Override Veto Allowing Bio-Males in Women's Sports

Override Veto Allowing Bio-Males in Women’s Sports
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
May 18, 2022

In the May 14-15, 2022 WSJ, Tunku Varadarajan wrote “Trans Sports Give Utah Republicans a Ticket to Override.” The Hoosier State faces a similar fate on May 24 and should be given some attention as well.

Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb should be ashamed of himself for his veto of House Enrollment Act 1041 - a bill designed to protect women’s sports as well as the integrity of Title IX, celebrating 50 years of serving women - biological women’s - safe participation in K-12 sports.

HEA 1041 states that biological males will be ineligible to participate in high school girls sports - public, private, and charter schools. This piece of legislation is absolutely fair in the interest of protecting girls pursuit of athletic excellence and future scholarship opportunities at the collegiate level.

Although the bill, penned by House member Michelle Davis (R-Whiteland), passed both Indiana houses, Holcomb vetoed it on March 21. The House and Senate will vote on May 24 to override Holcomb’s veto. A Constitutional majority of 51 votes in the House and 26 in the Senate are required to override the veto.

That this is even an issue, is shocking, considering the biological disadvantages faced by women in terms of bone density, lung capacity, heart capacity, and general speed. If the science isn’t enough, consider the news being made in Connecticut regarding high school track, and in swimming on the NCAA level, where biological males have shattered records biological females could not approach. Wrong on every level.

The Current in Westfield reported on April 5 that “Holcomb said there has not been a single case of a male wanting to compete on a female team that has completed a process to do so established by the IHSAA.” (Indiana High School Athletic Association) Irrelevant, and a poor excuse by a short-sighted governor.

To read the text of the bill: http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2022/bills/house/1041#digest-heading. To make your voices heard, call House members at 317-232-9600, and Senators at 317-232-9400 prior to the May 24 vote.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

RFRA V. Liberal Intolerance

RFRA V. Liberal Intolerance

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 2, 2015

As a responsible columnist and journalist (yes, there is a distinct difference between the two), before penning this column I took the time to actually read the text of Indiana Senate Bill 101 – the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – the bill that is causing shpilkes in the hearts and minds of far too many people.

This bill, signed into law by Governor Mike Pence (R) to take effect on July 1 of this year, is designed to protect the religious liberty of people of faith and conscience, not discriminate against any group or individuals. That Pence addressed the media and the nation in a clumsy manner defending the legislation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that people of faith for far too long have been harangued by the intolerant left for being people of faith; mocked for having religious convictions – mostly Christians, but also Orthodox Jews, Catholics, and others who stand by religious principles, even at the cost of their businesses.

As an American, as a Jew, as a constitutional conservative, as a capitalist, as a Hoosier, as a human being, I support the right of free people in a society of free market capitalism to conduct business with whomever they choose. Government should not dictate with whom someone does business. There are already laws in place concerning public accommodations and more importantly, the free market will win out. After all, for better or worse, when there is an injustice, real or perceived, the public, or parts of the public will rally around the victim – again, real or perceived.

As an American, as a Jew, as a constitutional conservative, as a capitalist, as a Hoosier, as a human being, I do not support discrimination. I do, however, support the right of people of faith and conscience to conduct their business how they see fit, and with whom, and SB 101 protects the rights of people of faith. It does not endorse discrimination because the burden of proof is on the potential accused, as opposed to the traditional system of American jurisprudence where that onus is on the accuser or prosecution. A person or business denying service to another person or business must prove that providing that service is a substantial burden upon the provider’s religious beliefs and/or practices.

This legislation, in large part, has been viewed as depriving the homosexual community some sort of rights or accommodations under the guise of religious freedom, when it is really protecting the rights of people of faith.

Consider: a person is adamant that he/she should be served a ham and cheese sandwich in a kosher delicatessen and is summarily denied service as such an item could never appear on the menu in that establishment. Should the person denied that sandwich be allowed to sue the deli for denial of services? Of course not, it would put an undue burden on the religious practices of the owners of the kosher deli. And, the patron could be accommodated elsewhere without any undue burden on him/herself.

The crux of the argument surrounding SB 101 involves the right of service providing businesses to be forced to provide services to same sex couples when the business owner’s religious beliefs forbid homosexual marriage. Some would argue that the business is not required to attend the same sex ceremony, but simply provide for the couple, be it flowers, food, cakes, etc. Yet, a multitude of Christians have expressed concern that, based upon the Biblical definition of marriage – one man and one woman – they would be unable to provide services to the same sex couple.

