn to faithfully execute the law, doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws to defend.

Three things should be noted about the President’s justification for considering DOMA unconstitutional.

First, the Fifth Amendment has no “equal under the law” clause, but the Fourteenth Amendment does.

Second, he claims implies state laws made after the passage of DOMA effectual negate it as law rather than prior law (DOMA) negating laws of states. On the face of it, the President’s action seems legitimate because federal law is supposed to conform to the limits of the Constitution, which leaves states their 10th Amendment right to determine on matters not addressed by the Supreme Law. Most marriage issues do apply here. But, again, the justification is based on the Fifth Amendment or maybe the Fourteenth.

Third, however, is the fact that marriage comes under the rubric of human sexual behavior. Men and women enter into marriage covenants long before the Constitution existed. It is a moral act of agreement in which men with women contract to much more than sexual activity, but the basis of the covenant relationship is nevertheless sexual.

As the basis of the Constitutional compact is, so is the basis of marriage. Natural law may be defined as what is self-evidently true to human nature on the basis of reason and revealed law. Critics may disagree with the last two words, but the founders who authored and accepted by vote America’s legal definition of nationhood would agree. Be that as it may, it extremely difficult to reason from human nature as it exists to acceptance of homosexual behavior or marriage of homosexuals as lawful behavior. Some medical scientists have pointed the biological and medical difficulties with it. Simply put, sex between males and females is obvious natural behavior with the benefit of keeping the human race from extinction–even atheistic evolutionists would have to agree. Homosexual behavior is at best an aberration of natural human behavior.

“Equality under the law clause of the 14th Amendment” does not provide protection for aberrant behaviors. It is supposed to guarantee the same protections against discrimination based on natural characteristics like skin color, sex, nationality, and the like. Those characteristics are inherent to human nature. It is supposed to guarantee that common laws are equally applied to all citizens, and in breaking those laws, the same equality is to be applied. That is except for the few exempted from those laws like foreign ambassadors, heads of state, Presidents, and some times the rich.

Let’s not forget, the gay community possess an average income significantly above average John and Jane American.

Even with all of their considerable buying power, the Democratic Party President cannot make the unnatural natural and unconstitutional constitutional.

DOMA Decision: Obama’s Constitutional Quandary

By Cameron Smith

On February 23, President Obama, in consultation with Attorney General Eric Holder, determined that the Justice Department would no longer defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The DOMA decision has unleashed a seemingly endless cavalcade of commentary regarding the constitutionality of DOMA and the merits of the traditional definition of marriage. Once again, the culture wars seem to be back in full swing as part of American politics.

Unfortunately, the most concerning aspect of the President’s decision has been conspicuously absent from the public debate. Rather than providing clarity on the executive branch’s perspective on the constitutionality of DOMA, the President has muddied the waters and acted in a manner offensive to any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

The President derives executive authority from Article II of the U.S. Constitution and is required to “take care that the laws [of the United States] be faithfully executed.” Article I clearly outlines that “[a]ll legislative [p]owers…shall be vested in [the] Congress of the United States….” Powers of the judicial branch are found in Article III and further clarified by Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.137 (1803) which established the power of the Court to review the constitutionality of laws. These clearly defined functions provide a unique separation of powers that has served our country well for over 200 hundred years.

On November 2, 1994, Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger issued a memorandum entitled “Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes” (Dellinger Memorandum). Some have suggested the Dellinger Memorandum should be instructive when considering the President’s recent actions regarding DOMA.

The Dellinger Memorandum clearly and effectively articulates that the President has ample authority to decline enforcement of legislation that encroaches on the constitutional charge of the executive branch. A number of cases including Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), and United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946) convincingly reinforce that assertion.

Unfortunately, the Dellinger Memorandum does not effectively speak to the President’s decision on DOMA. At no point has the President or the Attorney General argued that DOMA encroaches on the President’s Article II powers. Rather, the President has made a political decision that DOMA is unconstitutional according to his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which has been interpreted to apply to the federal government.

To make matters more confusing, President Obama has informed the Attorney General that the executive branch will continue to enforce the law even though it will not defend it in court. Essentially, this means that DOMA will be considered law but anyone challenging the constitutionality of DOMA in court will not find the U.S. Department of Justice opposing them.

This decision begs the question why the President who has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” would continue to enforce that which he believes to be unconstitutional.

By declining to defend DOMA while continuing to “enforce” it, the President is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. The President is attempting to heavily prejudice the judicial branch’s constitutional disposition of DOMA without declaring the law unconstitutional from the White House.

