Controversial, and likely unconstitutional urine testing measure HB 1076 in committee tomorrow.

House Bill 1076, a bill to blanket pee-test food stamp recipients which has been held as unconstitutional in Florida, has the first hearing for the measure in front of the House Health and Human Services committee tomorrow morning at 7:45 AM in room 412 of the State Capitol.

The controversial bill, which is criticized yet again in the Rapid City Journal this morning, is being heard in a committee the prime sponsor, Lynn DiSanto, sits as part of. 

Watch for this hearing to be good political theater. It’s a hotly contested topic and we’ll get to hear its sponsors try to argue that the expansion of government and assumption of ‘guilt until innocence is proven’ is somehow a conservative principle.

11 thoughts on “Controversial, and likely unconstitutional urine testing measure HB 1076 in committee tomorrow.

  1. Anonymous

    — blanket pee-test food stamp recipients

    What’s a “blanket pee-test”? Everyone gathers around and collectively pees?

    –that the expansion of government and assumption of ‘guilt until innocence is proven’ is somehow a conservative principle.

    This point has been roundly shown to be irrelevant to entitlement programs like TANF & SNAP.

  2. Springer

    Why is it unconstitutional or against conservative principles to make sure that people receiving taxpayer dollars really need them? If they have money for drugs, they have money for other things too.

    Next you will say that requiring an ID to vote is wrong because it is also assuming “guilt until innocence is proven.”

    1. Anonymous

      Or as I pointed out elsewhere:

      Isn’t requiring a written, eye, hearing, and driving tests (and paying for them) in order to obtain a drivers license assuming “guilty before innocence is proven”?

      Isn’t requiring proof that one is looking for a job (and paying for those expenses) in order to receive unemployment benefits assuming “guilty before innocence is proven”?

      Isn’t requiring proof that a second person is involved in order to obtain a marriage certificate assuming “guilty before innocence is proven”?

      Isn’t requiring proof that one is eligible to work in the US (I-9, green card, passport) in order to obtain a gov’t job assuming “guilty before innocence is proven”?

      His mantra has been roundly discredited.

    2. fretwalker

      “Why is it unconstitutional or against conservative principles to make sure that people receiving taxpayer dollars really need them?”— Doesn’t matter, DiSanto on her FB has now decided the reason for the testing is because it is a “deterrent” to drug use…..She is using this issue at an attempt to pander and has clearly shown she is not equipped to play that game.

  3. PorterLansing

    -Springer, you shallow plow. It’s unconstitutional because a Federal appeals court said it is.
    -Next … you have no idea what’s next and assuming makes one an ass.
    – Anonymouses Everywhere … Answering your four moot assertions. NO NO NO NO. None of those are an assault on human rights (as determined by court decision) like forcing a person to surrender bodily fluids without probable cause.

    1. Anonymous

      Porter Lansing as pointed out earlier you use the same old Liberal playbook sounding like a Parrot. Quit smoking that crap. It dulls the mind and any motivation. There must be a number of places to get help there in Colorado. Put more effort, be more creative and drop all that anger in your postings. It may bring more stimulating responses rather than being ignored, laughed at or quickly dismissed.

  4. Springer

    Porter, resorting to name calling demonstrates that your argument is shallow. But I think most everyone on here knows your true depth.

    1. Anonymous

      You object to Porter’s use of the term “haybilly”? I think he’s never seen a bale of hay, and by the looks of him, he’s certainly never thrown any into a haymow.

    2. Anonymous

      Mr. Lansing didn’t call you a name. Shallow plowing is an action performed by a farmer. You just don’t understand the euphemism he used to describe you. Oh, I do wish you would find your way out of that wet paper bag. You’ve been in it far too long.