Senate Resolution 27

I'm not sure what to make of this.  A resolution was introduced in the Pennsylvania State Senate on February 25th, Senate Resolution 27.  The primary sponsor is Sen, Kitchen, with Farnese, Vance, Yudichak, Greenleaf, Brewster, Haywood, and Rafferty as co-sponsors.

This is the gist of the resolution:

Directing the Advisory Committee on Public Health Law of the Joint State Government Commission to study the issue of youth vaccinations and immunizations to determine whether any amendments should be made to the Commonwealth's public health law.

The full text of the resolution does not really provide any context or background.  So I cannot tell if it is a cover for people who don't like vaccinations or a ploy to add more required or recommended vaccinations.

Which State Senators Make Their Expense Reports Public?

In August, 2011 and April, 2014, I researched the legislative websites of all of Pennsylvania's state senators, looking to see which, if any of them, posted their expense reports on their websites. The legislative expense reports provide information on what the senators spend on rent, office expenses, newspaper subscriptions, etc.  Campaign spending reports are a different animal altogether.

In 2011, only one state senator, Republican Jeff Piccola of the 15^th district, put his reports on his website.  In 2014 there were two, Democrat Rob Teplitz, who was elected to the 15^th when Piccola decided not to run for another term, and Republican Lloyd Smucker of the 13^th district.   Also in 2014 several Republican senators included a section called “It’s Your Money” that connected to information on the state budget but not their own spending.

There is a standard template for Democrats and Republicans but there is a lot of individualization, too: color schemes, links, types of information can all be customized.   You can find links to all of the Republican state senators' sites at: http://www.pasenategop.com/; Democrats are at:  http://www.pasenate.com/.

Last month I decided to update the research and see if any more senators are providing their expense accounts.  I looked at the home page of each senator's site, and reviewed all of the links available on the main menu (mouse over the main menu bar to see the links on that topic).  It is possible that some senators included their expense reports on a secondary screen menu, but that seemed unlikely, and honestly, who is going to drill down that far?

So, who posts their expense reports?  Republicans Ryan P. Aument (36^th district) and Democrat Rob Teplitz (15^th district).  I have met Sen. Teplitz a few times and find him extraordinary; this is just more evidence of his exceptional character.  Teplitz's quarterly expenses are listed under the "about" tab.  Aument has a section under about the "about" tab called "It's Your Money" that lists some personal expenses.  He has nearly a year of monthly expenses listed but I looked at all of them and all have a total of zero.  So, while he gets credit for posting something, his information has no value.  However, he does provide his office rent, salary, and the zeroed out expenses for a state care or reimbursements.  That's something.

Again, some other Republicans had the “It’s Your Money” section, and this time it sometimes included information on their spending, their salary, whether or not they use a state car or take per diems, and a few offered their office rents. 

Those including the “It’s Your Money” section, with at least some personal expenses are:

Richard Alloway II (R-33)
Lisa Baker (R-20)
Jake Corman (R-34)
Scott E Hutchinson (R-21)
Charles T McIlhinney, Jr (R-10)
Dominic Pileggi (R-9)
John C. Rafferty, Jr. (R-44)
Lloyd K. Smucker (R-13)
Patricia H. Vance (R-31)
Elder A. Vogel, Jr. (R-47)
Donald C. White (R-41)

A couple of others mention that they don’t or won’t take per diems but provide no other information.

So, on full disclosure the number is the same, one Democrat and one Republican.  Massive kudos to Aument and Teplitz. (Although Aument does not provide the detail Teplitz does he at least makes the effort of posting reports)  Hats off to the Republicans who are providing at least partial information in the “It’s Your Money” section of their site.  Raspberries to the Democrats who do not seem willing to offer this kind of information.  You know, I bet if they asked nicely the Republican webmaster would share the “It’s Your Money” formatting.  Because right now the Republican state senators are trouncing them in the transparency department.

New Firearms Legislation Introduced

The Pennsylvania State Senate introduced five new firearms bills in the past few days.  I'm including just a few words on each, but this is my impression after skimming each bill.  Interested readers are encouraged to review each bill for themselves to get a fuller understanding.

