Hope for Better Conditions at Ad

After a Friday-Monday extended break for the Easter weekend, state lawmakers have just three days remaining in their 2012 regular session. Thursday (April 12) is the anticipated day for adjournment sine die, but the last day, the 60^th, could be held set back in order for the Legislature to consider any vetoes made by the Governor after Wednesday, the 59^th legislative day. It’s a balancing of interests: the Governor has several days after the Legislature passes a bill to exercise his veto authority; the Legislature would like to know all his decisions before ending its session.

After 57 days of session, the 49 legislators have finished a lot of their "heavy lifting." Some significant decisions remain, including some with spending implications, but with the mid-biennium budget adjustments completed, the remaining route to the finish line is mapped out. There still could be some bumps and potholes in the surface.

The budget package is unique and interesting. It provides for some deficit appropriations and some new funding (LB 968), transfers funds to cover other items (LB 969), taps into some of the state’s cash reserve for major projects, including $50 million for a cancer research center at UNMC and $15 million for Nursing and Allied Health Professions at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (LB 131), and appropriates nearly $7 million to pay claims against the state authorized by the state claims board (LB 1072).

Also tied to the budget process this year was the Governor’s desire to provide tax cuts. As the bill introduced for this purpose on his behalf, LB 970, went through the committee and floor-debate processes, components dealing with the inheritance-tax and corporate income tax were eliminated and the reduction appeared to be settled as just over $97 million in individual income taxes over the next three years. For most taxpayers it will be modest relief.

The chairperson of the Revenue Committee and principal floor manager of LB 970, Sen. Abbie Cornett of Bellevue, called it a "down payment on the tax relief we promised in January;" whatever that means.

With just three days remaining, this is also a worthy time to update a few bills of interest to the Nebraska Catholic Conference, and addressed previously in this column.

LB 461, as proposed to be amended by its sponsor, Sen. Pete Pirsch of Omaha, on behalf of a coalition of pro-life advocacy organizations, including NCC, ran into a buzz saw of angst-based pushback from lobbyists for health care organizations, led by the Nebraska Hospital Association and the Nebraska Pharmacists Association. They and others expressed concerns about the scope of the amendments and potential consequences. They left few scenarios untapped in vigorously reacting with a "parade of what-if horribles," mostly exaggerated, but still effective in attacking the formulation, if not the premise, of the proposed amendments. As a result, the process stalled and LB 461 remained stuck in the Judiciary Committee.

The proposed amendments would have statutorily protected rights of conscience of health-care providers and facilities on a comprehensive basis. Providers and facilities would have been protected from discrimination and adverse administrative actions when exercising their right not to participate in any health care function that would violate their religious beliefs and/or convictions of conscience.

Senator Steve Lathrop of Omaha, a member of the Judiciary Committee, led discussions to try to find a consensus among the opposing views, but the overall matter was too complex and the divide of views over the value ascribable to convictions of conscience too wide to achieve results before time ran too short.

The goal of protecting rights of conscience in health care is far from dismissed. It is compelling and will be pursued again next year as better, tighter legislation.

LB 1145 moved smoothly through the legislative process to passage and anticipated approval by the Governor. It gives Nebraska a stronger response to the serious, but largely hidden problem of human trafficking for sex or labor. It will increase public awareness by establishing a state commission, which will engage the assistance of the National Human Trafficking Resource Center. The legislation also strengthens criminal penalties for forcing or enticing a person into prostitution.

LB 50, first introduced in 2011 and carried over to 2012, did not make it out of the Revenue Committee. That’s a lousy outcome for the legislative idea embodied therein. The bill proposed to establish a state income-tax credit for donations to organizations that would distribute their revenue as private-school tuition scholarships.

For the parents and patrons of Catholic schools who contacted one of more of the Revenue Committee members about LB 50: thanks for taking action. Your collective expressions caused the legislators to notice your advocacy and established a foundation for more effective advocacy in the future. For the many who were urged to speak out but didn’t, you could still do so now, by expressing your disappointment over how LB 50 was ignored by the Revenue Committee; and then again next year when a new bill proposing this good idea is introduced.

