Categories:

HB 222 (rep. Paul Ray, Republican, district 13): This bill provides pain relief to unborn infants over 20 weeks who are aborted unless the woman refuses, the woman is informed that the clinic or hospital offers no such pain relief, or there is an emergency:

76-7-308.5. Administration of anesthetic or analgesic to an unborn child.
A physician who performs an abortion of an unborn child who is at least 20 weeks gestational age shall administer an anesthetic or analgesic to eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child that may be caused by the particular method of abortion to be employed, if the woman having the abortion consents to the administration of an anesthetic or analgesic to the unborn child, unless:
(1) the physician is prevented from administering the anesthetic or analgesic by a medical emergency; or
(2) prior to performing the abortion, the physician informs the woman that the physician, or the facility at which the abortion is to be performed, cannot, or does not, provide the service of administering an anesthetic or analgesic to an unborn child.
(Lines 280-290)

Unfortunately, legislators, including Paul Ray, voted last year to approve an "administrative rule," R414-1B, re-opening the floodgates of taxpayer-funded frivolous abortion in Utah.  Prior to R414-1B, citizen-driven Senate Bill 68 had forced Utah's major hospitals to cease performing all frivolous abortions in Utah (over 3,200 frivolous abortions are typically performed in Utah every year).

See our alert, "Utah Government Takes Another Stab at Unborn," and our our 2005 Legislative Performance Report to learn how taxpayer-funded frivolous abortions can be prevented.  Rather than numb our victims, let's stop killing them.  The fact that we feel it is ok to numb unborn infants who are frivolously aborted is a bigger problem!

Legislators will have another chance this session to reject or approve R414-1B.  Let's see how "pro-life" they really are.

Final Status: HB 222 passed house committee (6-1-1), the house (63-8-4), and failed senate committee (3-3-0). Typical of senate gamesmanship, this vote was not recorded, as senators do not want the public to hold them accountable.  However, you can learn much by examining the previous vote to hold the bill (3-0-3).  Even small steps forward such as these are unlikely in this murderous government.

None we were aware of.

HB 231 (rep. LaWanna Lou Shurtliff, Democrat, district 10): This bill would remove the current straight party voting option from the voting ballot.  Organizations and affiliations should not clutter the voting ballots of a solid republic.  If political parties want ad space, let them pay for it privately — and keep it out of the voting area.

Citizens who are more serious about voting will already know their candidates names, positions, and track records (if any), and will be able to vote accordingly.  Others will perhaps learn to stop relying on silly logos and meaningless "platforms", and start voting for the most ethical individual (or at least against unethical incumbents).  If a voter ends up selecting candidates who are only members of the same party, he/she should have the respect, decency, and intelligence to do so race by race.

Final Status: HB 231 went to a house committee and was sent back to the Rules Committee.  To learn more about how the Rules Committee operates, see our Issue in Focus: "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative".  See the status page.

HB 64 (amended) (rep. Glenn Donnelson, Republican, district 7): In 2005, sen. Curt Bramble and rep. Rebecca Lockhart sponsored SB 227, which slapped the face of every legal immigrant and citizen by providing illegal aliens—criminals—with a special "driving privilege card".

Nevermind that a legislative audit had already revealed that thousands of these criminals have illegally registered to vote and thousands have likely voted in our past election.  It is likely that most of them fraudulently used an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) provided by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for those who do not have a Social Security Number.

These alien criminals continue to exploit government health care and other services and are responsible for a disproportionate level of other criminal activity in Utah. This new "driver privilege card," enacted by SB 227, further legitimized this criminal behavior, empowered these criminals to remain here illegally, and only forced them to be more creative in stealing government subsidies.

HB 64 would repeal this "driving privilege card" nonsense.  From lines 12-21:

This bill:
* repeals the use of a temporary identification number (ITIN) issued by the Internal Revenue Service for purposes of obtaining a driving privilege card issued by the Driver License Division;
expires all driving privilege cards on December 31, 2006;
* increases from six to ten years the time period for which an applicant for a driver license must report a license suspension, cancellation, revocation, disqualification, or denial;
* prohibits the Driver License Division from issuing a driving privilege card; and
* makes technical changes.

Final Status: This bill was "tabled" (i.e. killed) by a house committee (6-1-4). To learn more about how House Committees operate, see our Issue in Focus: "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative". See the vote.

Back to Categories

SB 24 (Substitute 3) (sen. Mark Madsen, Republican, district 13): This bill actually appears to do what it says in the summary (lines 12-17):

This bill:
* modifies the definition of "securely encased";
* creates residence and property exceptions to the criminal penalty provisions for carrying a concealed firearm, without having a concealed firearm permit; and
* allows for the possession of a loaded firearm, concealed firearm, and loaded and concealed firearm at a person's place of residence or on the person's real property.

To those who admit the existence of a Creator, it is nothing more than common sense to espouse the idea that man would be endowed with a right to defend him/herself from unjust influences.  SB 24 is a common sense bill, admittedly an oddity to the legislation that permeates this session — as it celebrates our Creator, our right to defend ourselves and others, and the wisdom of just citizens.

Any organization or individual whose actions are in opposition to these things must be questioned, and any government that attempts to deny us the right to celebrate these things is not legitimate, and is not the country our forefathers established. 

We initially thought that SB 24 S3, like its predecessors, also reaffirmed a citizen's right to carry a loaded weapon in his or her car.  We were mistaken.  From an alert by GoUtah! (our comments in bold brackets):

SB24-S3 does not make it legal for you to keep a loaded weapon in your car without a concealed-carry permit, as the original bill did, nor does it completely remove the existing law against having a concealed firearm in your vehicle without a permit, which the original bill also did. However, it does two main things.

First, SB24-S3 would make it legal for you to have a concealed firearm without a permit in your residence and on any real property that you own, such as a farm, business, residential lot, etc.  [See lines 159-164] Although the existing law allows you to have a loaded firearm in your home or on your property, it’s currently illegal for you to carry or store a firearm in a concealed fashion in your home or on your property, even if it’s unloaded. SB24-S3 fixes this.

Second, SB24-S3 would make it legal for you to keep a firearm in the glove compartment or center console of a car without a permit, provided that the firearm is not loaded [See lines 129-131]. Under current law, a gun in the glove box or center console is considered “concealed” and is therefore illegal unless you have a permit. SB24-S3 changes this. Thus, for example, under the new bill, you could legally have a semiautomatic handgun containing a full magazine in your car's glove box or center console without a permit, as long as there is no round in the chamber (and provided that you are not illegally in possession of the firearm). While this is not the full loaded & concealed permitless car-carry legislation contained in the original bill, it's still a significant step in the right direction and deserves everyone's full support.

Why was SB 24 gutted?  According to a letter sent from LDS registered lobbyist Bill Evans, the LDS church is... how shall we put this... unofficially not pleased, per se, with SB 24.  Since sharing their unofficial non-endorsement of semi-concern privately with senators, SB 24 has been gutted, delayed, and may not pass — even in its weakened form.

Here is the full text of their letter:

What does "around Church facilities" mean?  On the street?  On public roads in front of the church?  And why does this policy not apply unilaterally to include the armed private guards who protect prominent LDS leaders on church property?

Regardless, even if SB 24 had passed in its original form or first two substitutes, LDS officials would still have the right and power to ask and/or require people to leave if they bring firearms onto LDS property.  Their rights as property owners would not change.  Nor would it change for any property owner.  Currently, a concealed carry permit holder could drive into your parking lot with a loaded weapon.  If you are not happy with that person's presence, for ANY reason, you can ask and/or require him/her to leave.  SB 24 and its two previous substitutes only provided for other citizens to also carry loaded, concealed weapons in their own cars.

