Latest news with #SB156
American Press
29-05-2025
- Health
- American Press
Louisiana bill redefines IVF embryos
The Louisiana state Capitol in Baton Rouge. (Associated Press Archives) By Anna Puleo | LSU Manship School News Service The Louisiana House passed a bill Tuesday that changes how the state treats embryos created through in vitro fertilization. The bill, which passed 82-14, establishes legal protections and reshapes how IVF is regulated. The bill originated in the Senate, and an amended version was carried in the House by Rep. Paula Davis, R-Baton Rouge. It redefines IVF embryos as 'juridical persons,' a legal category that gives them more rights without going so far as to classify them as full legal 'children' or property. 'This is a pro-family, pro-life and pro-parent bill,' Davis said. 'No parent should have to cross state lines to start a family.' The laws governing IVF have been politically sensitive since an Alabama Supreme Court ruling in early 2024 raised questions about them, and lawmakers in several states have been scrambling to codify their support for the practice. Under the new Louisiana measure, Senate Bill 156, embryos are considered viable unless they fail to develop within 72 hours after fertilization. Those that do not develop in that timeframe are classified as nonviable. This definition was added through an amendment and replaces the state's previous standard of 36 hours. For embryos considered viable, the bill states that only the intended parents, not doctors or fertility clinics, can make decisions about their use. It also bans any IVF contract that includes a clause allowing embryos to be intentionally destroyed. Those agreements would now be considered legally invalid. Rep. Aimee Freeman Newell, D-New Orleans, raised concerns about how current IVF laws apply to single women, whether it is those who choose to become single parents or lose a spouse during the process. Would they still have access to treatment? Davis said SB156 is updating Louisiana's IVF laws to reflect modern realities. It removes terms like 'parental rights,' 'married couple,' and 'adoptive implantation,' and makes it clear that embryos can be donated to any individual, not just to married couples. A similar bill was brought to the floor last year but was returned to the calendar after criminal and constitutional law experts raised concerns that its language conflicted with Louisiana's criminal statutes. Lawmakers worked with Louisiana Right to Life and legal advisors to revise the language in this year's version. Davis pointed to the controversial 2024 Alabama Supreme Court decision as an example of the kind of legal uncertainty Louisiana wants to avoid. In that case, the court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are considered 'children' under Alabama's wrongful death law, granting them legal personhood and allowing wrongful death lawsuits to proceed. The ruling came after several frozen embryos were accidentally destroyed at a fertility clinic, sparking a lawsuit against the hospital and clinic. A trial court initially dismissed the case, saying embryos outside the womb are not children, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed that decision. That court decision sparked national backlash. President Donald Trump, who was campaigning at the time, came out in support of IVF access soon after, urging Alabama lawmakers to 'act quickly to find an immediate solution' to keep the procedure legal. His comments reflected a broader shift, as many Republicans tried to distance themselves from the Alabama court's decision and its potential fallout. Louisiana's SB156, authored by Sen. Thomas Pressley, R-Shreveport, aims to provide clearer guidance while protecting embryos under state law, without creating conflicts with criminal statutes or overextending legal personhood. The bill now goes back to the Senate for its consideration of House amendments.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alabama House committee approves bill allowing reviews of some long prison sentences
Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, speaks with a colleague in the Alabama Senate on April 11, 2024 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. The House Judiciary Committee approved legislaton Barfoot filed to allow some people serving long prison sentences to have their sentences reviewed. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) An Alabama House committee Wednesday approved a bill that would allow some people serving long prison sentences to have their cases reviewed. SB 156, sponsored by Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, allows people who were sentenced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act to have their cases reviewed and have the chance to be released from prison if they did not commit a crime that caused physical injury. 'These individuals, if this bill goes into effect, would have served at least, hear me now, at least 25 years for an offense where there was no physical injury,' Barfoot said to members of the House Judiciary Committee. 'We routinely sentence and send people to prison for much less time for violent offenses such as murder and robbery.