And let the record show, Christians are not the only people of faith who believe in the Biblical definition of marriage. I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, would not want to be forced to provide services to a couple seeking to have a same sex “wedding.” The same sex couple could seek services elsewhere without any undue burden on their ability to achieve their goal without forcing me to abandon my belief system. Should the same sex couple request services for a non-nuptial event – celebrating a religious holiday, an everyday order for whatever such a business sells, accommodating them does not require the owner to compromise his/her principles.

Pence said this is the most important piece of legislation since the First Amendment, yet due to the pressure of the Gay Mafia, Pence feels compelled to walk back some of the language in the bill, which in turn would only weaken its effects.

This is where the free market should take over. A business chooses to deny services to a potential patron, the forces of the market will be employed. Take the Chick-fil-A dining establishment that came under fire because the owner said he does not support same sex marriage. The call for boycotts was instantaneous. Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) said he would never allow the chain to open a restaurant in his city. By the way, Mr. Emanuel, the state of Illinois has a RFRA law of its own, as do 19 other states in the nation. And then State Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of the Illinois RFRA.

Those 20 states are: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

In response to the called boycott, the forces in league with Chick-fil-A swarmed to the restaurants nationwide in epic numbers to support their local franchises.

In light of the Indiana legislation, establishments across the state have taken to putting up signs welcoming all comers – an obvious business ploy, and good for them – that’s why a person opens a business – to make money. Should a business choose to deny services for religious reasons, they run the risk of losing money from whoever is negatively affected by that decision. There may be a boycott, there may be signs, billboards, letters decrying that business as bigoted and could suffer financially. And that should be the choice of that business, not government.

Yet, in addition to the 20 states that have RFRA laws, former President Bill Clinton signed into law a federal version of RFRA in 1993, backed by a 97-3 vote in the Senate.

“We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom.…

This act will help… honor the principle that our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties….

The free exercise of religion has been called the first freedom, that which originally sparked the development of the full range of the Bill of Rights. Our Founders cared a lot about religion. And one of the reasons they worked so hard to get the first amendment into the Bill of Rights at the head of the class is that they well understood what could happen to this country, how both religion and Government could be perverted if there were not some space created and some protection provided. They knew that religion helps to give our people the character without which a democracy cannot survive. They knew that there needed to be a space of freedom between Government and people of faith that otherwise Government might usurp….

What this law basically says is that the Government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that we can never be too vigilant in this work,” concluded Clinton on November 16, 1993.

Because of an overwrought hyperbolic hysteria amongst the gay community, it has not only blown out of proportion the effects of SB 101, but has proven itself both intolerant of people of faith as well as amazingly hypocritical in its visceral response to the Indiana legislation where it hardly uttered a word upon the passage of the federal law and/or the other 19 states where RFRA is in effect.

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, said, “Indiana is a horrible place,” yet he is conducting business in Saudi Arabia where a man received 450 lashes simply for being gay.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) has placed a ban on non-essential travel for New York state employees to Indiana, yet he will venture to Cuba, where gay marriage is illegal.

The governors of Washington and Connecticut, Jay Inslee (D) and Dan Malloy (D), respectively, have issued similar travel bans.

In support of the ban, Kevin Ollie, men’s basketball coach at the University of Connecticut announced he will not travel to Indianapolis for the Final Four this weekend. This is really a non-story as the Huskies didn’t even make the tournament this year after winning it all last year.

My question is, will the Connecticut women’s basketball team, which is in the Final Four, boycott that championship in Tampa, because Florida has an RFRA law similar to Indiana. (UConn is slated to play my alma mater, the University of Maryland, Sunday night for a spot in the Tuesday night championship game.) Let’s see what is more important, their principles or winning another championship. What say you, coach Geno Auriemma?

A rock band by the name of Wilco cancelled its May 7 concert in Indianapolis on the heels of SB 101. Do they plan to cancel their dates in Scottsdale, AZ, Bridgeport, CT, Orlando, St. Augustine, Tallahassee, and West Palm Beach, FL, Chicago, IL, Louisville, KY, New Orleans, LA, Kansas City and St. Louis, MO, and Dallas and Houston, Texas in deference to those states’ RFRA laws? That would be 14 concerts out of 21 on their calendar a potential loss of two-thirds of their potential revenue – but they have their principles, yes?