Law-abiding, respectful citizens will always comply with a property owner's sign or verbal request to keep firearms away.  Criminals won't respect property rights regardless of SB 24.  In fact, they are more likely to view church grounds as prime targets for criminal activity.

The following article contradicts the letter's claim that it is "highly unusual" for "the Church to take an official position on any bill".  In fact, this disturbing "pseudo-official" tone is par for the course in Utah politics.

To summarize, the LDS church, while claiming to support the right of individuals to defend themselves, has repeatedly backed gun control efforts.  In 2000, for example, Brigham Young University, an LDS affiliate, officially sponsored the dishonest "Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship" gun control initiative.  In 2003, LDS lobbyists actively pushed a gun control amendment through the legislature in SB 108.  In 2004, the LDS First Presidency issued a statement banning self-defense in LDS churches, and claimed that:

"Any person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm, who knowingly and intentionally transports a firearm into a house of worship or who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains in a house of worship where firearms have been prohibited, is guilty of a crime."

In addition, LDS-owned and -operated affiliates such as KSL Channel 5 and the Deseret News, have consistently supported various attacks on fundamental freedoms, including the right to defend one's self.  It is time to hold these affiliates, and their owners and financiers, as accountable as the elected officials who likewise play political games with our freedoms.

Final Status: Even after the LDS church shenanigans, this watered-down bill was killed.  It passed senate committee (8-0-1), the senate (24-0-5), and was killed by the house.  To learn more about how House Committees operate, see our Issue in Focus: "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative". See the votes.

HB 69 S2 (rep. Bradley Johnson, Republican, district 70): Believe it or not, in Utah, Indians may soon be able to smoke Peyote, but it is currently illegal to sell raw, unpasteurized milk in stores.  The original HB 69 began to open the door to allows consumers to have access to raw milk.  HB 69 S1 was weakened, but still was a step in the right direction.  From lines 187-214:

(2) A producer may sell raw whole milk at a self-owned, properly staffed retail store if, in addition to the requirements of Subsection (1), the producer:
(a) transports the milk from the premises where the milk is produced to the retail store in a refrigerated truck where the milk is maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit;
(b) transports the milk from the premises where the milk is produced to the retail store without any:
(i) intervening storage;
(ii) change of ownership; or
(iii) loss of physical control;
(c) stores the milk at 41 degrees Fahrenheit in a display case equipped with a properly calibrated thermometer at the retail store;
(d) complies with all rules enacted by the department under this section; and
(e) ensures that the retail store complies with Title 4, Chapter, 5, Utah Wholesome Food Act, and the rules governing food establishments enacted under Section 4-5-9 .
(3) (a) The department shall enact rules, as authorized by Section 4-3-2 , governing the sale of raw whole milk at a retail store.
(b) The rules enacted by the department shall include rules regarding:
(i) permits;
(ii) building and premises requirements;
(iii) sanitation and operating requirements, including bulk milk tanks requirements;
(iv) additional tests and frequency of inspections and testing;
(v) record keeping; and
(vi) packaging and labeling.
(4) (a) The department shall suspend a permit issued under Section 4-3-8 if a producer violates any provision of this section or any rules enacted under the section.
(b) The department may reissue a permit which has been suspended under Subsection (4)(a) if the producer has complied with all of the requirements of this section and rules
214 enacted under this section.

Final Status: HB 69 was substituted (and weakened) in house committee (11-3-1), and was then gutted and killed by rep. Kerry Gibson on the house floor.  Gibson proposed a third substitute that made raw milk even less obtainable.  See the vote.

Back to Categories

More Analysis Coming Soon:

HB 239 (rep. Aaron Tilton, Republican, district 65): This bill appeared to restrict corrupt courts and agencies from snatching children for having a cluttered home, etc.

Final Status: Unfortunately, it was never heard, even in house committee.  To learn more about how House Committees operate, see our Issue in Focus: "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative".  See the status page.

Back to Categories

Back to Categories

None we were aware of.

HB 85 S1 (amended) (rep. Kerry Gibson, Republican, district 6): This bill purports to restrict physicians from providing abortions to minors without parental consent.  In typical ill-conceived fashion, it grants creative doctors the legal ability to perform frivolous abortions, grants abusers of women creative avenues to cover up their abuse, and denies parents and the unborn justice.

From the bill language:

(3) Subject to Subsection (4), at least 24 hours before a physician performs an abortion on a minor, the physician shall notify a parent or guardian of the minor that the minor intends to have an abortion.
(4) A physician is not required to comply with Subsection (3) if:
(a) subject to Subsection (5)(a):
(i) a medical condition exists that, on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant minor as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert:
(A) the minor's death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the minor; and
(ii) there is not sufficient time to give the notice required under Subsection (3) before it is necessary to terminate the minor's pregnancy in order to avert the minor's death or impairment described in Subsection (4)(a)(i);
(Lines 115-128, bold added)

The phrase "major bodily function," without any additional qualifier, is a slippery slope that courts have traditionally interpreted to mean everything, including the mental health or function of the woman.  For instance, consider a young woman who walks into a clinic and claims to be feeling suicidal or seriously depressed, and does not get along with her parents.

Under HB 86 S1, a creative, pro-abortion doctor could perform an abortion without parental notification and consent because the young woman might possibly be damaged in the time it takes to contact the parents (or be further damaged by actually contacting them!).
Note: As further evidence of the propensity of state agencies and courts to manipulate loose language such as "health," the Utah Department of Health considered SB 68 to require an "emergency rule" to re-open taxpayer funding of frivolous abortions. See our alert, "Utah Government Takes Another Stab at Unborn."

For this reason, when Accountability Utah volunteers assisted in drafting and reviewing SB 68 (enacted in 2004), they pressed with the house sponsor (rep. Morgan Philpot) for tighter verbiage:

(1) As used in this section, "damage to a major bodily function" refers only to injury or impairment of a physical nature and may not be interpreted to mean mental, psychological, or emotional harm, illness, or distress.

HB 85 abandons this language, and opens up another can of legalese worms that creative abortionists can exploit.

In addition, HB 85 continues to deny innocent parents and unborn infants a trial by a jury of their peers.  Only a jury-less hearing is held, ruled by one "judge" who literally holds life and death solely in his hands.  The decision of one arbitrary man determines whether parents lose their ability to determine whether an underage daughters should go through with a frivolous abortion.
Note: See our article on the need to reinstate jury trials in Utah.

As long as the minor appears "mature and capable of giving informed consent", the judge has unilateral power to allow the abortion, for whatever cause:

(4) If a pregnant minor fails to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor to the performance of an abortion, or if the minor chooses not to seek the consent of a parent or guardian, the minor may file a petition with the juvenile court to obtain a court order under Subsection (2)(b).
(5) (a) A hearing on a petition described in Subsection (4) shall be closed to the public.
(b) After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall order that the minor may obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(i) the minor:
(A) has given her informed consent to the abortion; and
(B) is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the abortion; or
(ii) an abortion would be in the minor's best interest.
(6) The Judicial Council shall make rules that:
(a) provide for the administration of the proceedings described in this section;
(b) provide for the appeal of a court's decision under this section;
(c) ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings described in this section and the
records related to the proceedings; and
(d) establish procedures to expedite the hearing and appeal proceedings described in this section.
(Lines 180-185)

To add insult to injury, innocent parents will now have no right to participate in this hearing, or to be informed of the court's decision or of the proceedings.