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The Habitual Felony Offender Act, enacted in 1977, required the state to impose a life sentence on anyone convicted of a Class B felony who had three prior felony convictions on their record, and life without parole for anyone convicted of a Class A felony. The law is widely considered to be a major driver of the state's prison overcrowding crisis. The Legislature in 2000 approved changes to the law that gave judges more flexibility in sentencing, but the changes were not retroactive. Barfoot's bill only applies to individuals sentenced to life without the possibility of parole prior to May 2000, when the Legislature approved the changes. Those with anyone convicted for homicide, a sexual offense or attempted murder would not be eligible for review. Those who are eligible may file to have their cases reviewed in the county where they were sentenced. Notices will then be sent to relevant parties such as prosecutors, victims as well as the Attorney General's Office that will then review the filing to determine if the person is eligible. If the applicant is determined to be eligible, the court will review the case to consider if the person should be resentenced based on specific factors: the underlying offense, how the person behaved while incarcerated in prison, the person's age and the likelihood the person will be successful after being released from prison. The bill requires those eligible for review to file a request by October 2030. It was the House's first opportunity to consider the legislation after the Senate took two rounds of votes to eventually get the measure approved. House members voted down the measure during the 2024 session. The House Judiciary Committee approved an amendment during the committee that allows the Attorney General's Office to review a person's petition for a case review, but also the relevant details in the indictment, and have the agency speak to the case. 'This would be a safeguard to ensure that, if someone has pled to a lesser charge based off of the details of the crime, the relevant indictment would have details if there are elements that would preclude you from being eligible in this law by having the AG review the indictment,' said Rep. Russell Bedsole, R-Alabaster, who introduced the amendment. It also states that the district attorney of the jurisdiction where the court will review the sentencing will have 'weighted consideration' for the petition to have the sentence reduced. The amendment also requires that data be collected regarding the crimes and convictions for the petitions that were filed, the counties that received the petitions and other information pertaining to petitioners. Barfoot's bill narrowly survived a vote in the Senate chamber in March when a majority of Republicans voted against the proposal, and it failed in the first vote 16-16. After nearly two hours, the legislation was reconsidered and passed by a vote of 17-8. Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, filed a nearly identical proposal in previous sessions but was never enacted. During the 2024 session, his legislation was approved in the House Judiciary Committee, but Republicans voted to block the legislation on the House floor. Rep. Matt Simpson, R-Daphne, publicly opposed the legislation, telling the committee that the bill goes beyond giving people a second chance, but five chances to be released from prison after committing an offense. 'I firmly disagree that someone who has three prior felonies, and one of those prior felonies being a Class A felony, who gets out and commits another one of those offenses that I have named to you deserves more of a chance to continuously come to the court, and continuously drag victims through the process,' Simpson said. Elaine Burdeshaw, policy director for Alabama Appleseed, said people are serving sentences that are longer than those who commit violent crimes, and that challenges the notion of justice. 'Current sentencing practices, people can be convicted of much more serious violent crimes, and they are serving less time,' she said in an interview with the media following the meeting. Darlene Hutchinson, a victim advocate, said she is not taking a position on the legislation, but is grateful that the bill was modified to take into account the impact it has on victims. 'It allowed for victims to be heard, but there was zero victim notification in it,' she said. 'And I am fanatical about victim notification. My question to legislators then was, 'How are victims going to be heard if they are not even going to be notified if their case was coming back to court.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alabama Senate passes ‘Second Chance' bill after second vote
Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, presents SB 156, which would allow some people serving life in prison a chance to have their sentences reviewed, to the Senate floor on March 18, 2025. (Alander Rocha/Alabama Reflector) After almost dying on the Senate floor, the Alabama Senate Tuesday passed a bill to allow some people serving life in prison a chance to have their sentences reviewed. A majority of Senate Republicans initially sank the bill on a 16-16 vote, but after nearly two hours of uncertainty, the bill returned for a second vote and passed 17-8. Sen. David Sessions, R-Grand Bay, who voted against it, made a motion to reconsider the legislation, which is also known as 'The Second Chance Act.' 'When the vote was tied at 16-16, there was a motion to reconsider an hour or two later, and during that time, we had an opportunity to talk to different members and address concerns or questions that they may have had, what the bill actually did, and some misconceptions that were put out there,' said Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, the bill's sponsor, after the Senate adjourned. