If you recall the measure I derided earlier as being contrary to principles of compassionate conservatism, as well as a unprecedented expansion of government oversight into our lives, it has now been assigned a bill number, and has been introduced as House Bill 1076.
HOUSE BILL NO. 1076
Introduced by: Representatives DiSanto, Brunner, Campbell, Craig, Greenfield (Lana), Latterell, Marty, May,Qualm, Rasmussen, Schrempp, Verchio, Werner, and Wiik and Senators Olson, Ewing, Greenfield (Brock), Jensen (Phil), Omdahl, Rampelberg, and Shorma
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for drug testing for certain assistance applicants. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
Upon application for temporary assistance for needy families or for the supplemental nutrition assistance program, the Department of Social Services shall test each adult applicant under sixty-five years of age for the illegal use of controlled substances if the applicant is otherwise eligible for benefits. If the applicant tests positive for the use of a controlled substance that was not prescribed for the applicant by a licensed health care provider, the applicant is ineligible to receive benefits for a period of one year. The applicant shall pay the cost of the drug test.
Section 2. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
An applicant aggrieved by this Act is entitled to an administrative hearing to determine the validity of the test and to contest the decision to deny benefits.
Has my opinion of this measure changed since I penned my objection to it a couple of days ago?
Not one iota.
If as a state, we’re going to have a program of this nature to provide temporary help, you don’t need to kick them in the face before you lift them up. Having to go to the state for assistance is bad enough.
I was surprised to read on the Internet that the prime sponsor of this measure, Rep. DiSanto, was trying to justify it by saying she’d been on public assistance at one time herself. According to the Daily Signal:
DiSanto, who herself received welfare assistance when she was a young single mother, argues that welfare recipients should not use taxpayer dollars to finance drug habits. She posted to her Facebook page Jan. 15:
…
I was a 20-year-old, single mom when my first son was born. I received welfare including food stamps, WIC and child care assistance. I worked full time and attended night classes during this time. I have all the respect for people who are utilizing these government safeguards to better themselves and become independent and self-supporting. However, if you can afford drugs you can afford food. The taxpayers do not need to subsidize your drug habit.
Wait, what?
Someone explain to me how we make the leap in logic from “I have all the respect for people who are utilizing these government safeguards” to “if you can afford drugs you can afford food.?” Because if DiSanto actually had any respect for them as she claims, why would she assume they ALL need to be tested for drug use?
By saying that we need to test them all, as I noted before, the measure embodies the ultimate expression of the intrusive nanny state in its most malevolent form as it creates more government, and a dangerous overreach of the authority of the state to intrude into our lives. We will literally be adding more bureaucracy for the purposes of government drug testing citizens of the state.
And it introduces a very, very dangerous concept that interactions with government should be prequalified based upon successfully passing a very fallible drug test. If there was any compassion or conservatism – as opposed to meanness and big government – in the interest of barring drug users we might consider principles that seem to be cast by the wayside in this instance.
You know, those principles handed down by our country’s forefathers, contained in the US Constitution and amendments known as The Bill of Rights. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way (From December of 2014).
A federal appeals court on Wednesday said a Florida law requiring applicants for welfare benefits to undergo mandatory drug testing is unconstitutional, a decision that could affect efforts to enforce similar laws in other states.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Florida did not show a “substantial special need” to test all applicants to its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program without any suspicion of drug use. The federally subsidized program was intended to help people pay for food, shelter and other necessities.
“By virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy,” Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for a three-judge panel. “If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on blanket government searches, we must – and we do – hold that (the law) crosses the constitutional line.”
Read that here. And if we look to the Congressional Research Service from March of this past year….
Based on the case law analyzed above, state or federal laws that require drug tests as a condition of receiving governmental benefits without regard to an individualized suspicion of illicit drug use may be subject to constitutional challenge. Drug tests historically have been considered searches for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. For searches to be reasonable, they generally must be based on individualized suspicion unless the government can show a special need warranting a deviation from the norm. However, governmental benefit programs like TANF, SNAP, unemployment compensation, and housing assistance do not naturally evoke the special needs that the Supreme Court has recognized in the past.