In other words, even innocent parents will have no right to know what their child said to the judge, any accusations leveled against them, what pressure was applied to the child by others to have the abortion, etc.  In addition, creative abusers of women will have another avenue to sweep their abuse under the carpet — and completely under the radar screen of a minor's concerned parents. 

With the help of HB 85 S1, unprotected sex with a minor female could become the perverts' favored choice (if it isn't already).  Even adult female prostitutes know what condoms are and know how to use them.  But perverts could get a minor pregnant and then send her to a judge with a fake story as to how she became pregnant.  Without the knowledge, or participation, of parents, young females would be open to extreme manipulation and further abuse.

Rather than reinforce the responsibility our Creator bestowed upon parents to guide minors through such difficult issues, HB 85 is yet another outrageous injustice against parents, against the unborn who will be murdered frivolously, and against young women who will be manipulated.

Note: Legislators, including Kerry Gibson, voted last year to approve an "administrative rule," R414-1B, re-opening the floodgates of taxpayer-funded frivolous abortion in Utah.  Prior to R414-1B, citizen-driven Senate Bill 68 had forced Utah's major hospitals to cease performing all frivolous abortions in Utah (over 3,200 frivolous abortions are typically performed in Utah every year).

See our alert, "Utah Government Takes Another Stab at Unborn," and our our 2005 Legislative Performance Report to learn how taxpayer-funded frivolous abortions can be prevented. In addition to HB 85 S1, legislators will have yet another chance this session to reject or approve R414-1B.  Let's see how "pro-life" they really are.

Status: HB 85 passed a house committee (7-1-0), house (65-8-2), passed senate committee (5-0-4), and awaits a vote on the senate floor. For more information on the continued betrayal of the Utah legislators against the unborn, see our alert, and note that the "administrative rule" was also considered an "emergency."

See HB 61 under the Keep & Bear Arms (Self-Defense) section.

Back to Categories

SB 96 S2 (sen. Chris Buttars, Republican, district 10): This bill:

This bill amends the chapter relating to Curriculum in the Public Schools to require the State Board of Education to establish certain curriculum requirements and policies relating to instruction on the origins of life.
(Lines 11-13)

Um.  Has anyone bothered to ask why the State Board of Education has control over curriculum at the local level in the first place?  Why do organizations like the Utah Eagle Forum and Sutherland Institute promote bigger, more centralized government?

In their exuberance to defend some of their beliefs, how quickly they abandon their conviction in "local control".  Rather than destroy the Beast of Big Government, they would rather saddle and ride it to enforce their own vision of Utopia.

Limited government doesn't work that way.  Either render childhood curriculum to Caesar to  — at the point of a sword — arbitrarily decide what children will learn depending on the political winds of the day, or you fight to remove Caesar from the equation entirely.  As the saying goes: "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve"...

Status: SB 96 passed senate committee (4-2-1), the senate floor (16-12-1), and awaits house committee.

HB 28 (amended) (rep. Douglass "Adolf" Aagard, Republican, district 15): This bill is part of a comprehensive effort to destroy the ability of the general public to access government records via . From lines 108-115:

(8) (a) [A] In response to a request, a governmental entity is not required to:
(i) create a record [in response to a request.];
(ii) compile, format, manipulate, package, summarize, or tailor information;
(iii) provide a record in a particular format, medium, or program; or
(iv) fulfill a person's records request if:
(A) the request unreasonably duplicates prior records requests from that person; or
(B) the information requested is included in a public publication or product produced by a governmental entity.

What do the terms compile, format, manipulate, summarize, or tailor mean?  If one has to attach a document to an email message, is that manipulating that information?  If the information at the county clerk's office is only in some obscure government format, will they be required to put it into plain text format?  Apparently not, according to HB 28.

Status: HB 28 (amended) passed house committee (7-3-1), and awaits a vote on the house floor.

HB 94 S2 (rep. Patrice Arent, Democrat, district 40): This bill claims, as its title, to "Ban on Gifts to Elected Officials."  And so it would seem from lines 169-170 of the bill:

A lobbyist, principal, or government officer may not offer or give a gift valued at more than $5 to any public official or member of the public official's immediate family.

However, look at some of the exceptions to the definition of "gifts":

(b) "Gift" does not mean:... a gift or gifts from one member of the Legislature to another member of the Legislature;... the cost of admission, attendance, or participation, and of food and beverages consumed, at a public policy activity to which all members of the Legislature or all members of a legislative committee, a legislative subcommittee, or a task force are invited
(Lines 125, 141-142, 153-155)

This is no ban on gifts, but a rearrangement of deck chairs on the sinking ship of government indecency and corruption.  Legislators already frequent so-called national "conventions", where they feast upon lavish, lobbyist-paid perks and activities such as sight-seeing adventures, golf tournaments, gambling, etc.  Under HB 94, there are few limits as to what they can receive at these "conventions."

Status: HB 94 passed house committee (10-0-1), the house (64-6-5), and awaits action in the senate.

HB 101 S3 (rep. Jeff "Gigolo" Alexander, Republican, district 62):  Currently, officials do not have to report the financial "perks" (i.e. bribes) received by lobbyists if the amount received in a given year does not exceed $50 per contributor.  The original HB 101 required that certain "perks" (bribes) over $5 be reported.

The merits of this approach is debatable.  On the one hand, at least the public knows when "perks" (bribes) are exchanged.  On the other hand, why are we legitimizing "perks" (bribes) by codifying them at all?  If a legislator can't pay for his own Jazz ticket or lunch, he/she would be better off not being there than accepting cigars and food from someone attempting to garner his/her vote.

This latest substitute also seems to have a bunch of other heavy-handed nonsense in it, such as third degree felony charges for filing false information.  The real solution is to ban "perks" (bribes) to elected officials, not codify the passing of bribes.

Alexander is a comedic one to run this bill, as he is one of the biggest political prostitutes on the hill.   Alexander recently wrote a letter to other legislators, asking them to participate in bizarre "Speed Dating" rituals with lobbyists.  See his Flounders Quote for more information.

SB 102 (sen. Greg Bell, Republican, district 22): Currently, officials do not have to report the financial perks (often bordering on bribes) received by lobbyists if the amount received in a given year does not exceed $50 per contributor.  SB 102 reduces this to $10.  See HB 101 S3 above for our arguments against this approach.

Status: SB 102 failed senate committee (1-5-2).

See also HB 19 S1 under Bad Bills/Privacy.

None we were aware of.

Back to Categories

None we were aware of.

HB 66 (rep. Craig Buttars, Republican, district 3, and sen. Lyle Hillyard, Republican, district 25): This bill empowers the bureaucratic "State Board of Regents" to hand out free tuition scholarships to criminal illegal aliens.

According to Utah statute 53B-8-102, illegal aliens are not covered in the definition of "resident".  Therefore, illegal aliens are "nonresidents," and can be recipients of any "nonresident" scholarships awarded by the State Board of Regents.
Note: HB 144, passed in the 2002 session, does not call illegal aliens "residents", but exempts illegal aliens from paying "nonresident" tuition rates.

According to rep. Glen Donnelson's testimony, there are 169 illegal aliens already in the system.  HB 66 dramatically increases the number of "nonresident" scholarships the State Board of Regents can dish out.