Legislation to Protect Conscience Needs Support

March 16, 2012

As documented by Americans United for Life from the Annals of Congress, an early draft of the First Amendment written by James Madison included the following: The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed" (emphasis added). Though not specifically included in the finally adopted version, this wording indicates the intent of the Founders and a fundamental principle of the First Amendment.

Perhaps that expression of principle influenced the framers of the Nebraska Constitution in 1875, because the principle is captured and set forth in a similar manner. Article I, Section 4 on religious freedom presents this statement of guiding policy: "No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted." (emphasis added)

The state constitution also includes this significant provision as Article III (Legislative Power), Sec. 30: "The Legislature shall pass all laws necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this constitution."

These two provisions of the Nebraska Constitution are relevant to a compelling and escalating concern; namely, protecting the religious freedom and rights of conscience of health care providers, both individuals and institutions. Ideological and political aggressiveness regarding health care and health professions, particularly in relation to morally problematic services, such as abortion, sterilization, contraception, artificial insemination, euthanasia, assisted suicide and counseling to affirm and enhance immoral relationships, increasingly threatens to penalize and drive away persons of faith and conscience. Discrimination in employment and governmental coercion in licensing are mechanisms by which health care providers can be forced to choose between their professions and their convictions of conscience.

This is not about who pays for health care. That’s another context involving threats to conscience. This is about providers and their rights of conscience.

A number of organizations and websites provide evidence of attacks on the freedom of health care providers and institutions to provide health care without violating their religious beliefs and moral convictions. Pharmacists have been targets, as abortion advocates seek to require them to dispense "emergency contraceptives" and others that have post-fertilization, life-ending mechanisms of action.

Here in Nebraska, for instance, licensing boards for Mental Health Practice and Psychology have shown intent to require licensees to provide, or be complicit in providing, counseling services to affirm and enhance same-sex relationships.

Nebraska public policy is limited with regard to protection for religious freedom and rights of conscience throughout health care. The cited provisions of the Nebraska Constitution notwithstanding, the Legislature has not acted to prevent interference with rights of conscience comprehensively. Except in limited instances involving abortion, such rights have not been codified or provided with remedies.

LB 461, as proposed to be amended by its sponsor, Senator Pete Pirsch of Omaha, would establish by statute that individual health care providers have the right not to participate in any health care function that would violate their religious beliefs, moral convictions and/or ethical principles. Likewise, the proposed amendment would establish that health care facilities have the right not to participate in any health care function that would violate their institutional conscience as determined by reference to its existing mission statement, constitution, bylaws, etc.

For purposes of the legislation, "participate" and "health care function" are defined comprehensively.

The amendment protects health care providers and institutions from being required by employers, or governmentally coerced, to participate in any health care function. In this context, it would prohibit discrimination in employment and immunize providers and facilities from civil, criminal and administrative liability. Authorized remedies would include civil causes of action for damages and/or injunctive relief.

Sen. Pirsch’s sound amendment is awaiting action by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee. Efforts are being made to address sincere concerns about the scope and wording of the amendment, and to separate legitimate concerns from misconceptions, exaggerated reactions and bogus interpretations of the legislation.

Unfortunately, time is running short on the session—only 14 working days remain. The matter is urgent. Nebraskans—especially those involved in health care—who wish to see these basic rights protected in law, to see the guiding principle in the state constitution brought alive with substance, should contact state legislators, especially members of the Judiciary Committee, and express support for the amended version of LB 461. Contact information is available at the Legislature’s website (www.nebraskalegislature.gov). More information is available at: www.nebcathcon.org.

On Prenatal Care, Pro Life Principles Trump Other Issues

March 9, 2012

Having moved past the two-thirds-point of its 2012 regular session—40 of the 60 legislative days were completed as of March 7—the Nebraska Legislature is focused on legislation with priority status. Each of the 49 lawmakers has chosen a priority bill and each of 14 standing committees, plus the Executive Board, has designated two priority bills. In addition, the Speaker of the Legislature has prioritized 25 other proposals.

