Category Archives: Marriage and Family

Issues impacting marriages and families

Be Careful What You Sign

PlayPlay

In order to be clear up front we are letting you know the following;

If you favor the implementation of the Community Defense Act, the law which forces strip clubs with liquor licenses to close at midnight and makes it a crime for a non-family member to touch a nude dancer while she is working, then DO NOT SIGN ANY PETITIONS BEING CIRCULATED. Despite what you are being told, THE PETITIONS ARE NOT TO REGULATE STRIP CLUBS THEY ARE TO STOP THE REGULATION OF STRIP CLUBS!

At least two major news outlets are reporting that petitioners collecting signatures for a referendum which would stop the implementation of SB 16, the Community Defense Act (CDA) are lying to voters to obtain their signatures. A front group formed by strip club owners calling itself Citizens For Community Standards began the petition drive shortly after the CDA was passed and allowed to go into law without Governor Strickland’s signature. The CDA is a bill which regulates the operating hours of strip clubs with liquor licenses and creates a “no-touch” zone around nude dancers which effectively prohibits so-called “lap dances.”

Ohio Public Radio reporter Bill Cohen broke the story and filed 2 reports which include audio of the fraudulent collection presentation by petitioners. The first report is Some on petitions to change new strip club rules may be surprised at what they’ve signed. This first report is a review of what the petition drive is all about. Most importantly, it is damning evidence of outright fraud through misrepresenting the purpose of the petition in getting signatures by petitioners. It is clear from the interviews that petition signers do not understand that they have signed a petition which causes the law to not go into effect until a referendum is held.

The second is Strip club owners, “values voters” group react to petition drive to change new rules on clubs. In this report you will hear spokesman for Citizens For Community Standards, Sandy Theis, attempt to explain away the fraud by saying that the issue is “inherently confusing” and that they didn’t “hire lawyers” to take signatures.

The Columbus Dispatch has also run a story titled Strip-club law: Petition collectors deceptive, some say in which they also document clear fraud by petitioners, in which potential signers were told that petitions were to “close strip clubs at midnight.” The article contains another quote from Sandy Theis who says circulators are “not intentionally misleading anybody. We’ve trained and retrained the circulators.” Really? What would you call telling a deliberate lie to get a signature, Ms. Theis? An inoperative statement, perhaps? A serial misunderstanding being repeated throughout the state? What script were the circulators trained on and is it possible that having been promised $15-20 per hour the circulators were finding out that the only way to actually meet those figures was to lie to the public because the other approach got them turned down too often? And what does this say for the prospects of passing this referendum if, by some miracle, the Citizens For Community Standards succeed in defrauding enough registered voters to get the required number of valid signatures? You can’t get that done by asking 14 year-olds to sign, as the circulator in the Dispatch story did.

These questions are only the beginning of what smart journalists should be asking. Why are news outlets treating the cease and desist trademark infringement letter from Citizens For Community Values (CCV, the family values group which got the CDA through the legislature) to Citizens For Community Standards (CCS) as if it’s inconsequential? The Dispatch‘s coverage is typical. They’re calling it the “name game.” But why hasn’t this raised questions in journalist’s minds? In the light of the clear fraud being perpetrated by the petitioners shouldn’t they be at least thinking about why a name so close to CCV’s would have been chosen? Wouldn’t a reasonable person, in the light of CCS activities in collecting signatures, at least consider the possibility that the name was chosen in order to deceive voters into thinking they were signing petitions being circulated by CCV, a group which has a proven track record in successful referendum and ballot issue drives in the recent past?

Another question, in light of the tacit admission by the individual circulators that sufficient signatures cannot be gathered ethically, is why CCS is going through with this dog-and-pony show of continuing to take signatures? Is it possible that is merely a delaying tactic? When insufficient valid signatures are turned in, is it not possible that CCS is counting on using the maximum allowable time before the ballot access deadline for a fall referendum, and that then they plan to drop an injunction stopping the implementation of the law anyway, when the effort is finally ruled to have fallen short by the Ohio Secretary of State? Keep in mind that this tactics could stretch actual implementation of the law into next year! Where is journalistic curiosity in this matter?

Since CCS has stated that there will eventually be legal action taken, it is important that as much evidence of fraud be collected as possible. If you’ve been approached by a petition circulator in the last few weeks and asked to sign a petition that would close strip clubs at midnight, regulate strip clubs, make it illegal to touch dancers, etc. we would like to hear about it. Please let the Institute For Principled Policy know at this email address. There’s no shame in being deceived or lied to. We just need to know.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Columbus Dispatch

A recent commentary in the Columbus Dispatch is a nearly textbook illustration of the biblical warning that a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). In this case the man is a woman, the context of the passage making clear that man is the generic “mankind” rather than the specific gender identifier. The commenter is Ann Fisher and the article is entitled Protest billboards with power of the dollar.