If the President has the power to unilaterally declare a statute unconstitutional, then the office wields even more power than previously recognized, subject to the volatility of the election cycle. That power would radically shift the modern understanding of constitutional interpretation which has generally deferred to the Supreme Court as the arbiter of constitutionality in most cases. The President also recognizes that such a shift would mean many other potentially unconstitutional laws such as the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could be dispatched by subsequent administrations.

In any event, the President’s decision on DOMA rests on shaky constitutional ground regardless of the ultimate constitutionality of DOMA itself. If President Obama finds DOMA unconstitutional, then he is failing to execute his constitutional Oath of Office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” On the other hand, if he continues to enforce the law, thereby supporting its constitutionality, he must also defend it to ensure that the law is faithfully executed.

While the President may have shrewdly made the most politically expedient decision, the responsibility to uphold the Constitution supercedes politics. President Obama should be called to account by Democrats and Republicans alike, regardless of their views on DOMA.

———————————————-

Cameron Smith is General Counsel and Legislative Liaison for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

House of Representatives Will Defend Marriage Bill Abandoned by Obama

By Susan Jones

The U.S. House of Representatives says it will make sure the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act is decided by the courts – not by the president.

In a statement on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said an advisory group of House leaders – including top-ranking Republicans and Democrats – has directed the House General Counsel “to initiate a legal defense” of the federal law, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The Bipartisan Leadership Advisory Group — a five-member panel consisting of the speaker, majority leader, majority whip, minority leader and minority whip — has the authority to instruct the General Counsel to take legal action on behalf of the House of Representatives.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) applauded the decision to involve the House in pending court cases challenging DOMA.

“President Obama’s decision to abdicate his executive branch responsibility to defend DOMA is a constitutional outrage,” King said. “President Obama’s decision to abandon the law is yet another example of his willingness to politicize the Department of Justice on behalf of favored interest groups.”

King also noted that the House will now incur legal expenses stemming from its defense of the law. Therefore, he said, “I intend to offer an amendment that will defund the Department of Justice by a comparable amount. The DOJ should not receive funding for work that it is refusing to do.”

The Justice Department announced last month that it would no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the president and Attorney General Eric Holder now believe the law is unconstitutional.

“After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act…as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment,” Holder wrote in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on February 23.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama believes DOMA is “unnecessary and unfair.”

But as CNSNews.com reported, critics of Obama’s decision said the president of the United States, who is sworn to faithfully execute the law, doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws to defend.

First published by CNS News on March 10, 2011.

The Rutherford Institute Defends ‘Redneck Not Racist’ Kindergarten Bus Driver Fired for Displaying Confederate Flag on His Personal Vehicle

The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a 28-year-old kindergarten bus driver who was fired for displaying a Confederate flag on his personal vehicle. Kenneth Webber was fired on March 8, 2011, five days after being suspended for refusing to comply with an order that the flag be removed from his truck while it was parked in the employee parking lot. Webber has insisted that his display of the Confederate flag does not show him to be a racist but a “backyard redneck. I work for what I have. I support my family. It’s just who I am. I’m a redneck. It’s a way of life.” Institute attorneys have charged Webber’s supervisor at First Student Bus Transportation Services, a company providing services to the Phoenix-Talent School District # 4, with violating his First Amendment right to free expression, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

“This is a clear case of political correctness run amok,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “Clearly, under the First Amendment, employment cannot be conditioned on forfeiting the right to the freedom of expression.”

Kenneth Webber, who has been employed by First Student Bus Transportation Services, a company providing services to the Phoenix-Talent School District # 4, for four years, began flying the Confederate flag in the bed of his pickup truck about a year ago. The 3-by-5-foot Confederate flag, which has the word “Redneck” emblazoned across it, was a birthday gift from Webber’s father in 2009. Webber drives his truck to work and parks it in the employee lot, which is leased from the school district, before reporting for his duties driving the kindergarten bus for Talent Elementary School.

On March 2, 2011, Webber was called into his supervisor’s office and ordered to remove the flag from his pickup or be suspended from his job. The demand to remove the flag was allegedly made after the school district superintendent visited First Student’s facility and saw the flag in Webber’s truck. The superintendent reportedly requested that Webber remove the flag because “some people find that symbol offensive,” justifying the request by pointing to the fact that the school district is “about 37 percent minority students,” and “we have a policy…about displaying symbols on school property that were racist, or had a potential to be seen as racist.”