The Speaker, Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk, will determine the scheduling of the priority bills for the remaining days of the session. Some time might be set aside as well for moving some minimally substantive, non-controversial measures through the process on a time-limited basis known as the consent calendar.

From the perspective of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, LB 599 is a significant priority bill. It would reinstate a pro-life policy that was rather suddenly terminated two years ago, after decades of assisting the health and well-being of unborn children of impoverished mothers.

In late 2009, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services notified Nebraska that its decades-long policy of providing access to prenatal health care through Medicaid had to be terminated for some unborn children. The reason? Medicaid does not include the unborn as eligible recipients of financially-assisted medical care, which is the way the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services had long been administering such coverage. Nebraska was warned that Medicaid only considers the eligibility of the pregnant woman. Under Medicaid rules, pregnant women who, even though they qualify as impoverished, are nevertheless ineligible for prenatal care coverage if they are unauthorized immigrants or incarcerated or subject to public-assistance sanctions.

So, Nebraska had to stop what it had been doing on behalf of some vulnerable unborn children in impoverished families. It was estimated the number of cases so impacted on an annual basis was more than 1,500.

Nevertheless, a way of re-instating access to prenatal care for these vulnerable unborn children, notwithstanding the disqualification of their mothers, was readily apparent. Another federal-state joint program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, recognizes the unborn as eligible recipients in their own right. For CHIP purposes, the definition of “child” explicitly includes unborn children “from conception to birth.”

CHIP has a specific unborn-child option that states can apply for and implement. What’s more, the state’s financial match rate is less for CHIP than it is for “regular” Medicaid. This is a significant economic factor, but an even more significant economic factor is the undisputable evidence that prenatal health care results in healthier babies and considerable cost savings over time.

In early March 2010, Archbishop George Lucas, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and Bishop William Dendinger joined in writing to Governor Dave Heineman, urging him to authorize application for the CHIP unborn child option.

Describing it as “an important and urgent Pro Life matter,” the Bishops wrote: “The immigration status of their mothers should not be allowed to adversely affect the health and well-being of the unborn children. When balanced against the legitimate public-policy concerns about illegal immigration, caring for the unborn children should be the higher priority, as the right thing to do.”

Regrettably, the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services has declined to apply for CHIP’s unborn-child option. Readily apparent is that Governor Heineman’s administration has chosen to view this as an immigration issue rather than a pro-life or health-care issue. “No benefits for the illegals” is the political mantra.

The flaw in that assertion is that these unborn children, who are at risk of not receiving vitally important prenatal health care with this means of access denied, are not “illegals.” Either they have no immigration status or they are presumptive citizens, because they will be citizens upon birth. In any event, they are CHIP-eligible.

In 2010, an effort was made—through LB 1110—to legislatively direct Nebraska DHHS to apply for the unborn-child option under CHIP. That effort failed to garner enough support. LB 599 is a renewed effort to accomplish the objective.

There are at least four reasons why LB 599 is a significant pro life issue; for which pro life Nebraskans urgently need to speak up in support of the unborn as the Legislature decides on public policy. First, it is potentially harmful to the health and even the lives of unborn children not to provide for their prenatal care. Second, failing to implement this specific and readily available means of access to prenatal health care for unborn children unjustly punishes them for the circumstances and actions of their mothers. Third, the lack of access to prenatal health care could be a decisive factor in causing some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth, each time a tragedy. Fourth, denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to the individual human dignity of the unborn and to pro life principles.

For more information ion this issue, visit www.nebcathcon.org.

Religious Liberty Concerns Exist in Nebraska

February 17, 2012

The federal Department of Health and Human Services’ arrogant efforts to coerce all employers, including all but a narrow category of those with religious and moral objections, into purchasing health-insurance plans that cover abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, are receiving the uproar and criticism they deserve. The threat this "preventive services" mandate poses to religious liberty is unmistakable.