First let us congratulate Ms. Fisher for being right on in some of her analysis. The core of the commentary is about the billboards posted all over Columbus advertising a local radio station with a picture of an abundantly endowed female chest in a sleeveless t-shirt which advises us to listen to their station and “pray for rain”, thus making it a wet t-shirt. Aside from the clear dilemma presented by this advice (asking God to make this woman’s t-shirt wet so that men can act lustfully towards her really doesn’t square with the biblical idea that we should all treat the opposite sex with the respect he or she deserves as the image bearer of the Creator) there is the clear appeal to the prurient interests of travelers which has the potential of creating a serious traffic hazard (if you have seen this billboard then you understand).

Ms. Fisher correctly draws a connection between these billboards and the rather cavalier attitude allegedly exhibited by some Columbus Police officers who are accused of using the billboard as an example for a young woman trying to keep her boyfriend from being arrested. She accuses them of coercing her to expose her chest to them in exchange for letting him go, which she alleges she did, and that they honored her action (after defiling her body and making photographic evidence against themselves with a camera phone). Fisher also calls for a boycott of the station’s sponsors saying that the consumers have the power to make them stop the billboard campaign. More on this later.

But now we come to the rather obvious problems with Ms. Fisher’s addled analysis of the larger picture (so to speak). She says that the billboards and the accused policeman’s activities makes Columbus seem “unsophisticated.” It would be interesting to know how Ms. Fisher defines “sophistication.” She displays a very liberal “sophistication” in contradicting the head of the Lucas county YWCA, Lisa McDuffie who called attention to the plight of local strippers while rejecting the money from strip clubs that the Lucas county Democrats collected from the fundraiser. Fisher writes that “Those women don’t want or need our pity. They were just doing their jobs…” One wonders how “sophisticated” Ms. Fisher’s view would be if it were to be suggested to her that drug dealers and cigarette company executives were “only doing their jobs’ and that it is really those despicable addicts who buy the products that are the real problem. We can presume that the answer would be “not very.” Fisher is also apparently oblivious to the fact that the Lucas county YWCA chief is only too aware of the sad side effects of the sex trade and its connections with human trafficking, a serious problem that the Toledo area is very familiar with. McDuffie was right to refuse the strip club donation profits and she was right to call for Lucas county Democratic leadership to become enlightened as to the reasons why.

It is at this point that Ms. Fisher seems to realize that she is walking a high-wire over a yawning chasm with no net. She sighs aloud that the radio station owners “…correctly wrap themselves in the free-speech portion of the U.S. Constitution…” Correctly? While it is a very “sophisticated” interpretation of the first amendment which says that obscenity (and while the billboards may not meet the technical definition the average viewer will probably consider them to be obscene) is “protected speech.” The framers never intended it to protect pornography, soft, hard or otherwise, vile language or public lewdness. It was designed to foster and protect public debate of political issues. The expansion of “free-speech and expression” protections to lewd behavior and obscenity date back only to the early 1960’s. Why point this out and what makes Ms. Fisher’s call for boycotts of radio stations (media competitors) while creating a convenient artificial shield in the Constitution hypocritical? Because her employer, the Columbus Dispatch, collects money by the virtual wheelbarrow full every year from strip (“gentlemen’s”) clubs, massage parlors, adult toy and book shops, escort services, S/M dungeons, by-the-hour motels, prostitutes, etc. in both column and classified ads. Some preliminary analyses indicate that the Dispatch’s various revenues from the sex trade approach or exceed $1 million yearly. Thus, it’s clear that the donkey is calling the pig “long ears” at the top of its voice. Quite sophisticated, indeed.

Ms. Fisher digs this hole even deeper in attempting to make a hero of Democratic State Party Chairman and State Representative Chris Redfern in the recent Lucas county dust up involving the Lucas county Democratic party golf fund raiser where local strip clubs made party donations and provided strippers as “cart girls.” Again, we see the same pretzel logic with the strippers as demonstrated previously. They are merely plying their trade. It’s the customers who should be the target of our disgust. Everyone involved either denied that the strippers engaged in their trade or expressed outrage that they did so, thus exposing the disingenuousness of the deniers. The Toledo Blade has run a very informative series of stories on this, drudging up a great deal of information and eclipsing other state papers’ dismal coverage of an important story. You can click the links below for details.