Senate Bill 98 focuses on penalties for carrying firearms on Philadelphia streets without a license.  Introduced by FARNESE, HAYWOOD, TARTAGLIONE, HUGHES, LEACH AND KITCHEN,

Senate Bill 309 seems to be another pathway to thwarting straw purchases.  Introduced by HUGHES, HAYWOOD AND FARNESE

Senate Bill 310 does something but I'm not sure what -- it refers to other sections of the law.  Introduced by HUGHES, HAYWOOD AND FARNESE

Senate Bill 311 calls for people applying for a gun license to have completed a firearm safety course.  Introduced by HUGHES, FARNESE, HAYWOOD AND WILLIAMS

Senate Bill 312 adds in several things.  I couldn't follow all of them.  Introduced by HUGHES, HAYWOOD, FONTANA AND FARNESE

PA State Senators Propose "Let Women Rot and Die" Bill

A bill was proposed in the Pennsylvania Senate today, bill #292.  It was introduced by twelve Republican men, and is formally known as the Conscientious Objection Act.  What, you say, is this a throwback to conscientious objectors in the Vietnam War, people who did community service instead of military service?  No, absolutely not.

The bill's purpose is listed as "It is the public policy of the Commonwealth to respect and protect the fundamental right of conscience of individuals who and institutions which provide health care services."  Personally I was unaware that institutions had a conscience.  People have a conscience, but an institution?  That's tricky.

This is problematic for a number of reasons, what is a health care provider doesn't believe in blood transfusions or psychiatric medication?  No problem, because that isn't what this bill is about.  It has a very narrow definition of what health care services are.  This is what the bill is about -- health care services is defined as:

Any phase of patient medical care, treatment or procedure relating to abortion, artificial birth control, artificial insemination, assisted reproduction, emergency contraception, human cloning, human embryonic stem-cell research, fetal experimentation and sterilization and including, but not limited to, patient referral, counseling, therapy, testing, diagnosis, prognosis, research, instruction, prescribing, dispensing or administering a device, drug, or medication, surgery, or any other care or treatment rendered by health care providers or health care institutions.

So this is a bill about sex, or at least about sex that can lead to pregnancy.  It also means a clerk at any store that sells condoms can refuse to sell them.  Health care provider is defined as:

An individual who may be asked or assigned to participate in any way in a health care service, including, but not limited to, a physician, physician assistant, nurse, nurses' aide, medical assistant, hospital employee, clinic employee, nursing home employee, pharmacist, pharmacy employee, researcher, medical or nursing school faculty, student or employee, counselor, social worker or any professional or paraprofessional, or any other person who furnishes or assists in the furnishing of health care services.

That's a very broad definition.  Nor is there anything in the law saying these conscientious beliefs have to be uniformly applied.  If the pharmacy clerk doesn't think unmarried people should have sex can he or she refuse to sell condoms to people who don't have a marriage license?  Erectile dysfunction medication?  That's not on the list, unless it falls under assisted reproduction, so if you don't think unmarried people should have sex can you refuse to sell them condoms but have to sell then ED meds?  If the pharmacy clerk thinks that the birth rate among some people is too high and others too low could they refuse to sell birth control to one group but happily do so to another?

Also note that the bill makes it clear that this does not affect the health care provider's disagreement with "informed consent" laws (think the "you have to watch the ultrasound" rules):  "Nothing in this act shall be construed to exempt a health care provider or health care institution from complying with informed consent requirements mandated by statute regarding the provision of a health care service."

The bill specifically states that a health care provider or institution with objections to abortion, artificial birth control, etc. are free from liability and cannot be fired, disciplined or transferred based on those beliefs.

Participation in abortion, birth control, etc. is defined to include referral or transfer.  So if a couple show up in an emergency room and the woman is pregnant with a complication that will cause her immediate death the staff can sit on their hands, twiddle their thumbs, whistle a happy tune, whatever they please, with no obligation to transfer them to an institution or doctor that will treat them or even tell them where they can get treatment.  They can watch her die with no repercussions whatsoever.