Read the Congressional Service Report here.
If we’re to keep with true conservative principles, including those principles in the US Constitution, it’s easy to see that the bill as proposed should not just be killed, but withdrawn entirely out of embarrassment.
If we’re to hold true to the ideal that people are innocent until proven guilty, the only way to properly trigger the limiting of benefits upon drug use is to consider legislation that affects recipients if they’re convicted of a drug crime. It’s a far better path than expanding the nanny state into unheard of authority.
I had mentioned before that utilizing an adjudication of a drug crime is how Montana limits TANF benefits for drug users, so there is strong precedent for it that isn’t going to run afoul of the constitution. Believe me, I hate drug users as much as, if not more than a lot of people. But executing everyone because you can’t find the guilty party is how they do it in dictatorships. You’re not guilty until proven innocent here. Not in South Dakota, and not in America.
House Bill 1076 needs to be withdrawn, or barring a sense of dignity or conscience, killed immediately. Because that’s not how we’re supposed to do it in this country. Period.
–Did anyone mention it’s unconstitutional?
Simply inaccurate. No one ‘s mentioned it because no one knows if it is. Such laws, and judicial decisions regarding them, have yet to reach the US Sup Ct.
One would have expected these gratuitous “do it for the children” and “don’t kick granny to the curb” appeals to emotion to come from whiney liberals, but
here?
— I hate drug users as much as, if not more than a lot of people
I don’t hate drug users, nor should any compassionate conservative or liberal or anyone in between.
I hate the ignorance that originates from misplaced and irrational concerns that anyone wants or intends or is legislating to throw grandma to the curb or wants to take food from the mouths of poor children. Utter nonsense; wholly unchristian; and lacking in any sense of compassion.
Russell didn’t sign on. He’s smart.
— Because if DiSanto actually had any respect for them as she claims, why would she assume they ALL need to be tested for drug use?
So “respect” means that you cannot be suspicious or investigate or question?
what?
RESPECT is earned, not given without question.
Use that complete deference the next time your kid demands keys to the car. What? Why the interrogation? You don’t RESPECT him????? How dare you!
So yeah, one can respect AND verify–they’re not exclusive terms.
We do it all the time, so enough of the faux outrage.
Why the DISRESPECT for Rep. DiSanto?? Why the baseless attacks on her sincerity and integrity?
She’s been there, done it. Give her the due she deserves and has earned. No everyone can sit in comfy chair and blog away while folks like her RESPECT the T of TANF and know what it takes to succeed.
Unconstitutional? Yes, Anon. Did you read Pat’s citation of the Florida case? Here, read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/politics/court-strikes-down-drug-tests-for-florida-welfare-applicants.html?_r=0
Or how about Michigan, 2003?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/us/law-requiring-drug-testing-of-welfare-parents-is-voided.html
Villainizing the poor won’t change the unconstitutionality of HB 1076.
Those are all appeals courts–not the US Sup Ct.
As the wannabe legal scholar, you should know that SD is not bound by appeals court decisions of the 6th & 11th circuits or any other circuit.
Until the US Sup Ct decides, the constitutionality remains unsettled.
We do appreciate your civility caheidelberger–unlike BJTJ.
Those are all appeals courts–not the US Supreme Court.
As the wannabe legal scholar, you should know that SD is not bound by appeals court decisions of the 6th & 11th circuits or any other circuit.
Until the USSCt decides, the constitutionality remains unsettled.
PS.
….any other circuit besides the 8th.
When it comes to personal protections against big government, the default GOP position should always be it’s unconstitutional irregardless of what Circuit has specifically ruled as such.
–When it comes to personal protections against big government, the default GOP position should always be it’s unconstitutional
–Nanny state pee-testing
TANF is a federally funded program largely administered by the state.
It’s already a nanny state, big government program!
1. So, since you’re all principled conservatives, why aren’t you arguing to do away with TANF completely since it’s a big government nanny state program?