Including these products and procedures as governmentally emphasized, cost-free health care for virtually all who are insured, regardless of the moral objections of those who provide the coverage or pay the premiums, is not the only context in which religious liberty is under mounting pressure.

Last May, the same federal agency added a new requirement to its contracts for services for victims of human trafficking so that the Migration and Refugee Services agency of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had a record of exemplary, effective services, would be barred from participation if it did not provide the "full range" of reproductive services—namely, abortion, sterilization and contraception.

Last March, the U.S. Department of Justice stopped defending the congressionally enacted Defense of Marriage Act. Then in July, DOJ began filing briefs that actively attack DOMA’s constitutionality, arrogantly claiming that supporters of the duly enacted law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice. If "bigot" is applied by the government to churches and religiously motivated institutions and individuals because of their teachings and religious convictions about marriage as a natural union of a man and a woman, conflict over religious liberty will exist for years to come.

Issues of religious liberty and freedom of conscience are not exclusive to federal policy actions. There are state-level examples as well.

Several years ago, the Archdiocese of Boston was forced out of its adoption ministry because, as a matter of fidelity to the Church’s teaching on marriage, it could not place children with homosexual and lesbian couples as the state government was dictating. More recently, in Illinois, the state cancelled contracts with Catholic Charities agencies because they were not providing adoption and foster-care services in a manner consistent with a new state law that legalized same-sex civil unions.

Individuals are affected by threats to religious liberty as well. In New Jersey, a dozen nurses had to file a lawsuit against a state medical facility in order to overcome an employment dictate that they assist in abortions. In New Mexico, a photographer who declined to provide professional services for a same-sex commitment ceremony because of her religious convictions was ruled to have engaged in unlawful discrimination by the state’s human rights commission.

Here in Nebraska, a serious matter pits governmental coercion against religious liberty. Unless state officials resolve this in a way that respects convictions of conscience, it is likely that Catholic diocesan agencies will be forced to terminate their counseling ministries, including those provided as charity care.

The state licensing boards that govern Mental Health Practitioners (also encompassing the affiliated categories of marriage and family therapists, social workers and professional counselors) and Psychologists, as well as the State Board of Health, are pushing for regulations that would delineate "unprofessional conduct" to include an open-ended proscription of all discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity;" neither of which is defined. The Nebraska Catholic Conference has taken a stand that defining unprofessional conduct in such a manner will dictate the type and scope of counseling that must be provided or for which referrals must be made.

No person is denied access to any of the counseling services that diocesan agencies can and do provide in accord with Catholic moral teaching and values, using state-credentialed staff as required by state law. The issue at hand is not at all about excluding persons from services; it is about accommodating exclusion of a narrow context of services; namely, therapy or counseling that has as its purpose to validate, affirm, support and/or enhance behavior (e.g., sexual expression outside the bond of marriage between a man and a woman) that the credential holder considers immoral.

The firmly held position of the Nebraska Catholic Conference is that individuals who hold professional credentials have a right of religious liberty to act in accord with their religious beliefs and moral values. They should not be coerced into participating—whether by providing or by the complicity of making a referral—in professional services that contradict their religious beliefs and/or convictions of conscience. They should not be forced into the untenable position of either acting contrary to their convictions or being subjected to administrative punishment, including license suspension or revocation.

Without effective accommodation for religious beliefs and convictions of conscience, these regulations that the licensing boards intend to be a shield against discrimination will instead be a sword used to dictate the scope and type of counseling services that must be provided or for which a referral must be made. Fortunately, the Director of Public Health has not allowed this unjust policy, this trampling of religious liberty, to occur. But conscience protection has not been settled on either.

Spending Cuts and Tax Cuts

February 3, 2012

As the Nebraska Legislature maneuvers its way through the 39 legislative days remaining in its 2012 regular session, the word "cuts" is again going to be a prominent part of the session-related vocabulary.

That’s "cuts" as in spending cuts, which has become a fairly common usage during the economic downturn of recent vintage. Then there’s the common, but now relatively new idea in the current mix, "tax cuts," which pops up as the state’s economic outlook brightens and achieving greater stimulation is argued.