The twelve Republican male state senators who introduced this bill are:

John Eichelberger
Elder A. Vogel
Scott Hutchinson
Patrick Browne
Randy Vulakovich
Richard Alloway
Ryan Aument
John Rafferty
Patrick Stefano
Mike Folmer
Joseph Scarnati
Donald White

Op-Ed from Steve Cickay

from the inbox:

My name is Steve Cickay and I am running for State Senate here in District 10. My opponent, Senator Chuck McIlhinney, is a career politician who has been in Harrisburg far too long: 16 years too long of too little accomplishment. It’s time for a change. 

Change can be a challenge for some. The status quo is comfortable and known. But please realize now that not to change will be even more uncomfortable and wrong. For the Corbett/McIlhinney path we are on is clearly wrong for the people of Pennsylvania.

It is wrong for education.  It is wrong for the environment. And it is wrong for an economy that should instead be supporting well-paying jobs for middle-class workers and a secure retirement.

Chuck is a fine person and a fine family man and has tried his best to serve the public well. But after 16 years, we have seen much failure. Our property taxes keep rising each year. Our schools are underfunded. Big corporations and oil companies don’t pay their fair share of taxes at our expense. A pension crisis looms and nothing gets done to fix it. Working people’s wages are stagnant and the minimum wage leaves a million people in poverty. 500,000 of our fellow-citizens don’t have health insurance. Common sense gun safety legislation doesn’t get passed. Job discrimination laws are still on the books. Women, in 2014 in America, still often don’t get paid the same amount as men. Yet our 253 legislators in Harrisburg can’t seem to do anything about these important issues.

I feel a big part of the problem of why nothing gets done is career politicians are focused too much on campaigning and not governing, too much on getting campaign contributions from special interests and not enough on doing what the people want.

I promise to be both your servant and leader. I promise to listen to you in town halls all over the district every two weeks when I am not in Harrisburg. You won’t have to make a big campaign contribution to have me hear your voice. I will represent you if what you say makes sense for our community. I will represent the rich and the poor; the healthy and the sick, the strong and the weak; independents, Republicans and Democrats alike.

But if you stay the course with Chuck and Corbett, our public education system will continue to be underfunded. And the oil companies will continue to get tax breaks. Stay the course with Chuck and Corbett and our property taxes will continue to go up. And multinationals will continue to enjoy loopholes that allow them to pay zero taxes. Stay the course with Chuck and Corbett and soon you will see frackers drilling in our District. Think what that will do to the quality of our life here and our property values.

But elect me your senator and the change you will see will be a good one. I will work tirelessly for you, just as I have tirelessly walked and run the streets of this district for the last 8 months. I will strive to make Pennsylvania not the last among states, but among the first. Think of me then on Election Day as your first Democratic senator in 120 years. Make change happen. Yes, it’s time for a change here in District 10.  Vote for a new state senator, Steve Cickay, on November 4^th.

State Legislation II: Hate Crimes

This post contained information taken from elsewhere (text was in blockquotes to show it was not original to this blog).  I have been informed that it was incorrect and thus have removed it.  My apologies for the error.

State Legislation I: State Senate Meddling with Gun Safety / Domestic Violence Legislation

This is taken from two CeaseFire PA communications:

Last week a bill to punish towns and cities for passing gun safety legislation was stopped.  The bill would have allowed organizations , for example the NRA or the KKK to sue municipalities for passing laws to curb the illegal trafficking of firearms.  This week that wording in HB 2011 / HB 1243 was attached as an amendment to HB 1796 on its third consideration in the state senate, which is primarily aimed at protecting the victims of domestic violence.  If the amendment is approved this will put state senators in the position of either approving the "sue the city" wording or voting against an otherwise productive bill.

Contact your state senator and ask them to vote against the amendment, or if it passes, vote against the bill.

Life, Death, and the Bastardization of HB1796

In 1997 one of my cousins was murdered by her estranged husband.  He threw gasoline on her and set her on fire.  Someone sent me the tape of a television news report that showed a patrol car dash camera clip of my cousin running from the house and collapsing on the grass outside, holding her arms and legs off the ground as much as possible.  Anything touching the burns, even grass, would have been excruciating.  She lingered in the burn unit for a month; the doctors amputated one leg and one or both breasts but to no avail.  She died, age 34, leaving two teenaged children.  It was a particularly gruesome way to die.  Her husband was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison. 