Democratic Party treasurer teed off over golf outing’s strippers
Resignation of party boss sought for having strippers at golf fund-raiser
McNamara, Irish spar over strippers
Democrats’ scandal over strippers spills into city committee meeting
Council candidate rejects strip club’s $50 donation
Dems still squabbling over stripper scandal
Party hit by fallout from golf scandal
Lucas County Democratic chief resists calls to resign over stripper
Irish resigns as chairman of Democrats over scandal involving strippers
Lucas County Dems’ new leader slams party rivals



But what makes this part of the story so interesting is the lionization of Redfern for threatening to cut off funding for the Lucas county party leadership who allowed the strippers to attend the event when both he and Toledo area State Senator Teresa Fedor voted against SB 16, the Community Defense Act (CDA), a law which regulates strip clubs. Senator Fedor went so far as to stand in support of a group of professional strippers calling themselves the Dancers For Democracy, giving a speech in their support at their press conference. On the floor of the Senate she stood in opposition to portions of the bill that would prohibit customers having physical contact with dancers, the so-called lap dance prohibition. Probably the most laughable quote, one which exposes the utter hypocrisy of Senator Fedor is in the article Lucas County Democratic chief resists calls to resign over stripper wherein Fedor is quoted as having said “…the reported activity of a woman baring her body to some golfers was the last straw for her” followed by a letter to the Lucas county Democratic Party Chairman in which she wrote “Your egregious decision in staffing the golf outing is disrespectful to all women, to Democrats, to Toledo, and to the state of Ohio…” And what of your decision to vote against a bill that would regulate the behavior you pretend to abhor and to stand with women who allow their bodies to be exploited for profit, Senator Fedor?

Apparently both Redfern and Fedor oppose local governments being able to regulate adult business activities but have vowed to enforce a much stricter standard at Democratic party events. This hypocritical demonstration of political logrolling in the guise of mock outrage (read the last 3 articles on the list and you’ll find that the Lucas county Democratic Party ballet is more about control of the party than the strippers at a party event, about which Redfern and Fedor couldn’t really care less if their Ohio House and Senate votes mean anything) show the intricate dance amongst the cow patties that politicians are willing to perform in order to cover their duplicity. And also to what lengths members of the press are willing to go to make the same politicians look like defenders of the Constitution. Especially when they profit from the trade the politicians are working to protect.

By the way Republicans, you shouldn’t feel too superior based on this incident. There are plenty of GOP legislative peccadilloes connected with the passage of the CDA. Had Republicans including leadership in the Ohio Senate not bowed to the tremendous pressure applied by the strip club owners in the 2006 legislative session, the (CDA) would not have required a petition drive aimed at a referendum to force the legislative replacement of the enforcement “teeth” removed by that body.

Finally, Fisher ends her cognitive dissonance tour de force with the following logically sound appeal which she carefully and self-servingly applies only to the radio station billboards but which could just as conveniently apply to the adult business advertising in the Dispatch; “…If they bother you, forget the city, forget the station managers. Go to the sponsors. They aren’t emotionally attached to smarmy, sexist and degrading crap, but they speak profit margin fluently. That’s the American way.” We couldn’t agree more. Thanks to the editorial staff of the Columbus Dispatch for making it crystal clear what needs to be done to solve a growing problem.

New Journal Articles In The Journal Archive

The articles for volume III of the Institute For Principled Policy’s journal, In The Gates, is available in the Journal Archives. The issue discussed in volume III is the definition and protection of marriage.

That’s 5 new articles for you to read, ponder and discuss! Make sure to leave a comment or ask a question in the comment section.

If you like what you read, or if you find our viewpoint interesting and want to stay in touch, jump over to our store and join the Institute!

We want your feedback!

Detailed Report On The Community Defense Act- SB 16

Policy RadarBACKGROUND
Prior to the passage of H.B. 23 in 2006, the 1,308 townships in Ohio had very little authority to address the problems associated with sexually oriented businesses within their jurisdiction. H.B. 23 simply extended to every political subdivision in the state the necessary home rule authority to do so according to the specific needs of each community.

The House-passed version of H.B. 23 on a vote of 92-5 not only included the home rule authority for townships but also statewide standards for all sexually oriented businesses regarding their hours of operation and the distance required between employees and patrons. The Senate-passed version of H.B. 23 removed the statewide standards, and then was concurred and accepted by the House.

PURPOSE
Numerous studies identifying the adverse secondary effects of this industry point to a compelling state interest for these two statewide standards. Therefore, in response to a voter-initiated petition bearing the signatures of over 220,000 Ohio citizens, the Secretary of State on January 2, 2007 transmitted to the General Assembly a bill entitled the “Community Defense Act” (CDA) in accordance with constitutional guidelines for such.