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SB 156 would give some people sentenced to life in prison under the state's Habitual Offender Law before May 26, 2000, to have their sentences reviewed. Those convicted of homicides, sexually-based or violent offenses would not be eligible. Alabama in 1977 passed the Habitual Felony Offender Act, which enhanced penalties for those convicted of felonies who had previously served time for felony convictions. The legislation played a significant role in the state's current prison overcrowding crisis. The Legislature revised the law in 2000 to offer judges more discretion in sentencing people with prior felony convictions. Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, has sponsored a similar bill since the 2021 legislative session. His legislation reached the House floor last year for the first time, but House Republicans killed the bill on a procedural vote. It passed the House the year before, but the Senate never considered it. Barfoot said there were misconceptions from members on what the bill would achieve, saying that some members thought a much larger population would have their sentences reviewed. He said that an estimated 150-200 inmates could benefit from having their sentences reduced. Sen. Chris Elliot, R-Josephine, asked what would happen if someone who was convicted under Habitual Offender Law 'habitually offends again,' and asked, 'Is there an automatic go back to jail?' Barfoot said there was that if a judge reduced a sentence and the individual was granted probation, 'the laws of the state of Alabama would apply.' Gov. Kay Ivey in her State of the State speech endorsed the legislation as part of a legislative package cracking down on violent crime. After the Senate's passage, Ivey praised its passage on X, formerly known as Twitter. 'It restores a chance at parole eligibility for a narrow category of inmates currently ineligible simply because of the date they were sentenced,' Ivey posted. The bill now moves to the House for consideration. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Keep legal gambling out of Utah
The Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine published an important and alarming investigation this week into the impact of the recent proliferation of sports gambling in the United States. In short, gambling is creating what could be a mammoth health crisis that American governments need to take seriously. This study examines the growth of sports gambling since the Supreme Court legalized it on the state level in 2018, and it asks important questions about the negative health effects that are silently harming too many individuals and families in the United States. For Utah lawmakers, this research comes just in time. Sen. David P. Hinkins, R-Ferron, is sponsoring legislation that would make pari-mutuel horse racing and wagering legal in Utah. The bill, SB156, barely passed out of the Senate Business and Labor Committee last week and is headed for the Senate floor. It deserves to be soundly defeated. Are Utah lawmakers no longer aware of the timeless wisdom passed down by generations who have seen, time and again, how gambling leads to corruption and despair? If this bill ever finds its way into law, social costs would follow, affecting individuals and families, and Utah no longer would be one of only two states (alongside Hawaii) that hasn't dipped its toe into the foolish wave of legal gambling. Residents of the Beehive State should be thankful they have stood firm so far against this national tide, which feeds off a destructive, something-for-nothing ethic. The research published in JAMA found that sports wagers have gone from $4.9 billion in 2017 to an astounding $121.1 billion in 2023. This pokes a deep hole into counter-arguments that say legalization was necessary to control and legitimize what has been a vast underground gambling culture. In fact, legalization has acted as leaven, growing and expanding gambling in ways far beyond the small amounts that may have existed before. Once the Supreme Court issued its 2017 ruling in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, which struck down a law that prohibited states from allowing or promoting sports gambling, the proliferation started in earnest. Almost overnight, the number of states allowing sports gambling went from one to 38. The research found a substantial and corollary increase nationwide in the number of online searches related to gambling addiction. These searches included terms such as 'addiction,' 'addict,' 'anonymous' and 'gambling addiction hotline.' They are evidence of desperation on the part of people who have awakened to their own compulsive and destructive behavior patterns. These search terms were especially high in states that have allowed online sportsbooks, letting residents gamble any time they want using computers or smartphones. The 'key points' section of the investigation report says, 'These findings emphasize the need for public health efforts to study and address the potential harms associated with the rapid growth of sports betting.' And yet, researchers said, states that reap the financial benefits of legal gambling rarely allocate any meaningful amount toward the treatment or, just as importantly, prevention of those health effects. In most states, the amount set aside is less than $1 million, with many contributing significantly less. That is scandalous. Meanwhile, as we reported earlier, gambling companies have exhibited predatory behavior toward problem gamblers, often encouraging them to spend more. Last year, The Wall Street Journal said sports betting companies 'deploy so-called VIP hosts who form personal relationships with the biggest spenders, frequently handing out betting credits to encourage gamblers to deposit more of their money.' Often, those big spenders are compulsive gamblers who need help. The evidence against gambling, and particularly sports betting aided by smartphone apps, is mounting. We agree with Manhattan Institute fellow and City Journal editor Charles Fain Lehman, who wrote last year in The Atlantic that the nation doesn't need any more evidence to shut everything down. 