In college I worked with a woman whose daughter was murdered.  She was shot to death by her estranged husband in front of their preschool-aged children.

These are just two of the many many stories of spousal or domestic partner murder.   It is important to make sure that legislation is not only proactive in helping people in dangerous situations, but also that legislation does not harm them. 

Case in point, laws that allow landlords to penalize tenants if there are repeated police visits to the residence.   This is to deter crime in neighborhoods but it also deters endangered spouses and partners from calling for help. 

And so, in October, State Rep. Todd Stephens introduced HB1796, which prevents municipalities or other government bodies from penalizing people who are victims of assault for calling the police.  The bill was amended in the House, passed by all voting members of the Local Government Committee, and by all voting members of the full State House.   Then it went to the state senate, to the Senate State Government Committee. 

There it was amended again :

HB 1796, PN 2870 (Stephens)-Amends Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in preemptions, providing for protection for victims of abuse or crime.  Senator Eichelberger offered amendment # A05863, which adds language prohibiting local government from imposing leave provisions and other labor related policies to private businesses.  The amendment passed on a strict party line vote of 6 to 4.  The bill was reported as amended by the same 6 to 4 vote. 

Yes, Sen. John Eichelberger, added a significant section on a completely different topic.  This new section would prohibit municipalities and local governments from requiring businesses to provide sick leave.  It might do other things as well, but that is one impact of the new amendment.  Republicans on the committee voted in favor of the amendment; Democrats were opposed.  The amendment passed on March 11^th; it was laid on the table on March 17^th.  And there it sits.

When I found out about this I thought about my cousin and the daughter of the woman I had worked with.  While this law would not have helped them there are other people out there now who might not call the police for fear of losing their house.    And these Senators decided to play politics with a bill that would have helped them:

• Vogel, Elder A., Jr.,
• Scarnati, Joseph B., III, 
• Hutchinson, Scott E.
• Robbins, Robert D.
• Smucker, Lloyd K.
• Eichelberger, John

This sort of thing is why people don’t like politics or politicians.

Update: Which State Senators Post Their Expenses

In August, 2011, I researched the legislative websites of all of Pennsylvania's state senators, looking to see which, if any of them, posted their monthly expense reports.  I'm told these reports are available to the public whether a state senator posts them or not, but good luck finding them.  The legislative expense reports provide information on what the senators spend on rent, office expenses, newspaper subscriptions, etc.  Campaign spending reports are a different animal altogether.

At that time only one state senator, Republican Jeff Piccola, put his reports on his website.

There is a standard template for Democrats and Republicans but there is a lot of individualization, too: color schemes, links, types of information can all be customized.  Some senators list the trout stocking schedule.  You can find links to all of the Republican state senators' sites at:  http://www.pasenategop.com/; Democrats are at:  http://www.pasenate.com/.

I looked at each senator's site, and reviewed all of the links available on the main menu (mouse over the main menu bar to see the links on that topic).  It is possible that some senators included their expense reports on a secondary screen menu, but that seemed unlikely, and honestly, who is going to drill down that far?

It was interesting to note that several Republican senators had a link called "It's Your Money" that connected to information on the state budget.  Information on their own office spending?  Not so much.

So, who lists their expenses?  I found two senators, one Republican, one Democrat.  Sen. Rob Teplitz (D-15) was elected to that district when Sen. Piccola decided not to run for another term.  Sen. Teplitz is in his first term.  He provides information on specific month's expenses.  Republican Sen. Lloyd Smucker (R-13) provides some general information on his expenses.

That's it.  Two of the 50 senators.  No one in a senate leadership position posts his or her expense reports.  None of the senators running for higher office post their expenses.  Smucker was first elected to the senate in 2008; Teplitz in 2012.  None of the more senior senators post theirs.

If your senator doesn't post expenses you might ask him or her why.