Insisting on his right to free expression in his personal vehicle, Webber refused the demand, was suspended and was sent home for the day. The following day, Webber reported to work and was called to meet with two managers, who again demanded that he remove the flag or be suspended, this time for three days. Again, Webber refused and was suspended. On March 8, Webber was called into his manager’s office and was terminated after he again refused to remove the flag from his pickup. “My flag will fly,” said Webber. “No one here is gonna tell me what I can and can’t believe in.” Rutherford Institute attorneys have demanded that First Student restore Webber’s job, pointing to a 2002 victory in which the City of Topeka, Kansas, was found to have violated the First Amendment rights of a city employee by forbidding him from parking his vehicle with Confederate flag vanity license plates in the City’s employee parking lot.

Source: Rutherford Institute News, March 9, 2011.

Ask Your Senators to ‘Cut It Out!’

Last week, the U.S. Senate voted down the federal funding bill passed through the House weeks ago. This bill included ending taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and taxpayer-funded abortion in the District of Columbia, as well as taking away funding for President Obama’s czars, among other budget cuts.

As you may recall, Congress has been in limbo for months working to pass a spending bill that both cuts expenses and funds the necessities, and has narrowly avoided a government shutdown multiple times because of the lack of a bill that funds the federal government’s expenses.

The Senate has made it clear that it will not pass a bill that cuts spending, if the proposed cuts include ending taxpayer-funding of Planned Parenthood or President Obama’s czars. In fact, the Democratic Party sent an email to its supporters earlier this week in which it condemned the plan to end Planned Parenthood funding because it could eliminate jobs at the organization’s facilities! How’s that for misunderstanding the American people’s concern about the unemployment rate?

While this is disappointing, it’s not surprising. However, you can make a difference by asking your Senators to stand for important funding cuts like these.

Source: Liberty Watch, March 11, 2011

Japan’s Nuclear Melt Down At Earthquake Damaged Reactor

Japanese news reports an explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant near Okuma, Japan.

Yesterday, fire tankers were pumping water into the reactor attempting to cool down the overheating nuclear reactor. Officials were also releasing steam into the atmosphere to lower pressure and temperatures inside the reactor’s core.

Those efforts appear to have failed. After the explosion this morning, white smoke was pouring from the nuclear reactor building. It is suspected that the white smoke is from burning concrete.

As explained by Stratfor analysts, inside the reactor core is nuclear fuel and control rods. It is the control rods that move and out of the fuel absorbing neutrons that produce heat energy. This energy is then converted usable power. A melt down occurs when fuel rods cease absorbing neutrons resulting in the increase of heat to the point of melting the fuel. This situation is still no threat as long as the reactor core remains in tact. Reactor cores are made to withstand temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit (melting point for nuclear fuel) and high pressure. Once the core brakes down, the containment building remains the only thing preventing nuclear radiation from escaping into the surrounding environment. If it is breached, nuclear radiation escapes into the surrounding environment.

The white smoke indicated explosion punctured holes in the containment building walls and roof. If this is in fact the case, the officials probably have lost the ability to prevent a nuclear disaster on the scale of 1986 Chernobyl disaster, according to Stratfor analysts.

Let’s pray this is not the case.

Xenia Area Community Threatre Presents “Old Time Radio Show”

Ohio Bipartisan Committee Sends Parental Consent Bill To House Floor

Last week, the Ohio House Health and Aging Committee voted to stand with Ohio Right to Life and protect parental rights and parental notification laws for minors seeking an abortion. By a 14 to 7 vote, the House Committee passed
H.B. 63, a bill to revise the process of judicial bypass under Ohio’s Parental Consent for Abortion statute.

Though Ohio law currently requires parental consent before a minor can obtain an abortion, a loophole exists which allows judges to by-pass parental involvement and allow a minor to obtain an abortion. H.B. 63, which is sponsored by Rep. RonYoung (R-Leroy) and Rep. Lynn Slaby (R-Copley), addresses the fact that some judges are giving virtual “rubber-stamp” approval to these minor’s requests.

In a 2008 Columbus Dispatch article on bypass hearings, one Franklin County judge indicated that she had never denied a bypass request and another judge stated that she had denied only one request. A 2003 Akron Beacon Journal survey found a bypass approval rate of either 86% or 92% (the latter when a county that lumped voluntary
dismissals with denials was excluded).

“We are pleased that the Committee has recognized that abortion can have serious life-changing effects on a young girl,” said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life. “H.B. 63 requires that, before cutting a girl’s parents out of the abortion decision, a judge must make sure that the girl understands the possible negative effects of abortion. It would also require the judge to determine whether the girl’s testimony really reflected her maturity or the ‘coaching’ of others,” Gonidakis said.

The continued and overwhelming support of Ohio Right to Life’s initiatives demonstrates the impact that responsible and compassionate pro-life policies can have. Protecting women and the unborn continues to unite our elected officials and saves lives.

H.B. 63 now moves forward for a full vote by the Ohio House of Representatives.