Passage of CDA will set minimum standards for adult businesses in Ohio to ensure that the industry will be regulated in order to eliminate or mitigate their negative effects of-

  • increased crime (sexual crimes, prostitution, illegal drugs, etc.),
  • decreased property values of the surrounding residential and business property,
  • and the devastation brought to so many marriages and families.

Townships certainly will want to do everything within their power to take advantage of the authority given them by H.B. 23 to address those problems within their jurisdiction. But the affect of such regulations could be greatly diminished by adjacent communities that do not have at least these two regulations in place.

NARROWLY TAILORED
The focus of CDA is to place two regulations on all sexually oriented businesses, establishing a uniform minimum industry standard in Ohio law to address the problems associated with sexually oriented businesses.

Numerous government studies (available upon request from Citizens For Community Values) have documented adverse secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses. These include the following:

  1. Increased crime, especially, but not limited to, crimes of a sexual nature;
  2. Decreased property values, both residential and commercial; and
  3. Urban blight, the general downgrading of the surrounding areas.

Less well documented but undeniable and equally deleterious to Ohio’s communities are the adverse effects that sexually oriented businesses too often have on the marriages and families of those who frequent them. Considerable direct and indirect costs are attached to the breakdown of marriages, the dismantling of families, and the accompanying loss of individual productivity.

Although the passage of CDA would provide a statewide minimum standard for sexually oriented businesses, the bill continues to allow local communities to extend regulations farther than state law to address issues specific to each locality.

COURT APPROVED STANDARDS
Regularly, local communities in Ohio are forced to deal with the problems of adult businesses. Many spend years and countless thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend common sense regulatory protections challenged by this industry. CDA will help alleviate this burden on local governments and local budgets. The United States Supreme Court, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and other federal courts have consistently upheld the rights of governments to implement the two regulations of this proposed legislation:

  1. Employees who regularly appear nude or semi-nude would be required to maintain a six-foot (6’) distance from patrons while on the premises. Violation of this provision is a first-degree misdemeanor. Cases that support this distance requirement include:
    • DLS, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 107 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 1997)
    • Kentucky Restaurant Concepts, Inc. v. City of Louisville and Jefferson County, 209 Fed. Supp. 2d 672 (W. D. Ky 2002)
    • Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 f.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005)

  2. Sexually oriented businesses would be required to remain closed between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 am, with the exception of those holding a liquor permit, which may remain open until the hour specified in their permit, but which may not offer adult entertainment between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 am. Violation of this provision is a first-degree misdemeanor. Cases that support hours of operation regulation include:
    • Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 278 F3d 570 (6th Cir. 2002);
    • Ctr. For Fair Public Policy v. Maricopa County, 336 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003).

OTHER APPLICABLE CASE LAW
See FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW, §3768.03 Rationale and findings; construction for expanded list of cases and studies. Noteworthy cases include:

  • City of Erie v. Pap’s AM 529 US 277 (2000)
  • City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 475 US 41 (1986)
  • Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. 501 US 560 (1991)
  • Déjà Vu of Cincinnati, LLC v. Union Township Board of Trustees, 411 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2005, en banc)
  • Bamon Corp. v. City of Dayton 923 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1991)

OTHER STATE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS
Several states already have statewide regulations in place to regulate sexually oriented businesses including Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Rules similar to CDA exist in the following states:

  • Delaware: Hours of operation limited to 10:00am–10:00pm, Mon-Sat, no Sundays or state holidays
  • Arizona: Hours of operation limited to 8:00am–1:00am, Mon-Sat, 12:00noon-1:00am Sundays
  • Tennessee: No full nudity allowed on premises, 6ft distance required between performers and patrons, employees must be licensed, no direct tipping or touching allowed

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
Bills that come before the General Assembly by voter-initiative have a limited time for consideration. The Legislature has a four-month period in which to pass, amend, vote down or ignore the bill, in this case from January 2 – May 1, 2007.

If the action taken by the Legislature is not acceptable to the committee representing the petitioners, the committee may collect additional signatures on a supplemental petition equal in number to those required on the first submission – 120,688 registered voters. Supplemental signers cannot have signed the first petition and the petitions must be submitted within 90 days starting May 2. If a sufficient number of signatures are validated, the bill will be submitted to the voters on the next general election ballot for approval or rejection.