Legislative Update for May 7th

A few notes from yesterday's daily legislative activity email:

These bills were introduced and / or acted upon:

HB 764 on creating and using online accounts in someone's name (or a fictitious name) to harass or stalk another person, and the penalties for doing so.  (I may not have described this correctly; please read the text of the bill for clarification).

HB 818 prohibits any state health exchange set up under the Affordable Care Act from offering abortion coverage (with exceptions which are referenced by another law and not spelled out), but insists that all state exchange programs offer care for postabortion complications and care for miscarriages.

SB5 really stumps me.  It amends a community health bill to remove language specifying the provision for a mobile prenatal and natal education lab.  It also amends the credentials required by people who staff clinics.  The Senate journal could probably provide some context but today's Journal won't be available for awhile.

Rob Teplitz on PCN's "Freshman Focus"

Sen. Rob Teplitz, newly elected in the 15th state senate district which includes Harrisburg, is among the legislators featured on PCN's "Freshman Focus" series.  These are short video interviews, done around the time the officials took office in January.  The information is a little dated now but does provide a glimpse of their priorities and personality.  I've heard Sen. Teplitz speak a few times and have been very impressed with him.  This is not intended to be a full transcript but are rough notes.  Interested readers are encouraged to listen to the video themselves.

Q: What was your motivation?

RT:  I grew up in this area.  My wife and I are raising our two young boys here.  I have a passion for public service.  I’ve worked for Bob Casey and Jack Wagner.    I looked for other ways to serve and am honored to have this opportunity.

Q:  Solve one problem for district?

RT:  City of Harrisburg debt crisis.  Want to come in, get all parties around the table.

Q:  Committees?

RT:  Education, local government, appropriations, transportation.  Gave long wish list to Senate Dems

Q:  Background as a lawyer and in govt.

RT:  Experience in private and public sector.  Public sector experience very important, worked in auditor general’s office.  Had my sleeves rolled up, feel prepared

Q:  Hobbies?

RT:  Free time is with family, driving kids around, spent time with wife and kids.  They are excited, happy to have Daddy back.  Excited, honored to have this opportunity.  Providing good constituent services.  

Bill to Require Training Before Permit to Carry

A new bill in the PA Senate, SB 664, would amend the legislation on permits to carry firearms.  The new wording requires the applicant to have taken a firearms training course.  There are several training options listed, with alternatives included.

Makes sense to me.

The sponsors are:  HUGHES, FARNESE, SCHWANK, TARTAGLIONE, WASHINGTON
AND WILLIAMS

PA Reform Bills

A number of bills were introduced or acted upon today.  This is a quick and incomplete rundown.  Interested readers are encouraged to dig further on their own.

SB 37, electronic voter registration, introduced Jan 4, 2013, second consideration 4/16/2013
Sponsors:  SMUCKER, PILEGGI, FARNESE, BAKER, ALLOWAY,
ERICKSON, TEPLITZ, FONTANA, WASHINGTON, WILLIAMS, SMITH,
FERLO, LEACH AND SCHWANK

SB 752, introduced 4/15/2013, lobbying disclosure
Sponsors:  EICHELBERGER, STACK, FOLMER, TEPLITZ, SCHWANK,
TARTAGLIONE, WAUGH, BREWSTER AND KASUNIC

SB 753, introduced 4/15/2013, public access to contract award information,
Sponsors:  EICHELBERGER, STACK, FOLMER, TEPLITZ, SCHWANK,
RAFFERTY, VULAKOVICH, TARTAGLIONE, WAUGH, BREWSTER AND
KASUNIC

SB 754, introduced 4/15/2013, providing for disclosure of political contributions
Sponsors:  EICHELBERGER, STACK, FOLMER, TEPLITZ, SCHWANK,
RAFFERTY, VULAKOVICH, TARTAGLIONE, WAUGH, FARNESE, BREWSTER
AND KASUNIC