2. If Utah’s experience is a guide (and no one has refuted the savings in Utah), drug testing TANF recipients would result in a SMALLER, more efficient program–REAL compassionate conservatism, right?
This isn’t about compassion or conservatism or unconstitutional-it’s largely about lazy & comfortable citizens full of hollow words about nanny state and compassion and unconstitutionality used to cover up their guilt about not doing much to alleviate real poverty. So many words of self-congratulations about all their compassion that don’t require actually DOING anything–just throw more money at dysfunction!
That’s not compassion.
That’s not conservatism.
That’s not Christian.
Even if they amended this bill to include testing those who are reasonably suspected of drug usage, it would meet the 11th Circuit’s necessary benchmarks. As with the 8th, it would likely stand as is. These types of programs actually save money when all those who never show up to scheduled drug tests or do not apply for benefits in the first place are factored into the savings. South Dakota should not be in the business of subsidizing drug usage no matter how misguided the compassion may be.
South Dakota should not be in the business of big government.
Simple compromise: Pee test the entire legislature on the first and last day of every week of session.
Drug testing legislators has been struck down by the US Supreme Court. Decades ago.
Technically, the issue was drug testing in order for a candidate to appear on the ballot, but the effect was/is the same.
Depending on the way it is worded it will be legal. The drafter(s) of the bill would need to show that the work of being a legislator is indeed a safety related position. When one works on legislation that will effect the safety and well-being of the residents of the State, they could, and I will place emphasis on the word could, show that it is a safety related position. They drug test bus drivers, truck drivers, air traffic controllers, train engineers, and others that hold security clearances, so why not legislators?
In the absence of SCOTUS precedent, the courts look to appeals court rulings for guidance. Would you anonymous scholars care to share any court precedent from any level upholding welfare drug tests?
— upholding welfare drug tests
We’re talking about TANF, genius.
Courts nationwide have upheld drug tests for TANF recipients as long as there is a reasonable suspicion.
Utah’s program (fro example) screened TANF applicants prior to tagging potentially addicted or addictive applicants for drug testing. In many cases, TANF applicants simply walked away after the drug test was requested–apparently not poor enough to take the chance!!!
You have proof, Andrew? Links to stories by mainstream media to prove your statement?
When I was in Pierre I strongly supported drug testing for TANF recipients. Now I consider that all small potatoes and a total distraction. My beef has shifted to those on the right of the aisle who enable a far far far greater waste of taxpayer money: $70 billion a year subsidising Wall St banks, 2 trillion to Fortune 500 companies stashing $ abroad to avoid taxes, and the various millions and billions down the drain in crony capitalism. And my Repub friends cry “let the free market work” when I propose a measure to keep out predatory lending but they somehow think corporate and corp. farm welfare is free market. I’ve changed my belief that the poor in America are our greatest free-loaders. Many more dollars go to the fat oinkers at the govt teat.
Mr. Hickey…How can it be the government teat if it was their money to begin with and they find ways to keep it out of the hands of the politicians?
Good point, JimV; the government is not in the business of making money-they would stink at it if they tried-and they rely on the Citizens to pay for their programs.
JimV bailouts, subsidies and corporate handouts are what I’m referring to here.
–Now I consider that all small potatoes and a total distraction.
It is small potatoes, but worthy of a sun-setted trial.
— My beef has shifted to those on the right of the aisle who enable a far far far greater waste of taxpayer money
You’re 100% right on that.
— I’ve changed my belief that the poor in America are our greatest free-loaders.
I’ve never held that view, although we ALL can re-evaluate our interactions with gov’t, what we can do to encourage liberty.
–Many more dollars go to the fat oinkers at the govt teat.
Amen–yet I see little if any shame in taking the easy lunch at the teat.
Steve,
Why don’t you work to find someone to replace Deb Peters in your district? She goes against your positions on most social issues.
Are you a Democrat member now, Mr. Hickey?