On the spending-cuts side of the equation, much of the attention will likely be focused on Nebraska’s medical-assistance program, i.e., Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which helps pay for health care for low-income and medically needy populations, including adults, children, seniors and those with chronic illnesses and disabilities. On Dec. 1 last past, the state Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Medicaid and Long-Term Care notified the Legislature, as required by law, of proposed cuts within its implementation of the Medicaid program, primarily in the form of increases to copayments for eligible recipients and limits on services.

State law requires DHHS to hold off on proposed administrative changes until after one regular session of the Legislature. The purpose is to provide the Legislature with an opportunity to consider the proposed actions, including cuts, and to overturn or modify them by legislation if there is enough support to do so.

Among the changes being proposed by DHHS—the essence of which amounts to cuts in coverage—are an increase from $1 to $2 in copayments on physical, speech and occupational therapies; an increase from $3 to $50 for non-emergency visits to emergency rooms; a limit of 240 hours per year on home health services (nursing and aides) for both adults and children; the elimination of private-duty nursing services, an increase in the level of care needed to receive personal care services; a limit on personal-assistance services to three-and-a-half hours per day and a 60-hour limit per month; elimination of oral nutritional supplements provided through the durable medical equipment program; a limit on behavioral health therapy visits to 60 per year. In addition, proposals are prepared to eliminate some items from coverage, e.g., eyeglasses, hearing aids and dentures for eligible adults, if federal Medicaid cuts happen.

Some costs would shift to other services or programs, but the net savings from the planned changes is projected to be $7.7 million for the second half of Fiscal Year 2013 and $15.4 million for Fiscal Year 2014.

In response to the proposals from DHHS, Omaha Senator Jeremy Nordquist introduced LB 952. It would prohibit implementation of the proposed changes, which amount to cuts in services. The bill was assigned to the Appropriations Committee, which held a public hearing Jan. 30.

On the other side of the "cuts" equation there’s LB 970. It was introduced by the chairperson of the Legislature’s Revenue Committee, Sen. Abbie Cornett, on behalf of Governor Heineman. The proposal has three facets. It would reduce the individual state income tax by lowering the tax rates and expanding the income brackets. It would reduce the top corporate income tax rate. And it would entirely repeal the inheritance tax, which is imposed on the beneficiaries of decedents’ estates and paid to the counties.

The fiscal note on LB 970 projects a drop in state revenue of $51.8 million for the budget year that ends June 30, 2013 and considerably more than that in out-years.

So, there is an interesting juxtaposition of proposals here. Cuts in medical-assistance spending on one hand; cuts in revenue on the other. It certainly seems to raise questions of whether or not the state can afford the tax cuts, or whether the cuts in medical assistance are really necessary and justified. What’s more, there are other pressing needs as well, such as child-welfare reform, meeting the needs of those with developmental disabilities and all components of education. Keep in mind, too, that last year the Legislature and the Governor agreed to ear-marking some General Funds for construction and maintenance of highways and roads.

It all boils down to decisions about priorities. These are tough decisions for the policy makers, which they will confront between now and mid-April. Stay tuned.

And finally…..

After about four hours of floor debate last week, LB 276, proposing to repeal the death penalty and replace it with imprisonment for life without parole, moved quietly to the side of the road, so to speak. Most likely it won’t be on the Legislature’s agenda any more this session. Regrettably, the votes aren’t there to pass it.

As long as the desire for revenge is a greater motivation for lawmakers and their constituents than a desire for effective justice and true concern for victims, legal authority for state-imposed killing of convicted murderers—answering violence with violence—will remain in place.

Religious Liberty Concerns Exist in Nebraska

February 17, 2012

Issues of religious liberty and freedom of conscience are not exclusive to federal policy actions. There are state-level examples as well.

Norris-Led ‘Experiment’ Marks 75th Anniversary

January 20, 2012

As one of the early, official acts of their 2012 session, Nebraska lawmakers overwhelmingly passed Legislative Resolution 362, recognizing Jan. 5 of this year as the celebration of the 75^th anniversary of the Unicameral Legislature.