HB 1175, introduced 4/15/2013.  This confuses me as the text added specifically adds campaigns for state house and state senate to campaign finance reporting guidelines but the entire text of the original law is not included so I can be sure what is actually being done here.  But, honestly, state house and senate campaigns weren't included before?  Alarming.
Sponsors:  FREEMAN, MURT, SCHLOSSBERG, CARROLL, FABRIZIO,
GIBBONS, HARHAI, MATZIE, MCCARTER, MUNDY, O'BRIEN, PAINTER,
SANTARSIERO, STEPHENS AND THOMAS

Bill Removes State Supported Schools from Open Records Act

A bill introduced in the PA State Senate, Senate Bill 457, removes the state supported universities from part of the Open Records law.  It would exempt them from reporting certain types of information, such as salaries of highly-paid employees.  This is a step backwards. changes the status of state supported universities under the Open Records Law.  Since the entire text of the law is not included it is difficult to tell what, exactly the change means.

Bill sponsors are:

INTRODUCED BY BLAKE, DINNIMAN, WARD, FOLMER, TEPLITZ, STACK,
WAUGH, MENSCH, ALLOWAY, FONTANA, ERICKSON, FARNESE,
VULAKOVICH, VOGEL, BREWSTER, SOLOBAY, BROWNE, WASHINGTON,
BAKER, BRUBAKER AND FERLO, APRIL 1, 2013

Changing the Rules to Rig Elections

State Sen. Dominic Pileggi has introduced SB 538.  This bill would change the way Pennsylvania awards its electoral votes.  This affects presidential elections.  Right now Pennsylvania, like all but two other states, awards all its electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the state.

Pileggi's bill would award two of Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote and divide the other 18 votes by percentage of popular vote results.  Dividing electoral votes was suggested by Republicans (including RNC Chair Reince Priebus):

Republicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party's path to the Oval Office.

Senior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party's majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis. ("The GOP's electoral college scheme," by Reid Wilson, National Journal 12/17/2012).

These bills are only being introduced in states that have voted Democratic in recent presidential elections.  Republican states are keeping the "winner take all" standard electoral plan.  Thus Republicans would gain electoral votes in Democratic states without losing any of the votes in Republican states.   

The Republican State Senators in Pennsylvania who supported Pileggi's bill are:

PILEGGI, SCARNATI, WARD, ALLOWAY, MENSCH, EICHELBERGER, RAFFERTY, FOLMER, ERICKSON, GREENLEAF, TOMLINSON, BROWNE AND YAW

If your senator is on the list and you have strong feelings you might get in touch with them.

PA Senate State Govt Committee Passes Empty Bill

Yesterday I wrote on the Pennsylvania State and House State Government Committees meeting next week to discuss congressional redistricting but the new maps have not been released.

The PA State Senate State Government Committee went further than that.  Yesterday they voted to approve SB 1249, which describes the congressional districts in this way:

For the purpose of electing representatives of the people of Pennsylvania to serve in the House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States, this Commonwealth shall be divided into 18 districts which shall have one Congressman each, as follows:
(1) The First District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(2) The Second District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(3) The Third District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(4) The Fourth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(5) The Fifth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(6) The Sixth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(7) The Seventh District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(8) The Eighth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(9) The Ninth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(10) The Tenth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(11) The Eleventh District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(12) The Twelfth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(13) The Thirteenth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(14) The Fourteenth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(15) The Fifteenth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(16) The Sixteenth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(17) The Seventeenth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.
(18) The Eighteenth District is composed of a portion of this Commonwealth.

According to the State Senate website, all of the senators on the State Government committee voted in favor of the bill.  If you senator is on this list, you might want to ask them about it:

BRUBAKER
CORMAN
DINNIMAN
FOLMER
PIPPY
TARTAGLIONE
WASHINGTON
D. WHITE
WILLIAMS
MCILHINNEY, Chair
SCARNATI , ex-officio

Which State Senator Posts His Expenses?

Earlier this week I posted a blog entry outlining which state representatives put their legislative expenses online. While many areas of governmental transparency are dependent on a group decision -- laws or regulations that need a majority of votes to be enacted, this is one that is solely up to the individual legislator. He or she decides what goes on his or her legislative website.