This treachery is par for the course.  While HB 7 (the bill to cut off "resident" tuition status for illegal aliens) languishes and dies, the legislature has already passed the means to circumvent it (in case it ever does pass).

Note: Of particular dishonorable mention, self-proclaimed immigration reformer, Curt "Kervorkian" Bramble was "absent" for the final vote on HB 66.  This despite prior citizen contact with him regarding the sinister aspects of this bill.  Because of senate rules, absentees can not request that a bill be reconsidered.  Bramble is notorious for stabbing the cause of freedom in the back.  Type "Bramble" in our word search for a plethora of his betrayals.

Status: HB 66 passed house committee (10-2-3), the house (73-1-1), senate committee (4-0-3), and the senate (25-0-4).

HB 61 (rep. Scott Wyatt, Republican, district 5): Nicknamed "the PETA bill," HB 61 would enact enhanced criminal penalties for individuals who mistreat animals, to include a life-time gun ban for relatively minor acts, and property rights infringements that border on cruel and unusual punishment. According to lines 80-80a and 85-86:

"A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty [a felony which includes a lifetime gun ban] to an animal if the person, without having legal privilege to do so:... knowingly or intentionally places or causes to be placed in a location accessible to an animal, a poison or poisonous substance that is attractive to one or more species of animals..." (commentary in brackets)

Bills like these are imbecilic.  Who will assign meaning to vague notions such as "legal privilege," "attractive," and "species, and when will they do so?  Will rep. Wyatt spend his lunch breaks fielding phone calls from people who desire the "legal privilege" to set animal traps that contain poison?

What about the farmer who sets poisonous traps for varmints that are eating his crops (or killing his sheep)?  Or the homeowner who is attempting to rid his home of mice or rats?  Would they still have "legal privilege" if their trap attracted a snail or some other animal they were not "legally privileged" to kill?  And what will animal-centric attorney zealots at PETA do with this new playground of potential litigation?

HB 61 is very similar to Wyatt's bill last year, HB 242.  GoUtah! provided the following independent analysis of last year's HB 242:

HB 242 would elevate certain misdemeanors to felonies. Why is this a gun-rights issue? It's a gun-rights issue because federal law automatically prohibits you from buying, owning, shooting, or even touching a firearm or ammunition for the rest of your life if you've ever been convicted of any type of felony. Thus, for example, if you carry a prescription pill loose in your pocket, this is a felony in the state of Maryland, even if it's your own legally-purchased prescription pill that's in your pocket. Suppose you get caught and convicted in Maryland for carrying your prescription-strength ibuprofen tablet loose in your pocket. Because this is a felony in that state, you would permanently lose your Second-Amendment rights everywhere in the United States, and if at any time during the rest of your life you were to get caught holding a loaded firearm in your hands, you could spend ten years in federal prison for being "a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition".

Under the Bush Administration's "Project Safe Neighborhoods", federal prosecutors nationwide are vigorously prosecuting and imprisoning people who commit even minor technical violations of federal gun law, so the scenario described above is not unrealistic.

The question is: Should you automatically and permanently lose your Second-Amendment rights and your right to effective self-defense for a relatively minor offense? GOUtah! says "NO WAY!", which is why we oppose any legislation that elevates potentially minor offenses to felony status.

All of the really major violent crimes (robbery, rape, murder, etc.) have been felonies for centuries. The automatic ban on gun ownership by convicted felons was passed in 1968 as part of the Federal Gun-Control Act. At the time, this ban was intended to be used as a means to disarm people with violent criminal records, and to give federal prosecutors an additional way to lock these people up and take them off the street if they continued to carry guns.

However, the trend in recent years has been to bestow felony status on all sorts of lesser crimes, with the result that lots of non-violent citizens are being automatically and permanently stripped of their right to own firearms. Coupled with the current "zero-tolerance" approach to prosecuting federal gun-law violations, this trend is having the effect of sending significant numbers of non-violent Americans to federal prison for merely exercising their basic right to possess and carry firearms.

The Federal Gun-Control Act includes a provision whereby non-violent felons (like Martha Stewart) can regain their gun rights once they've served their sentence. However, all applications for restoration of gun rights must be processed by the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives), and Congress has refused to provide a single penny of funding for BATFE to process these applications since the early 1990s. Thus, if you get convicted for carrying your own prescription pill in your pocket in Maryland and you subsequently apply to get your gun rights reinstated, the BATF will simply return your application to you with a letter saying: "Sorry, but we cannot process your request at this time."

The ultimate solution to all of this would be to repeal or amend the Federal Gun-Control Act. However, this isn't likely to happen soon, so the best we can do for now is to vigorously oppose any legislation that would add to the existing list of felony-level crimes.

Thus, we get back to HB 242. HB 242 would cause certain misdemeanor acts of cruelty to an animal to become felonies. We certainly don't advocate cruelty to animals, nor do we object to the existing laws against it, nor would we object to more vigorous enforcement of the existing laws, including hard jail time for people convicted of misdemeanor offenses involving cruelty to animals. Nor would we necessarily object to elevating a class B misdemeanor to a class A misdemeanor, which would allow stiffer penalties.

What we DO object to is elevating a misdemeanor to a felony, which could result in an automatic lifetime loss of gun rights for a relatively minor act. For example, under HB 242, you could permanently lose your gun rights if your 17-year-old son is helping you to change the antifreeze in your car, and you deliberately drain the old antifreeze from the vehicle into the gutter. While we certainly don't advocate draining your antifreeze into the gutter (where animals could find it and drink it and get poisoned), we don't believe that such an act should be sufficient grounds to permanently strip you of your right to own a firearm. Or, if you were having a really bad day and you kicked your dog, you could be charged with "torturing an animal", which would be a felony under HB 242 (even if the dog isn't injured). We don't approve of people kicking their dogs under any circumstances, but then neither do we think that this particular act, disgusting as it is, should in and of itself automatically cause you to lose your Second-Amendment rights for the rest of your life.

* * * End of Excerpt * * *

Clarification: While Accountability Utah joins GoUtah! in opposing animal cruelty, we do not necessarily endorse "hard jail time" for people who are convicted of any misdemeanor involving cruelty against an animal.  Under our current, corrupt system of statutes and courts, a mere conviction may not constitute reality, and other circumstances, including the needs of the perpetrator, may require alternative forms of handling the situation.

Finally, HB 61 allows corporations and state-funded universities that conduct experiments that are truly horrific on animals, to continue to do so without any penalty. From lines 103-108:

[(5)] (7) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the conduct of the actor towards the animal was:
(a) by a licensed veterinarian using accepted veterinary practice;
(b) directly related to bona fide experimentation for scientific research, provided that if the animal is to be destroyed [what about the time leading up to being destroyed?], the manner employed will not be unnecessarily cruel unless directly necessary to the veterinary purpose or scientific research involved...
(Comments in brackets)

The hypocrisy is thick. Let legislators have a public discussion about some of the "medical research" conducted at state-funded universities.  Instead, they prefer to pursue sweeping lifetime gun bans and tyrannical, whimsical regulations against the citizenry.

Status: HB 61 passed house committee (12-1-2) and awaits a vote on the house floor.

Back to Categories

More Analysis Coming Soon:

HB 204: Health care insurance regulatory mandate.