It was on that date in 1937, that U.S. Senator George Norris missed the opening of Congress in order to address the first members of the first Unicameral. Norris’s speech emphasized the opportunity those legislators had to expand the horizons of representative government through the innovative device of a unicameral. It was a concept he championed—the "Nebraska Experiment"—believing that a one-house system would curb abuse of conference committees and promote transparency in government proceedings. His concept also included election of the legislators on a nonpartisan ballot.

Nebraska voters had approved the idea at the General Election in 1934. Thereby, Nebraska became the first and only state with a one-house legislature. That’s still fact.

Norris represented Nebraska for five terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, from 1903 through 1912, and then for five terms in the U.S. Senate, from 1913 through 1942. Three of his famous undertakings were sponsorship of legislation creating the Tennessee Valley Authority (1933), which enabled dam construction on the Tennessee River to control flooding and general low-cost electricity; legislation creating the Rural Electrification Act, which brought electricity to rural areas throughout the country and ensured public ownership of the power generation and delivery system; and the Norris-La Guardia Act, which was a boon to working men and women throughout the nation.

Norris died in McCook in 1944. A law enacted in 1981 already designates Jan. 5 of each year as George W. Norris Day. In addition, in 1984, the Legislature’s chamber at the State Capitol was named in his honor.

Transitional Program Helps with Pre-Existing Conditions

The fate of federal health care reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, is "up in the air" to say the least. It’s the law, but it’s under significant legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear and decide at least some of the constitutional issues. The Act might survive. It might fail in part. It might collapse in total. It could be that. Justice Anthony Kennedy controls the fate, as he once again appears to be the swing vote on a major issue. Stay tuned.

Parts of the Act are already operative. One such part is the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). Available since July 2010, it provides a health care coverage option for children and adults throughout the country who otherwise are denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. Currently in most states, private health insurance companies can refuse to insure an individual for that reason.

Nebraska is one of 23 states in which the plan is federally operated.

In order to be eligible to enroll in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, an individual has to be a citizen or national of the U.S. or reside here legally. He or she has to have been without health care coverage for at least the last six months. And he or she must have a pre-existing condition or have been denied coverage because of a health condition. The latter two criteria are state-law determinations.

Applicants who are approved as eligible can choose from three plan options, with different levels of premiums, calendar-year deductibles, prescription deductibles and prescription co-pays. One option is a Health Savings Account. Each option covers preventive care at 100 percent, with no deductibles.

PCIP covers a range of health benefits, including primary and specialty care, hospital care, and prescription drugs. There are no waiting periods for coverage to kick in after its effective date, even if it’s to treat a pre-existing condition. There is no lifetime maximum or cap on the amount of covered health care. There is provider choice.

For PCIP/Nebraska, premiums range from $132 per month to $568 depending upon the age of the insured and the coverage option selected. For example, the potential premium for a 50-year-old under the standard plan is $303. The maximum a Nebraska participant can pay out-of-pocket for covered services in a calendar year is $5,950 in network and $7,000 out-of-network. Nebraska’s provider network includes more than 6,700 physicians, 460 pharmacies and 73 hospitals throughout the state.

The current PCIP program is considered transitional; to last until 2014. Then, if what is scheduled to happen survives the legal storm, insurers will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to individuals with any pre-existing condition.

More information about the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is available at www.pcip.gov. Click on "Find Your State" to learn how it works in Nebraska.

And finally… Nebraska’s 49 legislators are paid a salary of $12,000 a year. That’s been the salary since 1988. It’s in the state constitution. It’s unreasonably low. On the second day of this session, Senator Scott Lautenbaugh from Omaha introduced a legislative resolution (LR373CA) proposing to place before the voters in November an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution that would boost the salary to $32,000 per year. There might be enough support to move something less than that to the ballot.