And closer to home, in Walkerton, Indiana, 20 miles south of South Bend, Memories Pizza, owned by Kevin O’ Connor shuttered its doors within the past 24 hours due to the overwhelmingly violent (verbal and physical threats) in response to an interview given by O’ Connor’s daughter, Crystal. She said it would violate the family’s religious convictions to cater a gay wedding. This was a hypothetical question asked by the reporter from ABC-57 as the pizzeria has never been asked to cater a wedding of any kind. Crystal emphasized that all people are welcome to patronize Memories Pizza regardless of sexual orientation, but that did not fend off the firestorm to come.

The social media review site Yelp was inundated with vicious attacks on the O’ Connors and their establishment, located in Walkerton more than a decade. They stopped answering the telephone at the restaurant because they could not discern which orders were real and which were fake. The O’ Connors even received several death threats. And for what? Because this family of faith expressed their faith publicly and fervently held to their religious beliefs.

In response to all the negative bashing endured by the O’ Connors, they closed Memories Pizza, which hopefully will not become a distant memory in Walkerton. However, radio host and author, Dana Loesch created a “Go Fund Me” page called “Support Memories Pizza” in hopes of raising $35,000, and it raked in over $314,000 in less than one day from over 11,200 contributors. Just as with the Chick-fil-A situation, the people have spoken and rallied around decency to save a business that if some people wish not to patronize, they are free to go elsewhere for a slice.

Governor Pence should not cave in to the gay mafia’s caterwauling and threats. “This legislation was designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the Hoosier state. This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate.” That said, there should be no reason to amend the law just days after its enactment.

“Gay liberals have turned into bullies,” said Tammy Bruce, a gay conservative, in an interview on April 2 on Fox and Friends. “It is the antithesis of what every civil rights movement was about,” said Bruce, host of her own radio program and author of three books. Bruce is right and the attempt by the gay mafia to blackmail, threaten boycotts or to move businesses should be met with resistance. If a business wishes to move from Indiana because of SB 101, it has but 30 states from which to choose should they attempt to stay true to their principles. They will then endure the cost of moving and restructuring its labor force.

Bottom line, SB 101 is designed to protect religious liberty as afforded by the first amendment of the United States Constitution and not discriminate against anyone. Let all who observe have a happy and meaningful Pesach or Easter.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Sentencing Laws Still Lacking

Sentencing Laws Still Lacking
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 23, 2013

For Shamus Patton freedom after three years of an eight year sentence is as criminal as he is. To serve less than 40 percent of a prison term is more than “disturbing” as indicated by the June 21, page one headline, “Felon’s Case ‘Disturbing’” (The Indianapolis Star).

The new law passed during the past legislative session is marginally better, but still miles from where it ought to be. The General Assembly enacted a law requiring convicts to serve a minimum of 75 percent of their sentence, even with good behavior and completion of certain programs.

Patton was sentenced to eight years for shooting nine people at the Indiana Black Expo in 2010. Fast forward three years, and Patton is on the streets having a reduced sentence for good behavior and competing an educational program. Apparently Patton learned nothing, arrested for resisting police, while in the company of three other convicts and firearms.

So many aspects of the Patton case and new law are pathetically wrong, endangering the community at-large, from a lack of communication between prison and local authorities, to the dumb luck that Patton should return to his miscreant cohorts for additional illicit activity – evidencing his need to remain behind bars.

The focus must be on sentencing laws. Patton is merely a symptom of the need to tighten them. An eight year sentence should be just that – eight years behind bars. With good behavior and completion of certain programs, a prisoner could be released in eight years. With bad behavior and non-compliance, the sentence should be increased.

“I think serving 75 percent of a sentence, rather than just 50 percent should still be enough of an incentive for prisoners to follow the rules,” said Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington).

Pierce and others supporting this bill, now law, don’t understand – this is not about the incentives for convicts to behave behind bars, but the enforcement of a sentence handed down by a judge and jury. It should start with 100 percent and the incentive for prisoners to follow the rules is that every act of bad behavior or defiance is tacked on to the sentence on a 2:1 ratio – two additional days per incident.