WHAT’S THE BILL’S STATUS AND WHAT CAN YOU DO?
The current status of this bill is that it has been passed by a very wide margin in the Ohio Senate. It is currently in the House Ohio House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Louis Blessing (R)-Cincinnati. The bill passed by the Senate is currently in jeopardy in the Judiciary Committee and Chairman Blessing is wavering on his commitment to move the bill substantially intact to the House floor. House leadership, which assured pro-family leaders only two weeks ago that the bill would pass the House unchanged, are now buckling under intense pressure from strip club lobbying firms. They threaten to amend the bill to the point where it is made a toothless shadow of its intended design. Please contact Chairman Blessing, and the Ohio House of Representatives leadership, House Speaker Jon Husted, Speaker Pro Tem Kevin Dewine, Majority Floor Leader Larry Flowers, Assistant Majority Floor Leader Jim Carmichael, House Majority Whip Bill Seitz, and House Assistant Majority Whip Michelle Schneider.

Please contact your representative and House leadership no later than the afternoon of Monday May 14! Ask them, firmly but politely, to pass the Senate version of the bill. As always a letter or phone call is best! Faxes and emails are often ignored or shredded by representatives and staffers.

If the House defangs this legislation, and it appears likely that they will, be prepared to volunteer to pass petitions at your churches, civic groups, etc.

“Racinos” Bad Public Policy

Policy RadarIgnoring the resounding 57-43% defeat of casino gambling by the Ohio electorate last fall, Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) and Sen. Steve Stivers (R-Columbus) have introduced companion bills, House Bill 118 and Senate Bill 125, to bring electronic gaming devices to Ohio horse racing tracks.

Stivers and Seitz are touting the allegedly economic advantages of allowing casino-style electronic gambling. They are, however, ignoring numerous economic impact studies which indicate that the long-term economic costs exceed the short-term tax-revenue gains by several times. These studies measured the costs to society in terms of increased bankruptcy filings, divorce, business failures, crime rates and resultant incarceration costs, suicide rates, etc.

These bills are mirrors of legislation offered during the previous General Assembly session (HB158) by Rep. Seitz to expand this form of gambling in Ohio. Testimony was given during that process by one of our own board members, and, as the new proposals are virtually the same as the previous proposal, the following are the rationales for the opposition to this effort by these two elected officials. House Bill 158 was passed in committee, but failed to receive sufficient support to bring the measure to the floor of the Ohio House for a vote.

Testimony opposing “Instant Gaming” expansion at Ohio horse racing tracks:

I come before you today to express opposition to the passage of House Bill 158, sponsored by Representative Bill Seitz. Our organization strongly believes that there is a direct correlation between the expansion of gambling options in the state with increased economic and social welfare costs to society.

The proposal before the committee would allow the introduction of “instant racing” systems into the racing tracks in Ohio. Proponents have testified that this proposal would both be “just a slight modification” to the ability to wager at the tracks, to “reinventing the racetrack experience.” It is evident that the latter sentiment is closer to the truth: the experience would be reinvented to more closely mirror a casino then a horse track.

The committee was presented with photos of the proposed machines, distributed by RaceTech. From its appearance, it resembles a slot machine found in casinos. However, it is not just by appearance that that similarity is found. An Internet search revealed documentation relating to the European patent application by RaceTech for this machine. The documentation supplied for the patent application is revealing:

“Although the above described and other types of wagers commonly available
at racetracks are extremely enjoyable and entertaining, over the years,
the racing industry has seen a great increase in competition from
lotteries and casinos.

At least some patrons prefer a more immediate reward and higher frequency
wagering than customarily offered at race tracks. For example, a typical
racetrack offers one race every half hour. A casino having slot machines,
however, offers a patron the opportunity to place a wager that can be won
or lost every few seconds.

In order to remain competitive, the racing industry is in need of a gaming
system that satisfies the preferences of many different types of patrons.

Although simulcasting does enhance patron loyalty, the number of wagers a patron can place is still limited, particularly in comparison to a slot machine.

In discussing the technical aspects of this system, the patent information supplies the following:

“The gaming system also includes a video server interface for providing
high speed delivery of selected video clips from a historical database,
and a tote system interface which is coupled to a standard racetrack
totalisator system to allow the multi-function wagering terminal to
operate as a standard self-service racetrack wagering terminal. Other
interfaces to other types of wagering systems, such as a lottery, could
also be provided.

The above described gaming system can be utilized in connection with many
different types of races such as horse and dog races. In addition, the
system could be utilized in connection with other types of events. “

This would certainly seem to indicate that these particular types of machines could easily be converted to become both Video Lottery Terminals and slot-type machines. Nothing in the provisions of House Bill 158 would serve to restrict the conversion of these machines to VLT or slot-type wagering systems. This would be tantamount to allowing for the expansion to full Class III gambling in Ohio (and provide an easy inroad for the expansion of full casino gaming in this state). I would strongly urge the members of this committee to not rush to adopt this measure before a full study of the potential impacts upon our state in relation to the expansion of gambling via this proposal is conducted.