Representative Hickey, Why did you single out Republicans regarding corporate welfare, including that for the corporate farms? The Democrats are just as responsible for those things as the Republicans. For proof of that, one only has too look at our President’s actions and those of the Congress when it was Democrat-controlled. There are crony capitalists in both of the major parties.
I support the principle of not subsidizing drug use with money intended to meet critical family needs. My question is the price to not subsidize greater than the cost to subsidize?
1) I do not support forcing every applicant for these programs to take a drug test AND pay for it. Would we support a drug test and be willing to pay for the test to get a driver’s license, hunting license, go to school/college, apply for a student loan, etc.? The taxpayer’s subsidize those items as well. With a stroke of the pen, we could turn drug testing into huge industry. Would the diversion of people’s money to drug testing be worth it?
2) The anti-gun crowd says we should have a lot of requirements to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people and are willing to impose cost on law-abiding citizens. I reject that argument when asserted by gun control supporters. Why should I accept that argument when it asserted in the fight to stop drug abuse?
3) If instead the bill said, the State would pay for the drug test I would be more supportive of the effort because at least the innocent aren’t paying for the sins of drug users.
I assume the consensus is these benefits are deemed “sufficient” and not “excessive” to meet program objectives. If they are sufficient, having the applicant pay for the test just made the benefits “insufficient.” If the benefit level is “excessive,” might we not be money ahead to cut the level of benefits. Universal testing seems to be the worst of both worlds.
4) That said, as a taxpayer, I would need to see the quantification of the cost/savings analysis of universal testing to justify universal testing paid by the taxpayers. Employers who have the right to do universal testing in most cases but instead wait for cause as its total cost is deemed excessive as compared to the benefit. I question why this is economically efficient in this case and not other.
5) Finally, all of the above has to be put in the context what is the impact on children.
-Making the innocent pay for the test adversely impacts children as there is less money to meet needs.
-Taking away access to this program for drug users adversely impacts children even more. I’m a child of an alcoholic. I know the needs of the family always come second to the need to feed the addiction. I know all of these benefits might go to feed the addiction and not the children. But, some might slip through to the children. More importantly, take away all the funds and the children’s needs will be hurt first.
Thus, if the Legislature decides to go this way, I think the bill should include the following:
1) A failure of a drug test must be turned over to child protection services and they be given greater latitude to take action which includes removal of the child from the home if they deem it likely the child’s basic needs will not be met.
2) We commit the financial resources to beef up child protection services to handle the additional referrals and we beef up our foster care/”orphanage” capacity to handle the inevitable greater number of children permanently and temporarily taken from their homes.
3) We don’t punish the innocent by making them pay for the drug test. If it is deemed to be in the public interest/common good to have universal drug testing, let’s pay for it.
P.S. While I disagree with this bill as drafted and might still be so even if amended as I need to process the impact on these children, I do applaud Rep. DiSanto for raising the question. Just as Lindsey Graham made the fight against ISIS/radical Islam more prominent in the Presidential race/national discussion (especially before Paris/San Bernadino), Rick Santorum is similarly weaving every issue back to a discussion of the family as the core crisis in America.
While appropriate to look at issues on the macro level, no matter the issue (whether the government is doing too much, too little, the right thing or the wrong thing), change comes in small chunks with a lot of decisions made at all levels. DiSanto’s bill is just one such small chunk.
And, there is good asking the question is whether this is a change that leads to reform/improvement or its consequences are negative. Rep. DiSanto’s bill is making us talk about drug abuse, government programs designed to help families/children, and most importantly challenges facing our families and the children in those families. That is not “small potatoes.” In Rick Santorum’s eyes, it is THE WHOLE POTATO.
I think this is a highly offensive proposal. The studies have been done and show this is a waste of money. I don’t care how you try and twist the Utah results, I’ve read their reports and you will never convince me they saved any money.