Criminals should not be rewarded with early release. While they are entitled to justice under the law, it should not be by heaping insult to injury upon the victims.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Lawsuit v. Kroger Should be Bagged

Lawsuit v. Kroger Should be Bagged
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
August 16, 2012

In a world where the guilty blame anyone but themselves, this is the frivolous lawsuit of all frivolity, and perhaps a strong case as to why the United States ought to consider adopting the British system of jurisprudence, known as the English Rule, where the loser pays the court costs, legal fees and other expenses.*

In a money-grubbing lawsuit, the mother of a man who was killed during the commission of a robbery is suing the store her son was attempting to rob for failure to enforce its own gun policy. This should be a no-brainer; case dismissed, and stop wasting the court’s time.

On December 26, 2011 Jeremy Atkinson attempted to rob the Kroger supermarket on W. 71^st Street in Indianapolis by forcing a store security guard into the office while pressing a hard object against the guard’s back. The Kroger store manager Elijah Elliott bravely shot and killed Atkinson, hitting the convict in the face.

 

This was not Atkinson’s first foray into the world of crime. In 2009 Atkinson was convicted of armed robbery of a Subway sandwich shop on North Keystone Avenue. Demonstrative of the poverty of the criminal justice system, Atkinson violated his work release amidst a four-year sentence. Clearly, prison was not a rehabilitative experience for Atkinson. Additionally, Atkinson faced an outstanding warrant for robbery and criminal confinement from 2011 that predated the Kroger robbery attempt.

While Atkinson’s criminal record could not possible be known to Elliott, he handled the situation with aplomb, acting in the best interest of the innocent customers and employees in the Kroger – their lives spared while that of a thug’s was dispatched.

A robbery thwarted, a criminal prevented from taking any innocent lives, and yet, Toni Atkinson, Jeremy’s mother, is suing Kroger claiming “negligence by not enforcing its gun policy.” (Indianapolis Star, July 20)

Further adding to the ludicrousness of the claim by Atkinson, her lawsuit’s complaint says “Kroger owed Atkinson a duty to exercise reasonable care for his safety, refrain from wantonly or willfully harming Atkinson, and/or acting in a way that would increase the peril to Atkinson as a result of being on the premises.” (Indianapolis Star, July 20)

If anyone reading this is not completely apoplectic, then nothing will ever make them apoplectic – EVER. Did Kroger invite Atkinson to arrive at the store with the intent of committing armed robbery? No. This was fully the responsibility of Atkinson and an exercise of his free will.

If anything, Elliott is a hero for protecting the shoppers and store employees – all of whom were legitimately in the supermarket with no plans of malice. Kroger owed nothing to Atkinson and everything to their clientele and workers – providing a safe place in which to shop and work.

But for a moment, let’s explore Atkinson’s mother’s lawsuit calling for Kroger to have protected the felon’s safety. Should Elliott have done nothing, potentially allowing for the security guard to be murdered by Atkinson? Should Atkinson have been given free rein to rob the Kroger, take hostages, or commit multiple homicides? Is anyone buying this malarkey?

Why should Atkinson’s safety take precedence over that of innocent shoppers and employees? It should not – ever. Elliott’s act of self-defense should be protected without any deleterious effects on his legal or employment status.

There is, in fact, a self-defense statute in Indiana, cited Zionsville attorney Guy Relford, specializing in gun-related issues. “No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary,” reads the statute. (Indianapolis Star, July 20)

Jeremy Atkinson brought this incident on himself and no one should lose minute one of sleep except his mother. In turn, Toni Atkinson deserves not one penny of the $75,000 she is attempting to extract from Kroger, and ought to sue her own attorney for suggesting she should profit from her son’s criminal activities which ultimately caused his death.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

*The English Rule: “the principle that fees and costs of litigation should be shifted to the loser--known as the English rule….

The theory of the English rule is uncomplicated: Whichever side prevails in a legal action is entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expense--court costs, legal fees and other expenses, such as expert witness fees--from the losing side.

In England, the loser pays the winner's legal costs even in settlements, regardless of whether a formal action was filed; the typical settlement agreement includes a statement as to what costs will be paid.” (Kritzer, Herbert M. “The English Rule,” ABA Journal, Nov. 1992, p. 55)

Daniels a Coup for Purdue

Daniels a Coup for Purdue
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 20, 2012

For those of us disappointed he opted to sit on the sidelines for the 2012 GOP presidential nominating cavalcade, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels will in fact, become president – of Purdue University.