Other impacts that need to be considered are the personal and social costs associated with video gambling. Researcher Dr. Bob Breen, in the Journal of Gambling Studies, has commented that “Video gambling is the most addictive form of gambling in history. We found out that the men and women who ‘got hooked’ on video gambling became compulsive gamblers in about one year. Those who got hooked on other kinds of gambling (such as horses, sports betting, etc…) became compulsive gamblers after about 3 ½ years.”

This addiction brings increased social costs to society. Researchers William Thompson, Ricardo Gazel and Dan Rickman, in the Gaming Law Review1 (1997) noted that each compulsive gambler costs society an average of $9,469 per year in economic losses, including employment losses, debts, and welfare. Professor of Commerce and Legal Policy at the University of Illinois, John Kindt, in an article in the Drake Law Review 43 (1994), estimated the social costs (which includes the purely economic factors) to the public of a compulsive gambler to be at least $45,000 per year.

Nationally recognized expert on compulsive gambling, Valerie Lorenz, in a statement to the National Coalition against Legalized Gambling, sets the range of costs to state or federal jurisdictions for the incarceration of problem gamblers who are convicted of crimes related to their gambling habits at $20,000 to $50,000 annually.

Director of the Division on addictions at Harvard Medical School, Howard J. Shaffer, also a leading researcher on gambling, has expressed that a state’s involvement in the promotion or expansion of gambling options to the public is a conflict of interest, based upon the state’s function to protect and serve the citizenry.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 issued recommendations on the issue of gambling. That commission called for a moratorium on the expansion of gambling in the US, particularly that of video gambling machines, which was identified as the “crack cocaine” of creating new pathological (addicted) gamblers. The Commission also noted as a recommendation that states “should refuse to allow the introduction of casino-style gambling (slots, VLT’s, etc.) into pari-mutuel facilities to financially “save” the facility, which the market has determined no longer serves the community or for the purpose of competing with other forms of gambling.

One Ohio Senator, who participated in an ad-hoc group studying a prior proposal to enact a ballot initiative to authorize VLT’s at Ohio’s horse-racing tracks, sums it up well: “The advocates for the racetracks are single-minded in their devotion to their cause….It is now clear that the focus of this group has always been to package slot machines at the race tracks under the guise of an altruistic program to provide funds (for schools, etc.). In reality it is more about private profiteering from gambling.”

We believe that, given the above referenced information regarding these machines, their easy convertibility to other forms of electronic gambling devices, and the social and economic costs that are directly associated with the “crack cocaine” of the gambling industry, House Bill 158 is much more than it is purported to be.

We would urge the members of the Ohio Legislature to not support this legislation, which may well be a “Trojan Horse” for Ohioans.

Report From Ohio Family Lobby Day

Every year in the spring, a coalition of Christian family policy groups come together to sponsor Ohio Family Lobby Day (OFLD). This year it took place on Wednesday April 25. More than 60 people participated in this year’s event including my wife and two of my three children. Sponsoring groups included The Institute For Principled Policy, Pro-Family Network, Ohio Christian Alliance, Family First, Homemakers For America, Citizens For Community Values, Center For Bio-Ethical Reform and many others.

The purpose of OFLD is really four-fold. First, the participants get practical experience in meeting and speaking with their elected representatives. This is absolutely necessary if Christians are to have influence in making state and national policy. Second, the participants learn the best way to be persuasive in speaking with lawmakers. It is imperative that Christians develop cordial working relationships with lawmakers coming from a variety of perspectives and political parties. Third, Christians learn the details of bills which impact their families, churches, jobs and lives. Being aware of what legislators are working on is necessary for all families, if they are to have the impact on the culture that the Christian faith mandates. Fourth, important information is returned to Christian policy groups regarding where representatives stand on legislation that they believe to be crucial to their efforts.

The OFLD participants were divided into teams of four or 5 members. Several teams had whole families as members. My own team consisted of my wife and youngest daughter, two delightful pro-life Christian activists and me. I was appointed a team leader. My oldest daughter was placed on another team. The OFLD organizers made appointments for each team with legislators. Registration began at 8:00 AM and the group opened with prayer slightly behind schedule, a little after 9:00 AM. Following this was a short instruction on lobbying followed by briefings on several bills that the group would be concentrating on.