Back to Categories

HB 30 (rep. Rosalind McGee, Democrat, district 28 — cosponsored by sen. Curt Bramble, Republican, district 16): This bill allows a juvenile court judge to, without any trial by jury, terminate parental rights without ANY finding of wrongdoing on the part of the parents.  Minors aged 16 and 17 may seek complete "emancipation" from their innocent parents, to include abortions on demand.

The bill language incredulously states (lines 155-161, bold added):

78-3a-1001. Purpose.
(1) The purpose of this part is to provide a means by which a minor who has demonstrated the ability and capacity to manage his or her own affairs and to live independent of his or her parents or guardian, may obtain the legal status of an emancipated person with the power to enter into valid legal contracts.
(2) This part is not intended to interfere with the integrity of the family or to minimize the rights of parents or children.

Oh really?  Consider lines 170-195 (comments in bold brackets):

(1) A minor may petition the juvenile court on his or her own behalf in the district in which he or she resides for a declaration of emancipation. The petition shall be on a form provided by the clerk of the court, and state that the minor is:
(a) 16 years of age or older;
(b) capable of living independently of his or her parents or guardian; and
(c) capable of managing his or her own financial affairs.
(2) Notice of the petition shall be served on the minor's parents, guardian, any other person or agency with custody of the minor, and the Child and Family Support Division of the Office of the Attorney General, unless the court determines that service is unnecessary or impractical. [Which service?  Contacting the parents?  Or just the Attorney General?  This is poorly worded.]
Section 6. Section 78-3a-1004 is enacted to read:
78-3a-1004. Court procedure.
(1) Upon the filing of a petition in accordance with Section 78-3a-1003, the court shall schedule a pretrial hearing on the matter within 30 days.
(2) The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem in accordance with Section 78-3a-912 to represent the minor. [Enter the manipulative bureaucratic GAL agency already responsible for ruining countless Utah families.]
(3) At the hearing, the court shall consider the best interests of the minor  [This vague "best interests" phraseology goes hand in glove with the "parens patrie", or "king's prevailing interest", doctrine discussed in our analysis of HB 253.  It is also echoed in the United Nations' 1990 UNICEF "Convention on the Rights of the Child", Articles 3, 9, 18, 19, 21, 37, & 40] according to the following:
(a) whether the minor is capable of assuming adult responsibilities;
(b) whether the minor is capable of living independently of his or her parents, guardian, or custodian;
(c) opinions and recommendations from the guardian ad litem, parents, guardian, or custodian, and any other evidence; and
(d) whether emancipation will create a risk of harm to the minor.
(4) If the court  ["Court" means a single judge or appointed court commissioner with absolute power and financial ties to the child welfare system via perverse federal financial incentives; not a jury of objective citizens.] determines by clear and convincing evidence that emancipation is in the best interests  [The magical "best interests" phrase again!]  of the minor, it shall issue a declaration of emancipation.

And once "emancipated" from their parents, minors may do the following (lines 198-213, with our comments in bold brackets):

(1) An emancipated minor may:
(a) enter into contracts;
(b) buy and sell property;
(c) sue or be sued;
(d) retain his or her own earnings;
(e) borrow money for any purpose, including for education; and
(f) obtain healthcare without parental consent. [This would include abortions on demand.  According to state statute 76-7-321 covering definitions of a minor in cases of abortions, "'Minor' means any person under the age of 18 who is not otherwise EMANCIPATED, married, or a member of the armed forces of the United States."]
(2) An emancipated minor may not be considered an adult:
(a) under the criminal laws of the state unless the requirements of Part 6, Transfer of Jurisdiction, have been met;
(b) under the criminal laws of the state when he or she is a victim and the age of the victim is an element of the offense [State statute already allows adults to have sex with 16 or 17 year olds, so long as they no more than 10 years younger than the adult (see 76-5-401.2).  Will sentencing judges really view "emancipated" minors as "victims" if they "consent" to sexual relations with even older adults?]; and
(c) for specific constitutional and statutory age requirements regarding voting, use of alcoholic beverages, possession of tobacco or firearms, and other health and safety regulations relevant to the minor because of the minor's age.
(3) An order of emancipation prospectively terminates parental responsibilities [and also parental rights] that accrue based on the minor's status as a minor under the custody and control of a parent, guardian, or custodian, including parental tort liability for the acts of the minor.

An additional thought on "emancipated" minors who engage in sexual relations with adult predators: Who will step in and put a stop to it?  If the courts terminate their rights, parents will no longer have "responsibility" and likely the power/influence to effectively do so.

HB 30 is eerily familiar to the "Children's Rights" movement promoted by various international organizations seeking to statutorily legitimize the sexual and financial exploitation of children by adults.

HB 30 also appears to be part of the Utah Department of Child and Family Services efforts to ditch older children in the foster care system who are "unmanageable," "have problems with authority," etc.  Federal funding often dwindles as children approach adulthood, and the cost of controlling these teenagers may not be worth the headache.  DCFS would prefer to spend its energies collecting younger, more lucrative, and less problematic victims.

Also note that the house sponsor, Rosalind McGee, is, among other things, Executive Director for Utah Children and a trustee of the Utah Foster Care Foundation.  These organizations consistently support the nefarious expansion of unconstitutional and immoral DCFS powers, and the destruction of parental rights and innocent families.

Remember, if HB 30 passes, it will take only one corrupt, unaccountable judge to "emancipate" minors and terminate parental rights.  Get ready teenage exploiters!  This is the place!
Additional Information: For more information on the importance of a trial by a jury of your peers, see our Issue in Focus: "Why Are Jury Trials Crucial to Your Freedom?"  For more information on Utah's unaccountable judiciary, see our write-up on judicial retention elections.  To learn more about the rights you no do not enjoy as a Utah parent, see "Utah Legislature Declares War on Your Family". Minor changes have since been made in the 2005 session to the statute covering parental rights termination (see the new 78-3a-401), but parents can still lose their children for frivolous reasons, such as not complying with a "reunification plan" that were based upon bogus criteria and "failure of parental adjustment".  Most importantly, Utah parents still do not have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.

Status: HB 30 passed house committee (6-0-2), the house (45-26-4), and awaits action in the senate.

HB 219 S1 (amended) (rep. Eric Hutchings, Republican, district 38): This bill allows government agencies and courts to steal children from parents without cause and with the flimsiest of evidence.  From the bill:

There is a presumption that reunification services should not be provided to a 487 parent if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following 488 circumstances exist:...
(J) the parent permitted the child to reside at a location where the parent knew or should have known that a clandestine laboratory operation was located; or
(K) any other circumstance that the court determines should preclude reunification efforts or services.
(Lines 486-488, 515-518)

As we have repeatedly explained over the years, phrases such as "should have known" are so subjective, as to render a general and fair application impossible — particularly when parents are not granted even basic due process in juvenile courts, such as trials by a jury of their peers.

HB 219 S1 will give government agents further license to molest innocent parents.
Note: Learn more about the rights you do not have as an accused, innocent parent.  Also learn more about the importance of restoring your right to a trial by a jury of your peers.  Finally, learn how you can better protect yourself and your family from DCFS family abusers.

Status: HB 219 S1 passed house committee (11-0-0), the house (68-0-7), and awaits a senate committee.

HB 220 S1 amended (rep. Eric Hutchings, Republican, district 38): This bill, like HB 219 S1 before it, introduces nebulous phrases such as "should have known", and will permit corrupt courts and agencies to further harass and attack innocent families.  From lines 12-18e:

This bill:... provides that the definition of a neglected child includes a minor whose parent...  permits the parent's child to associate with a gang while the gang, or any member of the gang, is engaged in criminal conduct in the presence of the minor, or associates with a gang in the presence of the parent's child while the gang, or any member of the gang, is engaged in criminal conduct in the presence of the child; and knew or should have known that the conduct described above was occurring;

Status: This bill passed house committee (10-0-1).