As before, I used a master list of state senators taken from the general assembly's website. To look at each senator's individual site I used the linked list of senators from the Democratic Senate site (www.pasenate.com) and the Republican Senate website (www.pasenategop.com). The senatorial sites don't quite use the same type of uniform template that the state representatives do so it took me a little longer to get the hang of how they are arranged. On my first sweep through I didn't see that anyone had their expenses posted. Then near the end of the entire research process I found one senator who had the information on a second level menu, under "news room." To make sure I wasn't missing anything I went back and checked everyone's second level menus. Unfortunately, no one else had the information available that I could see. And, really, if you have to go below second level menus you might as well put the info in a basement cabinet somewhere -- no one is going to find it.

So, according to my findings, the only state senator to post his legislative expenses is (drum roll please):

Jeffrey E. Piccola (Rep), District 15

For the state reps, roughly 10% had their expenses online (20 of 203). The senate has a poorer showing. Of the 50 senators (20 Dems, 30 GOP) only the one made them available that I could see, that's about 2%. Like the state representatives, none of the leaders of either party led by example, or if they did the example they wanted to set was to keep the information out of the public eye.

If this is important to you, and you are not in Sen. Piccola's district, please make your feelings known to your state senator, and ask about it during campaign season.

This is just appalling.

[On a personal note, thanks to my neighbor for letting me tap into his wireless as my is still down.]

Not So Fast!!!

I haven't jumped into the school funding fracas as yet, waiting to see how things shake out. However, something in today's Inquirer caught my eye. Dan Hardy writes "Local control sought on charter conversion." One paragraph in particular jumped out at me:

For a public school to be converted to a charter school now, a school board must approve the change, and more than 50 percent of the school's teachers and parents must agree. The proposed law would allow boards to approve the change by a majority board vote without endorsement by parents and teachers.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Jeffrey Piccola and a press release on his website that confirms that information (italics mine):

The legislation would create a statewide commission, independent from the Pennsylvania Department of Education, to be charged with oversight of charter and cyber charter school functions, such as the ability to serve as a depository of best practices. The commission would also serve as an independent authorizer of charter schools. Additionally, an advisory committee would be created to review and make recommendations to the Legislature regarding the thorny issues involving the funding of charters.

Senate Bill 904 would also allow institutions of higher education to approve the creation of a charter school, and an intermediate unit or local board of school directors would be allowed to create or convert an existing public school into a charter school. Moreover, the bill would modify the application and appeals procedures for the state's charter schools by streamlining administrative processes by which these schools are formed, evaluated, and renewed.

I can't find SB 904 on the state government's bill finder and it wasn't included in the state legislative email listing bills acted upon or introduced on March 28th (the day Piccola says the bill was introduced), so I can't read the actual bill language. Update: It is on the state's website but is 145 pages long, so reading it through for the relevant section will have to wait.

If local control is important then the more the better, yes? Why take away the parents' ability to approve the switch to a charter school? Or the teachers? Ask yourself if you want your school board making that decision all on their lonesome. Or the intermediate unit, whose leadership you have no control over at all.

Do you want to wake up one morning and find out that your local school board has decided to make your public school a charter school, with no input from parents or teachers?

I do not.

This is bad legislation.

Rob Teplitz, Candidate for State Senate

This is out of my geographic wheelhouse, but the candidate is impressive. Rob Teplitz is running for State Senate, in the 15th district, in York and Dauphin Counties. He's on Facebook, twitter (@robteplitz), and act blue.

According to the York Dispatch ("Democrat announces run for Piccola's state senate seat," by Charlie Lardner, 3/01/2011), Teplitz currently works in the Auditor General Jack Wagner's office, and also for former Auditor General Bob Casey, Jr. He also worked for Wagner when he was in the state senate.

I heard Teplitz speak briefly once and he comes across as very earnest and good-hearted. I wish him well in the campaign.

A Note on PA SB3

A bill in the Pennsylvania State Senate (SB3) would make it illegal for any health insurance plan offered in one of the Pennsylvania health exchanges set up via the Affordable Care Act would not cover abortion or post-abortion complications.
Just to provide some background, here is the state's legal definition of abortion and complications:

18 Pa. C. S. A. 3203
Definitions
Abortion: the use of any means ot terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child except that, for the purposes of this chapter, abortion shall not mean the use of an intrauterine device or birth control pill to inhibit or prevent ovulation, fertilization or the implantation of a fertilized ovum within the uterus.