Among the bills the group was working for were SB-16, the Community Defense Act (CDA) already passed by the Ohio Senate and now pending in the Ohio House, a continuation of abstinence education which Governor Strickland has stated he will not continue; SB-20, the Adoption Tax Credit Increase already passed by the Ohio Senate and now pending in the Ohio House; continuation of the Ed Choice Scholarship program in the budget process and charter schools, which Governor Strickland wants to end or seriously curtail; HB-47 and HB-123, two bills which would end the attempts to tax churches in the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District and prevent this from occurring in the future. The group also was instructed on opposition to HB-81, The Mandatory Gardasil Vaccination Bill, support for the Covenant Marriage Bill (not yet numbered), seeking co-sponsors for the Personhood bill and opposition to the Prevention First Act.

Our team met with two state Senators and had appointments with three state Representatives. Due to the State of the Judiciary speech followed immediately by House session, we met mostly with aides of the lawmakers and unfortunately, one of the representative’s aides was taken ill and so our team’s appointment was canceled. Appointments lasted about 15 minutes and each team leader tried to make sure that any team member who had something to contribute to the lobbying efforts was given the opportunity to speak. I have had some limited experience and did most of the talking, but all of my team-mates also made important contributions to the effort. Only my daughter Stephanie had very little to say, she’s only 12, but she did manage to charm her way into a tour of the Capitol and she was very attentive to what was being said and done by the adults.

A fine lunch was provided as part of the cost of registration. The lobbyists-in-training were treated by a talk from Representative Bill Batchelder who asked us to not let our lobbying efforts be a once-a-year event but that we continue our work throughout the legislative session. We also were treated to a surprise speaker- former Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell, who gave a very inspirational talk on our efforts to have an influence in policymaking.

Between meetings some team members took advantage of the opportunity to watch the legislative process in action from the galleries while others took the time to explore the Capitol’s many historical displays, or to study legislative talking points.

At the end of the day, the teams were asked to fill out a de-briefing form which asked important questions regarding how the lobbying efforts were received, what legislative efforts the lawmakers supported and which ones they opposed. Thus invaluable information was gathered about which representatives support or oppose important bills and give insight on their approachability on future efforts.

My family’s OFLD experience was very positive. As a homeschooling parent, we believe our children gained a priceless lesson on how policy-related things are done, they got to see their parents in action trying to make Ohio a better place to live and they got experience in how to do the job themselves in the future. My oldest daughter thinks she might like to work in the state legislature, something she had never thought about before. This was well worth the registration fee. Come join us next spring and bring the kids!

The Institute For Principled Policy Opposes HB 81- Mandatory Gardisil HPV Vaccination

Policy RadarThe Institute For Principled Policy is working to oppose HB 81. This bill will revise the Ohio Revised Code to require girls who will be entering the sixth grade to begin the three injection vaccination cycle with the Gardasil® vaccine against the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). Under the bill the cycle of injections would have to be completed before girls could enter the seventh grade.

  • While the Policy Institute applauds the research efforts that make it possible to be vaccinated against the HPV virus, which is a sexually transmitted disease, we must oppose the effort to make it a mandatory injection for very young girls. There are several reasons for our opposition. Among these are;

    • In light of Governor Ted Strickland’s recent decision to halt all abstinence education funding, it makes little sense to remove a strong behavioral barrier to STD’s like HPV and replace that barrier with a porous and temporary biochemical barrier.
    • Cervical cancer and genital warts are terrible diseases but a significant portion of the former and all of the latter can be prevented by avoiding exposure to HPV through sexual abstinence until marriage by both spouses. The argument that the contraction of HPV is due to accidental contact, like polio, smallpox, measles, etc. does not stand up under scrutiny. HPV is easily preventable without vaccination, just like all other STD’s.
    • Gardasil® advertising leaves the strong impression that it is a panacea against HPV caused cancers and genital warts. But the technical literature distributed by Merck, the sole manufacturer of the vaccine, indicates that it is effective only against 4 of about 30 strains of the HPV virus seen in humans. These 4 strains account for only about 70% of virus caused uterine cancers and about 90% of virus caused genital warts.
    • The Institute For Principled Policy stands for biblical economics and therefore encourages successful businesses ventures which include a healthy profit. That being said, we believe it is unethical to structure the cost of a vaccination ($120 for each of the three injections in the series, a total of $360) which is being touted as a barrier against a potentially deadly STD so that it offsets the costs of lawsuits stemming from bad business decisions based on poorly conducted safety studies for other drugs that Merck has marketed (Vioxx®).
    • Furthermore, we believe that it is unethical for a company to mount an expensive and massive lobbying effort on a state-by-state basis designed to co-opt state legislators in an effort to create a guaranteed market through mandatory vaccination on a product which has essentially been awarded a monopoly. This strategy could mean multiple tens of billions of dollars to Merck in the first year of such a program alone.
    • We also believe that it is unethical to attempt to gain a back door indemnity for a product which has no long-term safety data but is nonetheless being touted for children as young as nine. Merck’s attempts to make the vaccination mandatory are at least partly based on federal legislation protecting corporations from damages for death or illness from mandatory vaccinations. No data exists on the long term health effects of Gardasil® so it is impossible to know how it may effect fertility, immune function, carcinogenic activity, neurological effects, et.
    • There is no data on the length of time of the effectiveness of the vaccine. It is conceivable that a child of 16 vaccinated at nine or ten years-old and deprived of an education showing abstinence as the only fool-proof method of STD prevention could become sexually active and be left without even the already incomplete protection of Gardasil®.
    • One of the serious risks of any vaccination of this type is an increased risk for Guillain-Barre syndrome. Guillain-Barre syndrome is a paralytic auto-immune disorder. It is caused by antibodies which have been tricked into recognizing nerve insulating myelin as a foreign invader, causing them to attack the myelin. Gardasil® is only different in that it may have a higher than normal incidence. According to some watchdog groups girls receiving Gardasil® have a higher than normal incidence of fainting and neurological complaints ranging from numbness and loss of sensation to Guillain-Barre syndrome.
    • While we applaud Merck’s decision to not use mercury (Thimerosal) as a preservative, we cannot do the same regarding their choice to use an amorphous aluminium phosphate adjuvant. Aluminium is an important part of the activity of many vaccinations but is also a neurotoxin and accumulates as a heavy-metal in the human body.