'If the states are 'laboratories of democracy,' then the results of their experiment with sports gambling are in, and they are uniformly negative,' he wrote. 'Better to end the study now than prolong the suffering.' It's also better to end things now before major sports leagues suffer more gambling-related scandals, such as those that recently affected the NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball and the NHL. An America that is obsessed with sports should be concerned about the integrity of the games it loves to watch, as well as about the changing nature of sports, where spreads, parlays and proposition bets take precedence over team loyalties. Most of all, however, the nation should worry about the lives that are being ruined away from the spotlight, and the precious few resources those victims can turn to for help.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill to end child marriage in SD clears first hurdle
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — A Senate Bill, SB156, an act to increase the minimum age for marriage, has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 4-2 vote. Republican Senators Tom Pischke and Tamara Grove were the legislators voting against the measure. Husband of day care provider arrested for child porn The bill, brought by Republican Sen. Sydney Davis, strikes a portion of existing law that states that a person between the ages of 16 and 18 can be married as long as one of their parents/guardians signs a statement of consent. The bill also sets the penalty for knowingly marrying an underage person as a Class 1 misdemeanor. Proponents of the bill included survivors of child marriages, including Sheena Eastman of Missouri, who gave emotional testimony. 'I got married 45 days after my 15th birthday to a 21 year old man,' Eastman began. 'The first month was the first hit. The second month was the first rape. I was told it was not rape because I was married and it was God's will.' Eastman explained her struggle to escape what was an abusive marriage as a child. 'I couldn't go to a domestic violence shelter because I wasn't 18. I couldn't run away from home because the cops returned me to him when I did,' Eastman continued. 'I wasn't allowed to get a divorce because it was a contract and I couldn't hire an attorney, and I wasn't even allowed to get my restraining order until my mother came out and seen him beating me physically. When she finally agreed to take me to get a restraining order, the worst part of that is two years and four days later I was arrested for his murder.' Eastman told the committee that she spent 25 years in prison of the murder charge, and argued that if this law had been in place in her state, it would have given her protection. Much of the proponent testimony before the committee centered on concerns related to child trafficking and abuse. Committee kills bill to roll back medical pot defense Opponent testimony on the bill kicked off with Norman Woods of SD Family Voice Action. He began by stating for the record that forced marriage is horrible, before arguing that the marriages themselves aren't the problem, but that instead the issue is abusers. Woods' second point was that the bill would take power away from the parents of minor would-be-brides/grooms and give it to the state instead. He used the example of pregnant 17-year-old girl and a 19-year-old man as a situation where it would be proper for a parent to sign off on a marriage. Woods' third point of opposition is that the bill would raise the marriage age to 18, but would not change the state's age of consent, which is 16. The other opponent testifying was Dawson Schroeder, who introduced himself as a freshman at SDSU and VP of the SDSU College Republicans, though he specified he was testifying on his own behalf. Schroeder argued many child marriages are the result of unplanned pregnancies, and that current law shows South Dakota's commitment to respecting parental rights. Davis spoke briefly in rebuttal, noting that while marriage itself may not be the problem, the issue of child marriage in particular is complicated. She noted that children must wait for many things, such as waiting until the age of 18 to vote, or the age of 21 to drink or smoke. The committee asked no questions of the sponsor or witnesses, instead moving on to discussion. Sen. Grove, who voted against the bill, argued that it does not go far enough toward protecting children. Sen. Pischke, also opposing the bill, said he was worried about unintended consequences. Pischke recounted a story from his high school of a 17-year-old couple who got pregnant. The boy was very religious, Pischke explained, and the couple had to confess before his church that they had gotten pregnant and intended to get married. Pischke argued if the bill had been law at the time, these 17-year-olds would not have been allowed to get married and would have had a child out of wedlock, against the wishes of their parents and church. Pischke made a motion to kill the bill, but nobody seconded it. Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff moved to pass the bill, and his motion was seconded by Republican Sen. Helene Duhamel. Passing 4-2, the bill will now go to the Senate floor for further consideration. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