Legislature’s New Session Has Carry-Over Bills

January 6, 2012

When he met in October with Italy’s interior minister, Pope Benedict XVI described civic leadership as having "an almost sacred character." "Therefore," the Pope stated, "it must be exercised with great dignity and a deep sense of responsibility."

Those values the Pope emphasized—dignity and responsibility—would certainly seem to be highly regarded standards for all contexts of the exercise of temporal authority. For instance, they come to mind in the context of the second session of the 102^nd Nebraska Legislature, newly underway at the State Capitol, having convened on Jan. 4 for up to 60 days of lawmaking.

Fortunately for Nebraskans, dignity and responsibility prevail far more often than not when the Legislature is doing its business.

The second regular session of each Nebraska Legislature—the "even-year" session"—has legislation available for action right from its opening gavel. This is due to the fact that legislation not finally decided during the first year of a Legislature—always odd-numbered years—"carry over" to the ensuing year. Legislative bills introduced in 2011, but neither passed nor indefinitely postponed, began this session at the stage of the process they were at when that first session ended.

Approximately 400 legislative bills (also including a few substantive resolutions that are addressed procedurally as bills) carried over from 2011 to this year. The total includes 38 bills that are on "General File," which is the first stage of floor debate by the body as a whole. The session started with seven bills at the second stage, "Select File," and one held on Final Reading. The other 350 or so carry-over bills are under the jurisdiction of the committee to which they were assigned. Every one of these bills was the subject of a public hearing conducted last year by the respective committee.

While there is carry-over legislation to work on, new legislation is being introduced as well. Once the committees begin holding public hearings on these newly introduced bills, the legislators will spend mornings in floor sessions and afternoons in their committee assignments.

With the foregoing information as background, what’s an example of a carry-over bill that is likely to attract early attention?

Perhaps it will be LB 276, which proposes to repeal the death penalty as punishment for aggravated first-degree murder. It would replace execution with imprisonment for life without parole, subject only to the constitutionally-established authority of the Board of Pardons—three elected statewide office-holders: Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State— to commute life sentences to specific terms.

LB 276 had a public hearing last March 4 and was subsequently advanced to the full Legislature, i.e., General File, by a 6-2 vote of the Judiciary Committee. It was not designated a priority bill, so it received no action and remained on General File.

While it may be doubtful that LB 276 would have enough support—not just to advance and pass with 25 votes, but to reach 30 in order to override an almost-certain veto by the Governor, the debate nonetheless would be worthwhile.

In addition to the longstanding policy arguments relating to capital punishment, as well as new data and information, there are two other, more specific aspects we hope draw attention and comment if this debate occurs.

First and foremost would be more information and more probing about the messy situation Nebraska has been in regarding acquisition of drugs to carry out a lethal-injection execution. Whether Nebraskans, including the legislators, view this quagmire as a prevailing reason, or yet another reason, to repeal the death penalty, or not, this matter ought to be thoroughly scrutinized as a matter of legislative record.

Secondly, we hope there would be some expression of concern about what happened at the Republican presidential-candidate debate in California in early September. As part of his introduction of a question about the death penalty, national newsman Brian Williams, serving as the moderator, mentioned the candidate’s (Texas Governor Rick Perry) record of authorizing 234 executions in a little more than 10 years. The audience burst into clapping and cheering. It was a chilling reaction to such a somber reality. How does it reflect on society? How would both defenders and opponents of the death penalty explain it? Such questions are ripe for discussion.

And finally.... The Unicameral Legislature, which consists of 49 state senators, has two new members in 2012. They fill vacancies that occurred since the 2011 regular session concluded. District 33 office holder, Senator Dennis Utter from Hastings died Dec. 27. He served admirably, as a competent and dedicated legislator, who made valuable contributions to legislative outcomes. His replacement had not yet been appointed as of the first day of the new session. Senator R. Paul Lambert, from Plattsmouth, was appointed by Governor Heineman on Oct. 7 to replace Dave Pankonin, who resigned as the legislator for District 2. Senator Lambert had a "baptism by fire," as his service began in time for November’s special session on the pipeline issues.