Eideard

A proposed constitutional amendment to lift the ban on public funding of religious groups should be ripped from the 2012 ballot because it is “misleading and insufficiently specific,” according to a lawsuit filed by Florida’s largest teachers union…

“This is designed to open the state treasury to voucher schools, but this is not what the ballot summary says,” said Andy Ford, president of the Florida Education Association…

By attacking the ballot summary as “misleading,” the teachers union takes aim at a sensitive issue for the Republican lawmakers, who have watched in recent years as the Florida Supreme Court used that very reason to block a series of constitutional changes from the ballot.

In response to the legal challenges, the GOP-controlled Legislature passed a new law this year requiring the attorney general to fix any ballot titles or summaries a court deems problematic and return it to the ballot within 10 days.

The teachers union is also trying to reverse that law in their suit, saying it violates the separation powers provision in the state Constitution…

The ban on public funding of religious institutions, known as the Blaine Amendment, was cited by the 1st District Court of Appeal in an earlier ruling against the program…

Instead of giving religious institutions the right to public funding in the U.S. Constitution, plaintiffs argue the Florida change would mandate it. Union attorneys, led by Ron Meyer, also argue the ballot summary falsely implies the change is required by the U.S. Constitution.

Meyer also said the ballot title of “religious freedom” is deceptive.

Not that deception is new to political practices either side of the aisle. Historically Democrats have pulled the wool over voters eyes in many cities and states – the usual reason being good old-fashioned graft and corruption.

The New Wave of Republican lies is a lot more ideological. They’d love to return the nation to 19th Century standards of citizenship and practices – including forcing religion down the throats of everyone, official kowtowing to the wants of corporate crowned heads, dismantling any additions to civil rights in the past century – all paid for by taxes destined solely for the backs of ordinary working people.

A federal court ruling in New York that genes may not be patented, if ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, could irreparably harm the behemoth biotechnology industry that relies on patents to protect the results of its costly research.

The decision in Association for Molecular Pathology vs. United States Patent and Trademark Office comes in the wake of 40,000 patents already issued on 20 percent of all human genes.

The case didn’t go to trial: A summary judgment for the plaintiffs was granted on the gene patents at issue.

The knee-jerk reaction might be to say it’s good the case was decided before the villain who wants to own the very material that determines what we are could have its day in court. It seems almost intuitive that our genes should not be owned by anyone other than ourselves.

It’s not that simple.

The plaintiffs, the Association for Molecular Pathology, a not-for-profit genomics research advancement society, several medical colleges, doctors and patients sued Myriad Genetics, a biopharmaceutical company in a multibillion-dollar industry and associated with the University of Utah Research Park in Salt Lake City and the directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation…

Research scientists and physicians say they are frustrated because they can’t do further research on the genes or on other genes where the BRCA-related DNA may be intertwined: Myriad slaps them with cease-and-desist orders.

Further, some of their patients (of whom the women named as plaintiffs are examples) whose insurance doesn’t cover the test, can’t have the test done because of its cost: $3,200. Many doctors say they can have a simple blood test done for $300…

The trial court found for the plaintiffs primarily on the basis the isolated DNA is not “markedly different” from a product of nature.

The district court declined to speak on the constitutional issues, following the established rule that courts should not reach unnecessary constitutional decisions, leaving the constitutional issue open to future litigation.

This surely does look like it will go to the Supreme Court.

So, we will probably get a half-way decision from the Supreme Court – before the issue is dumped into the laps of those stellar guardians of the science and commerce – Congress.

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious action.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic.

“In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray,” Crabb wrote.

Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008 arguing the day violated the separation of church and state…

Crabb wrote that her ruling was not a judgment on the value of prayer. She noted government involvement in prayer may be constitutional if the conduct serves a “significant secular purpose” and doesn’t amount to a call for religious action. But the National Day of Prayer crosses that line, she wrote.

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

Prayer serves no function especially different from other exercises in onanism. Probably less harmful than consuming alcohol – and not as much fun as masturbation.

Nancy Robinson and Laura Fefchak, Gay advocates in Urbandale, Iowa, celebrate
Daylife/AP Photo

Iowa has become the first state in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided that a 1998 law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The decision was the culmination of a four-year legal battle that began in the lower courts. The Supreme Court said same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa in as soon as 21 days.

The case here was being closely followed by advocates on both sides of the issue. While the same-sex marriage debate has played out on both coasts, the Midwest — where no states had permitted same-sex marriage — was seen as entirely different. In the past, at least six states in the Midwest were among those around the country that adopted amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.

“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.

And later in the ruling, they said: “Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past…”

Iowa has no residency requirement for getting a marriage license, which some suggest may mean a flurry of people from other states.

Bravo! Great to hear that Iowa meets 21st-Century standards for jurisprudence. Perhaps Americans will see more of the country follow suit?

Maybe we’ll live up to the freedom intended by our Constitution?