HB 253 (rep. Eric Hutchings, Republican, district 38): For years, Democrat Duane Bourdeaux has attacked home and private schoolers and parents via truancy statutes.  This year, he has found a new sponsor to carry his dirty water.

From lines 222-244 and 261-295 (bold added):

(2) Except as provided in Section 53A-11-102 or 53A-11-102.5, the parent of a school-age minor shall enroll and send the school-age minor to a public or regularly established private school during the school year of the district in which the school-age minor resides.
(3) A school administrator, a designee of a school administrator, or a truancy specialist may issue a notice of compulsory education violation to a parent of a school-age child if the school-age child is absent without a valid excuse at least five times during the school year.
(4) The notice of compulsory education violation, described in Subsection (3):
(a) shall request that the parent of the school-age child:
(i) meet with school authorities to discuss the school-age child's school attendance problems; and
(ii) cooperate with the school board or school district in securing regular attendance by the school-age child;
(b) shall designate the school authorities with whom the parent is required to meet;
(c) shall state that it is a class B misdemeanor for the parent of the school-age child to intentionally or recklessly:
(i) fail to meet with the designated school authorities to discuss the school-age child's school attendance problems; or
(ii) fail to prevent the school-age child from being absent without a valid excuse five or more times during the remainder of the school year;
(d) shall be served on the school-age child's parent by personal service or certified mail; and
(e) may not be issued unless the school-age child has been truant at least five times during the school year....
(6) A local school board or school district shall report violations of this section to the appropriate county or district attorney.
(7) The juvenile court has jurisdiction over an action filed under this section.

Parents have a God-given right to control the education of their children.  It is not within government's authority or business to force children to attend school, or to micro-manage parents. 

It is also absurdly unjust to charge a parent with a class B misdemeanor, punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to 6 months in jail, who "fail[s] to prevent" more than 5 "unexcused" absences.  Should parents put perimeter shock collars on their teenagers and zap them whenever they escape their designated classroom?

And can anyone blame children who don't want to submit to the stifling, nauseating, and boring pabulum that permeates government schools?  We should congratulate inmates who escape and encourage them to seek a better education elsewhere.

It would be bad enough if HB 253 only applied to those parents who are still so foolish as to surrender their children to corrupt government schools, riddled with drugs, sexual perversion, and socialism.  But private schools and schoolers would also be regulated by HB 253 (see bold in above citation.)

In addition, all home or private schoolers who, on moral grounds, refuse to fill out Utah state-forms asking for "permission" to educate their children on their own, are also attacked.  Without state-sanctioned "permission" forms, these parents are "without valid excuse" and could be attacked by the state as though they were "truant".

Under HB 253, home and private school parents would be subject to harassment by corrupt bureaucrats, the Utah Department of Child and Family Services, and jury-less juvenile courts.

HB 253 continues the war on parental rights, and further establishes the doctrine of "parens patriae".  Consider state statute 62A-4a-201(2) (bold added):

(2)  It is also the public policy of this state that children have the right to protection from abuse and neglect, and that the state retains a compelling interest in investigating, prosecuting, and punishing abuse and neglect, as defined in this chapter, and in Title 78, Chapter 3a, Juvenile Court Act of 1996.  Therefore, the state, as parens patriae, has an interest in and responsibility to protect children whose parents abuse them or do not adequately provide for their welfare.  There may be circumstances where a parent's conduct or condition is a substantial departure from the norm and the parent is unable or unwilling to render safe and proper parental care and protection.  Under those circumstances, the state may take action for the welfare and protection of the parent's children.

Sounds reasonable at first read, doesn't it?  But what does "adequately provide for their welfare" mean exactly?  Perhaps you'll get a better idea if you consider that the term "parens patriae" comes from English feudalistic law during the Dark Ages, and roughly translates to "the king's prevailing interest" over the affairs of his minions.

Simply put, the king's interest is to raise children how the king sees fit.  Anything else, is "not adequate".  Learn more about the king's interest from our 2003 alert, "Utah Legislature Declares War on Your Family".
Note: Minor changes have since been made in the 2005 session to the statute covering parental rights termination (see the new 78-3a-401), but parents can still lose their children for frivolous reasons, such as not complying with a "reunification plan" that were based upon bogus criteria and "failure of parental adjustment".  Most importantly, Utah parents still do not have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.

Status: HB 253 (amended) passed house committee (11-0-4) and awaits a vote in the full house.

HB 257 (rep. Dave Hogue, Republican, district 52): This bill expands the definition of "harmful to minors" to include just about everything imaginable.  From lines 41-57:

"Harmful to minors" means that quality of any description or representation, in whatsoever form, of inappropriate violence.
(5) "Inappropriate violence" means any description or representation, in any form, of violence when it:
(a) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors;
(b) taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors;
(c) is glamorized or gratuitous;
(d) is graphic violence used to shock or stimulate;
(e) is graphic violence that is not contextually relevant to the material;
(f) is so pervasive that it serves as the thread holding the plot of the material together;
(g) trivializes the serious nature of realistic violence;
(h) does not demonstrate the consequences or effects of realistic violence;
(i) uses brutal weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage;
(j) endorses or glorifies torture or excessive weaponry; or
(k) depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely.

HB 257 is a dream come true for government child snatchers from the Department of Child and Family "Services" (DCFS).  Anything harmful to minors is grounds for corrupt judge to permanently terminate your parental rights.
Note: Learn more about the rights you do not have as an accused, innocent parent.  Also learn more about the importance of restoring your right to a trial by a jury of your peers.  Finally, learn how you can better protect yourself and your family from DCFS family abusers.

Status: HB 257 failed house committee (6-6-1).  This does not mean it is dead.

HB 299 S1 (amended) (rep. Mike Morley, Republican, district 66): Earlier forms of this bill would have prohibited government school employees from using the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS), the court system, threats, or school policies to force parents to comply with their "mental health" advice. Even in this second substitute, things started off ok.  From lines 68-100:

(4) Except as provided in Subsection (6), school personnel may not:
(a) recommend to a parent or guardian that a child take or continue to take a medication;
(b) require that a student take or continue to take a medication as a condition for attending school;
(c) recommend that a parent or guardian seek or use any of the following:
(i) the administration of a medication to a child;
(ii) a psychiatric or psychological treatment for a child; or
(iii) a psychiatric evaluation of a child;
(d) conduct a psychiatric or behavioral health evaluation or mental health screening, test, evaluation, or assessment of a child; or
(e) make a child abuse or neglect report to authorities, including the Division of Child and Family Services, solely or primarily on the basis that a parent or guardian refuses to consent to:
(i) a psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral treatment for a child, including the administration of a psychotropic medication to a child; or
(ii) a psychiatric or behavioral health evaluation of a child.
(5) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(e), school personnel may make a report that would otherwise be prohibited under Subsection (4)(e) if failure to take the action described under Subsection (4)(e) would present a serious, imminent risk to the child's safety or the safety of others.
(6) Notwithstanding Subsection (4), a school counselor or other mental health professional acting in accordance with Title 58, Chapter 60, Mental Health Professional Practice Act, or licensed through the State Board of Education, working within the school system may:
(a) recommend, but not require, a psychiatric or behavioral health evaluation of a child;
(b) recommend, but not require, psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral treatment for a child;
(c) conduct a psychiatric or behavioral health evaluation or mental health screening, test, evaluation, or assessment of a child in accordance with Section 53A-13-302 ; and
(d) provide to a parent or guardian, upon the specific request of the parent or guardian, a list of three or more health care professionals or providers, including licensed physicians, psychologists, or other health specialists.