In selecting the Monongahela, PA native as its 12^th president, Purdue welcomes a major league name to lead an engineering-based institution in a major league conference – the Big Ten. Daniels, 63, no stranger to the limelight, but who tends to shy away from the cameras, is far from aloof as he has a good personality, wry sense of humor and is rather cerebral.

Daniels commands tremendous respect from people and as such carries with him the ability to assemble a winning team – something that helped make him a successful two-term governor. That, along with his connections, will surely compensate for his lack of experience in the academic arena.

Daniels will overcome whatever learning curve and shortcomings his critics aver simply by listening to their experience-based suggestions. After all, they will want Daniels to succeed as a non-partisan university president which is a less combative position than governor. The only hope of failure could emerge from spiteful academic elitists who oppose a Republican or of course 11 other Big Ten rivals!

He will also succeed by staying true to his fiscal roots of budget cutting and overall penurious demeanor. Daniels brings to West Lafayette solid business acumen, including his time as a senior executive at Eli Lilly and tenure as director of the federal Office of Management and Budget.

Daniels should fast become a favorite of students as the governor has worked strenuously to keep costs down and supports making college affordable for all students. He played an active role in increasing the visibility of Western Governor’s University here in Indiana. And he’s no academic slouch himself, earning his bachelor’s degree at Princeton University and his law degree at Georgetown University.

With college and university costs continuing to skyrocket, “Our Man Mitch,” may very well be the answer not just for Purdue but as an example for how it might be done on campuses across the nation. Daniels could very well leave a stronger legacy in academia than in government.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Grim REPA Lowers Standards in Indy

Grim REPA Lowers Standards in Indy
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 1, 2012  

The sad truth behind “Lowering standards in the name of reform,” written by Gerardo Gonzalez, dean of the School of Education at Indiana University (May 27, 2012; The Indianapolis Star) is that standards will only continue to spiral downward.

Living in an era where it is better to be fair than honest; where it is better to coddle than constructively criticize; where it is better to hold a hand than occasionally swat it; where everyone is declared the winner and there are no losers and the score isn’t kept and everyone takes home a trophy because, G-d forbid, anyone’s precious self-esteem gets damaged, standards are tumbling to a level lower than a gopher’s basement.

Television commercials talk about the greatness of America, but then reveal the paltry statistics indicating how far the United States lags behind in reading, math and science to countries with fewer resources and dollars (or their foreign equivalent).

Closer to home in Indiana, Gonzalez adroitly indicates how a potential set of rule changes regarding the preparation and licensing of teachers in the Hoosier State will further water down the requirements, thus lessening the quality of the teachers and principals found in the schools.

Under REPA 2 (Rules for Educator Preparation and Accountability), for example, any college graduate with a bachelor’s degree, a minimum 3.0 grade point average and passage of a content exam could qualify to become an “adjunct” teacher – even without the necessary courses that prepare one to teach in a classroom. (On the other hand, having a Master’s in Education, there is nothing to prepare anyone for the inner-city classroom awaiting rookie educators.)

Another weakening of the standards includes eliminating a requirement that special education teachers be licensed in a content area, even though they would be permitted to teach from preschool through high school. This helps no one and turns special education teachers into glorified baby sitters.

Knowledge of a content area is VITAL. A teacher can’t very well teach history unless he or she understands why the Battle of Trenton was a pivotal turning point in the American colonists winning the Revolutionary War. A person who does not have at least an undergraduate degree in the content area he or she wishes to teach, is ill prepared for the classroom.

As a history major while an undergraduate, I was disgusted to learn that in the state of New Jersey, an education major wishing to teach history merely needed two classes in the subject. Two classes do not a proficient teacher of history make.

Yet another lowering of the bar in Indiana is the eliminating of the requirement that principals earn a master’s degree. Additionally, the discussion of national accreditation of educator preparation programs has vanished from the lexicon.

All of the watering down and reduction of requirements for teachers and principals serves to better no one. The continuation of lowering standards will make students in the United States softer, less educated and less prepared to face the competition of the real world that parents and teachers alike are avoiding at the salvation of their precious children’s self-esteem, which sadly, ultimately, will take an unmerciful beating in the future.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.