    We urge all Ohioans to contact your state Senators and Representatives and respectfully request that they oppose mandatory administration of Gardasil®. Please see the “Contact Your Representatives” page for links to the Ohio Senate and House

  • Sign Up For Ohio Family Lobby Day!

    OHIO FAMILY LOBBY DAY

    April 25, 2007 in Columbus, Ohio

    Decisions are being made for you, on your behalf many times without your knowledge. Meet with your elected officials and or their staff face to face. Discuss issues and legislation of interest to the Christian family that are pending or proposed to the Ohio General Assembly.

    Our civic responsibility does not end with our vote on Election Day. We hired these men and women to represent our families and us now we must hold them accountable.

    Issues and Legislation before the 127th Ohio General Assembly:

      Covenant Marriage
      Adoption Reform & Foster Parenting
      Personhood Legislation
      Community Defense Act
      Abstinence Funding, School Vouchers Plus many more

    Receive training and information about the issues that concern you and your family.

    Meet like-minded concerned Christian citizens who want to make a difference for such a time as this.

    Sponsored By Pro-Family Network, Ohio Christian Alliance, Citizens for Community Values, Family First and Institute for Principled Policy, Citizen-USA Newspaper

    Printable copy of a flyer that you can distribute.

    Printable copy of the application form. Please print one out, complete it and fax it to 614-386-9804 or mail it with a check to the address indicated on the form.

    Or you can pay your registration online! Click here to go to our store “Events” category. The Ohio Family Lobby Day choices are there. You can use your Visa, Master Card, American Express, Discover Card or Pay Pal account to pay the fee. Then download a copy of the registration form and fax it to 614-386-9804. Indicate that your fees were paid online on the form. Then you’re registered. It’s easy.

    Ohio Family Lobby Day

    OHIO FAMILY LOBBY DAY
    April 25, 2007 in Columbus, Ohio

    Decisions are being made for you, on your behalf many times without your knowledge. Meet with your elected officials and or their staff face to face. Discuss issues and legislation of interest to the Christian family that are pending or proposed to the Ohio General Assembly.

    Our civic responsibility does not end with our vote on Election Day. We hired these men and women to represent our families and us now we must hold them accountable.

    Issues and Legislation before the 127th Ohio General Assembly:

      Covenant Marriage
      Banning Homosexual Adoption & Foster Parenting
      Total Abortion Ban
      Community Defense Act
      Abstinence Funding, School Vouchers Plus many more

    Receive training and information about the issues that concern you and your family.

    Meet like-minded concerned Christian citizens who want to make a difference for such a time as this.

    Sponsored By Pro-Family Network, Ohio Christian Alliance, Citizens for Community Values, Family First and Institute for Principled Policy, Citizen-USA Newspaper

    Click here to see a printable copy of a flyer that you can distribute

    Click here for a printable copy of the application form. Please print one out, complete it and fax it to 614-386-9804

    To pay your registration online click here to go to our store “Events” category. The Ohio Family Lobby Day choices are there. You can use your Visa, Master Card, American Express, Discover Card or Pay Pal account to pay the fee. Then download a copy of the registration form and fax it to 614-386-9804. Indicate that your fees were paid online on the form. Then you’re registered. It’s easy.