It also attempts to slightly restrict courts and DCFS from seizing children because parents refuse to subject them to mind-altering drugs. From lines 161-170 and 201-210:

(4) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (4)(b), a court or the Division of Child and Family Services may not remove a minor from the custody of the minor's parent or guardian on the sole or primary basis that the parent or guardian refuses to consent to:
(i) the administration of a medication to a child;
(ii) a psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral treatment for a child; or
(iii) a psychiatric or behavioral health evaluation of a child.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(a), a court or the Division of Child and Family Services may remove a minor under conditions that would otherwise be prohibited under Subsection (4)(a) if failure to take an action described under Subsection (4)(a) would present a serious, imminent risk to the child's physical safety or the physical safety of others.

Unfortunately, judges in Utah have little incentive to follow such verbiage. See, for example, our write-up on judicial retention elections.  In addition, government agencies have little incentive to comply with this law because they are virtually immune from suit (see SB 55 S1 in our 2004 report and SB225 S1 in our 2003 report in our Annual Reports section or in the Extended Bill Summaries page of our Pink Slip Reports section).

In addition, a horrendous section was added at the bottom of this bill that would have likely negated any potential positive benefits, and might have made things even worse.  For instance, from lines 213g to 213j:

"(5) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(e), school personnel may make a report that would otherwise be prohibited under Subsection (4)(e) if failure to take the action described under Subsection (4)(e) would present a threat of substantial harm to the child's safety or the safety of others."

As we have repeatedly pointed out, vague verbiage such as "...threat of substantial harm to the child's safety or the safety of others," can be interpreted to mean anything, and would have allowed school personnel to scoff at the rest of this bill.

Note: The original concept of HB 299 was to stand in direct opposition to the impending implementation of the "New Freedom Commission", promoted by the Bush regime. One of the many goals of this new, Orwellian commission is to establish mental health screening programs for every child in every government school.  Too bad the sponsor and the legislature could not stay the course.

Final Status: HB 299 passed a house committee (8-3-0), the house (48-24-3), and died in the senate.  See the votes.

More Analysis To Come:

HB 21: rep. Wayne Harper's huge, "comprehensive" child welfare overhaul appears to be as confusing as last year's.

SB 7: weakens search warrant requirements.

SB 106: appears to a dangerous interstate compact bereft of due process protections.

HB 19 S1 (rep. James Dunnigan, Republican, district 39): This bill prohibits the use of Social Security Numbers or place of birth on state driver licenses.  When the federal government created Social Security Numbers, the public was sold the bill of goods that they would never be used as any other form of government identification.

Each applicant still receives an identification number, however.  In addition, the bill also requires citizens to renew their card every five years, rather than ten years. The right of citizens to travel and move freely is a hallmark freedom enjoyed by our forefathers.  It is bad enough that the government has seized the power to issue driver's licenses at all.  It is worse to require them to be "renewed" more frequently.

Status: Passed the house (72-1-2), senate committee (6-0-0), senate (26-0-3), and awaits action by the governor.

More Analysis Coming Soon:

More Analysis Coming Soon:

HB 43: Renews various state bureaucracies and programs slated to be sunsetted (ended).

HB 71: Repeals the sunset review provision of the Utah Venture Capital Enhancement Act, allowing this corporate welfare behemoth to continue on indefinitely.

HB 72: Deals with the state "Worker's Compensation" fund.

HB 112: Yet another transportation spending increase without accountability or end in sight.

HB 115 S1: Dramatic, undeserved salary increase for the Lieutenant Governor.

SB 43: Would raise the minimum wage to $7 per hour.

SB 98: "This bill: repeals the provision that makes a safety belt violation for a person 19 years of age or older enforceable only as a secondary action when the person is detained for another offense." (Lines 11-14)

Back to Categories

1. Place people on unequal grounds before the law;

2. Trivialize vile atrocities;

3. Establish thought crimes; and

4. Balkanize and destroy society.

From the bill language (lines 38-52):

(1) The sentencing judge or the Board of Pardons and Parole shall consider as an aggravating factor that the defendant, in committing the offense, selected the victim or property primarily because the victim or the owner or holder of the property was actually or was perceived by the defendant to be a member of a group.
(2) In determining the weight to be given to the aggravating factor in Subsection (1), the judge or the board shall consider:
(a) the public harm resulting from the selection of a victim from that group, including the degree to which:
(i) the selection is likely to:
(A) cause emotional or other harm to the victim and other members of the group; or
(B) incite community unrest; or
(ii) the group is or has been the target of animus, discrimination, legal disabilities, or hate-based crimes; and
(b) whether the penalty for the defendant's selection of a member of the group as a victim is already increased by other existing provisions of law.

1. Place People on Unequal Grounds Before the Law

HB 90 would use the law to divide (or segregate) both victims and victimizers into groups (or classes).  The criteria used to divide them is whether the crime was politically correct or not.

HB 90 trivializes the rights of those who are not victims of "politically incorrect" crimes. HB 90 proposes, for instance, that a woman who is sexually assaulted because the perpetrator was indifferent to her womanhood is somehow not as deserving of full justice as is a woman who was victimized due to some group status.

Try telling a rape victim that her sufferings do not qualify for an "enhanced penalty" against her assailant — because she was not "fortunate enough" to be targeted for the color of her skin or her group affiliation!

Karl Marx's Dream Come True
The menacing philosophy of "group rights" is not new, and is perhaps best advocated by Karl Marx, of Communist Manifesto infamy. Marx constructed distinct, hierarchical groups in an attempt to build a moral, philosophical foundation for the political system of communism, or socialism.

Marx assigned different values to individuals based upon their "class", or affiliation, in society. He then pitted these classes against each other, calling for the "working class" to rise up, overthrow the elite class, and establish a communal system that would force all members to contribute their energies, rights, and property to the group.

Under Marx's philosophy, the group became an entity unto itself; greater than the individual. Sub-groups and individuality were to be neatly assimilated — in Borg-like fashion — for the good of the collective. In George Orwell's classic, 1984, this mentality was termed "groupthink." Unfortunately, Marx's groupthink philosophies have been stubbornly replicated around the globe, resulting in human destruction, death, and misery.

Senator Greg Bell, a Republican thought crimes proponent, recently exposed this diabolical "groupthink" mentality:

"Bell said he supports hate crimes [legislation] because when someone is 'a victim because he or she is a Jew or a Mormon or black or whatever... the perpetrator is assaulting the class. The true hate crime is not done against the person, it's done against the class.'"
Source: "Hate-crimes bill gets a lobbyist," Deborah Bulkeley, Deseret News, Jan. 29, 2005.

General Mark Shurtleff, in defense of HB 90, referred to a recent attack in Sandy wherein the assailant apparently believed the victims were LDS missionaries:

"It is more destructive.  That wasn't an attack on him, as a victim. It was an attack on a group to which he was perceived to belong."
Source: "Hate-crimes measure advances: But revamped bill faces uphill battle in the House," Deborah Bulkeley, Deseret News, Feb. 4, 2006.