Complication: Includes but is not limited to hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation, cervical laceration and retained products. The department may further define complication.

Here are the requirements that must be met for an exception in the case of rape or incest:

18 Pa. C. S. A. 3215
(a) Limitations. – No hospital, clinic or other health facility owned or operated by the Commonwealth, a county, a city or other governmental entity (except the government of the United States, another state or a foreign nation) shall:
(1) Provide, induct, perform or permit its facilities to be used for the provision, inducement of performance of any abortion except where necessary to avert the death of the woman or where necessary to terminate pregnancies initiated by acts of rape or incest if reported in accordance with requirement set form in subsection ©.
© (2) When abortion is performance in the case of pregnancy caused by rape which, prior to the performance of the abortion, has been reported, together with the identity of the offender, if known, to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction and has been personally reported by the victim.
© (3) When abortion is performed in the case of pregnancy caused by incest which, prior to the performance of the abortion, has been personally reported by the victim to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction, or, in the case of a minor, to the county child protective service agency and the other party to the incestuous act has been named in such report.

There are three things I’d like to point out about this.

The first is that it would be very easy for an insurance company to restrict coverage of some procedures entirely as opposed to restricting them only in the case of post-abortion complications. Take, for example, dilation and curettage. This may be done post-abortion but it is sometimes also done after a miscarriage (see info at MayoClinic). It is also sometimes done after a full term birth if pieces of the placenta are left in the uterus. A D&C might also be done in the case of fibroids, heavy uterine bleeding, and other gynecological circumstances (see emedicine). What proof would a woman who had had a miscarriage have to provide to show it was a spontaneous miscarriage and not an abortion? Would doctors refuse to do a D&C for other reasons to avoid tangling with insurance companies over the use of the procedure?

The second is that minors have to report a case of incest and the identity of the perpetrator to a county agency worker. That’s going to be difficult for a young teen whose father or other family member has been abusing her for years. The same concerns come into play for rape victims. What if the woman doesn’t know the identity of her rapist? There have been several serial rapists in the Philadelphia area in recent years. I don’t think those guys left a business card. How much pressure will insurance companies put on women to provide a name before coverage will be provided. Note also that incest reports much be made by the pregnant woman herself but no such requirement is listed for rape. One other matter – there is no requirement that the accusations by name be confirmed by DNA testing. In cases where a woman is personally threatened with violence there will be a strong temptation to avoid further violence by providing a fake name or, even more unfortunate, the name of an innocent man.

The third is that there is no provision for expectant fathers to pay for prenatal care, in cases where an abortion is denied. Finding insurance that will cover all necessary or recommended prenatal care is difficult, and good care can be expensive. In a he said / she said case where the woman says she was raped and the man says it was consensual, who will decide if she can get an abortion? Will she have to wait until the court case is finalized? Can he be forced to pay half of the prenatal and birth expenses while the legal system goes through? If a woman can’t get an abortion when both she and the man involved want one, you might see more cases like those in which the man involved wants the woman to get an abortion and she doesn’t. Philadelphia’s Latoyia Figueroa was in that situation and her boyfriend killed her to avoid becoming a father.

Should you have any concerns about this bill, let your state senator know, especially if he or she is among the sponsors: INTRODUCED BY D. WHITE, SCARNATI, PILEGGI, ARGALL, YAW, ROBBINS, BROWNE, ERICKSON, GORDNER, KASUNIC, VOGEL, TOMLINSON, FOLMER, SMUCKER, ORIE, ALLOWAY, PIPPY, CORMAN, BRUBAKER, EICHELBERGER, RAFFERTY, WAUGH, MENSCH, WARD, PICCOLA AND YUDICHAK.

I think a better way to decrease the number of abortions is to work towards providing good low cost prenatal care and child care, contraceptive education, and make it harder for businesses to fire or otherwise discriminate against pregnant women and working mothers.