Try telling the victim in this case that his pains are imaginary; that he really isn't the victim — his group is.  Or try telling that to victims who are not lucky enough to be part of a "group".

America's Founders Reject "Group Rights"
In contrast, the Declaration of Independence claims that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Three years after this declaration, a similar sentiment resounded from the National Assembly of France, in Article VI of, "The Declaration of the Rights of Man."

"Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents."

American revolutionary conspirator and president Thomas Jefferson reinforced these sentiments in his first inaugural speech, calling for, "equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion" and that if we ever departed from this principle "in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

Jefferson and freedom advocates of his day asserted that the rights of the individual, "of whatever state or persuasion" are pre-eminent and should be vigorously defended without prejudice. Consistent with this thinking, traditionally, Lady Justice (Justicia) has stood guard outside American courtrooms. She dons a blindfold to represent impartiality, or blindness toward prejudice, and the upraised scales in her hand represent generality and uniformity.

Infused with this kind of morality, early Americans came to share a generally common belief that justice involved treating each person with an equal hand — devoid of prejudice or favoritism. Though America’s history is replete with examples of where this morality was partially or wholly abandoned, unlike most other nations, there has been a long, turbulent struggle in the attempt to achieve these worthy ideals.

Many American revolutionaries struggled fiercely to promote these concepts because they recognized that the equal status of each individual was essential to collective liberty. It was essential that each individual stood before the law and his fellow man as many believe each individual will stand before his Creator: alone and without any extra baggage that might impact the delivery of justice and mercy.

The rights of the individual, regardless of his/her race, gender, or affiliations are pre-eminent and should be vigorously defended without regard to other characteristics.  In America, Justice is supposed to treat all victims and perpetrators equally.  But in Marxian philosophy, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" (Animal Farm, by George Orwell).

2. Trivialize Vile Atrocities

To see how ridiculous this unequal "groupthink" philosophy is, consider something as loathsome as pedophilia.  Under HB 90, justice would no longer be confidently meted out against these vile predators.  Again, from the bill:

"...The defendant, in committing the offense, selected the victim or property primarily because the victim or the owner or holder of the property was actually or was perceived by the defendant to be a member of a group."

Pedophiles can argue that they feel "love" or "attraction" toward their victims.  Would they therefore be subject to a lesser penalty for the same, or similar, crime, than would a heterosexual Black Panther member who exhibited a particular bias against his homosexual, Jewish neighbor?

Going further, what if a man were to assault a pedophile because he bragged about his latest child exploitation?  After all, HB 90 would also cover members of groups such as the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).  Would that man then be subject to a greater penalty than would the pedophile for his act against a child?  The pedophile, on the other hand, appeared to be indifferent, even "benevolent" in his own mind.

3. Establish Thought Crimes

The following is what we expect our juries to perform in the courtroom:

1) Determine whether a particular action or crime was performed by the accused;

2) Whether the action or crime was an accident or purposely committed;

3) Whether the action or crime was committed with premeditation (or whether there was a conspiracy involved—even more premeditation); and

4) Whether there was malicious intent to do harm.

These are enormous, difficult questions for jurors to grapple with and attempt to satisfactorily answer. Wise jurors attempt in their deliberations to focus on specific actions rather than the perpetrator's belief system. In fact, the perpetrator's belief system need only be broached to perhaps assist in finding answers to the above questions.

Isn't that enough work for judges and juries to get right and to do well? A juror is supposed to answer these questions and also remain impartial, general, and uniform — treating all victims and perpetrators equally in their final deliberation.

Consider the ludicrous nature of this type of deliberations that would occur in the above example of the woman who was sexually assaulted. In addition to questions of accident, premeditation, and intent, with thought crimes in place, jurors would have to consider new questions such as the following:

• Would the perpetrator have sexually assaulted someone else of some other persuasion if given the same opportunity?

• Did he do it because he hates women in particular? Or just women of a particular color or affiliation?

• Did he do it because he was just mad at the world? Or was he beaten as a child?

Just where is the victim in all these new deliberations? She is largely forgotten and the courtroom turns from her violation to the philosophies and nuances that may exist in the mind of the accused.

It would be unreasonable, arrogant, and wrong to force a human being to judge a perpetrator's philosophies and belief systems along with everything else they are tasked to do. It is simply not within the power and authority of a biased and imperfect man.

The peaceful beauty of our traditional system of jurisprudence is that the accused is entitled to be judged by a jury of his peers who are assumed to be above the crime with which he is charged. With thought crimes, no such presumption can be made, because we are all guilty of thinking ill of some one or some group at one time or another. No matter how "reformed" or "politically correct" we think we are, we are all guilty of bias and prejudice against others.

4. Balkanize and Destroy Society

Putting people on different levels before the law destroys community, fosters resentment and bigotry, and will further Balkanize, or divide, Utahns. Ironically, thought crimes are diametrically opposed to Martin Luther King's purported vision for society. King publicly promoted the idea that people should not be judged by their creed or the color of their skin. Said he:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.'"

Thought crimes, by definition, require that we reject this proposition entirely and instead scrutinize victims and victimizers by their beliefs, rather than judging all by the blindfold and scales of impartiality, generality, and uniformity.

In a flier Accountability Utah shared with Republican delegates in Utah County in April 2003, we pointed out that thought crimes legislation is increasingly used to attack beliefs and expression. In countries like Canada and Great Britain, for example, the government has criminally prosecuted people who speak out against homosexual behavior.

During a debate on thought crimes legislation sponsored by Utah County citizens, Richard Wilkins, Professor of Law, at the BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School, and Frank Guliuzza, Professor of Political Science at Weber State, cited many other examples of how legislation expanding "group rights" and notions of bias and prejudice have already been used to persecute beliefs and expression.

The Answer to Injustice is Judicial Reform

Few are willing to seriously entertain the argument that our courts are just and full of integrity. But the heinous problems afflict more than just certain types, or groups, of people. We will only make our judicial system worse by completing the destruction of the concept we once cherished: that each person is equal under the law.

The true solution lies in removing judges who discriminate based upon skin-deep criteria. This involves restoring true judicial elections, electing legislators who will impeach the vermin that infest our judicial branch, restoring the option of a trial by jury in all cases, and educating juries as to their rightful powers and status in the courtroom. For more information, see our write-up on judicial retention elections or our Issue in Focus: "Why Are Jury Trials Crucial to Your Freedom?"

Note: Accountability Utah is not particularly interested in the private sexual practices of consenting adults, be they normal or deviant. We become very interested, however, when groups (or sub-groups) attempt to use government to force their beliefs on others and to obtain special rights and dispensations that others do not have.  For more information on this subject, see the Thought Crimes section of our Issues & Alerts page.

More Analysis Coming Soon:

HB 237: Repeals certain portions of the Direct-Entry Midwife Act.

Back to Categories

Inane Wastes of Time

HB 214 (rep. David Clark, Republican, district 74): This bill asks the paramount question plaguing Utahns today: Which reptile should we officially adopt as a state?  HB 214 proposes that it be the western rattlesnake (crotalus viridis). If only the legislature would spend all of its time on bills like these. 

SR 2 (sen. Patrice Arent, Democrat, district 4): Speaking of intelligent design, what would a legislative session be without the senate,

"...[urging] Utah's public schools to consider incorporating sun exposure awareness programs and materials into their curriculum."
(Lines 79-80)

Back to Categories

Top

If you have comments or suggestions, please email us at info@accountabilityutah.org.