Most of these people are down on their luck and truly need help. There are vast numbers of taxpayer beneficiaries that don’t NEED the help to survive yet no proposal to pee test them. This is no different than racism in my book. If you are poor enough to need benefits, then a cloud of suspicion or needing to earn someone’s trust hangs over you. If you were a person of color and we required the same thing we would outraged. If you make enough to not need benefits but receive many thousands or perhaps millions in taxpayer assistance, theses hurdles do not exist. The assumption made here is all poor people are lazy and/or spend all their money on drugs.
I’m ok with a few recipients slipping through that use drugs because unless you want to apply this same philosophy to our laws, we would live in a police state worse than North Korea.
And the governor agrees with you that it’s an offensive bill.
It seems legislators are continually proposing legislation year after year that will only open up South Dakota to potential lawsuits which would cost the taxpayers even more money. Very frustrating!
Anonymous 11:19:
I agree with our position but not your characterization of the proposal for these reasons:
1) Drugs and alcohol addiction wreak havoc on families. The impact is magnified in poor families (and on the children in these homes) such that it might result in kids actually not eating. The addiction is always the first thing fed by the addict.
2) It is right and appropriate the government target situations where the impacts are likely to be most severe. Children missing meals is something those who don’t need TANF are much less likely to experience. Would you prefer that the Legislature target rich families and rich kids problems as a consequence of chemical dependent parents? Or do you think in both cases, the Legislature should do nothing?
Rep. DiSanto has put this out there for consideration. Debate the merits but nothing is served by branding someone who is proposing an idea as a racist, prejudiced about poor people, etc. The breakdown of the family, especially in the lower economic rungs is catastrophic. What we have tried (unqualified aid without limit) has failed. We need new ideas.
Troy,
I will use the Utah case an example here. Supposedly over 250 people applied for benefits but when they discovered they had to do a drug test didn’t follow up. When people on here say they saved $350,000, they took those number of applicants times their benefit for one year to come up with that number. We don’t know why they didn’t follow up, we don’t know how many typically don’t follow up, but many want to assume they were users who didn’t want to get caught. Let’s go with that for a moment and assume there are families with kids getting denied benefits. How are they being helped in this case? Also in Utah, the 10 people who did test positive were required to enroll in drug treatment programs while also receiving benefits. A great idea I might add but one that isn’t cheap.
I don’t discount your argument that the poorest among us suffer when what little resources they have get pushed into drugs but the statistics show, and there are plenty out there, that recipients have a low use rate. Secondly, SNAP is the primary funding mechanism for food so Im not too worried about it getting hawked for cash and kids starving.
I stand by my comments that poor people are assumed to be drug addicts in this case and by no means is this proposed process worth the time and treasure.
The opposition (as expressed by the author and other commenters) to DiSantos’ proposal appears to be based on little more than being “offended” or an affront to “dignity”.
I suppose we should be thankful that the author has moved on from the liberal hysterics of “don’t take food from the mouths of babes/what about the children?” and “drug testing demented grandma in the nursing home”, to an actual focus on TANF, but what remains are self-serving words of faux compassion. Typically, folks scream about loving the poor and being respectful of the poor and respecting their dignity, all done with a keyboard, yet never rising from the comfortable chair to actually do anything about “the poor”.
We’ve witnessed at least 3 appeals on DWC for financial assistance to the Auggie young republicans. All is all well & good of course–but NEVER any mention on DWC of REAL opportunities to actually demonstrate that respect and dignity by getting out of the lazyboy to help the poor such as a Habitat build, or Special Olympics mentoring, working at the soup kitchen or food panty, visiting the nursing home just to listen or push someone around, or gently instructing these Auggie students that the money would be better spent staffing and supporting a SF food pantry–heck, they could even wear their inexpensive young republicans shirts while doing so.
Sorry, but I’ll believe the author’s demands and exhortations for dignity and respect for the poor and our lesser brothers when it’s backed with REAL action. Until then, Rep. DiSantos’ real life example and experiences should be RESPECTED, and should remind us that deeds truly matter; nice words of TANF support are of little comfort or value without action or experience and those spewing them to comfort themselves is horribly unchristian.
Excellent discussion of the issue even though the sponsor is merely seeking publicity and obviously has succeeded. Unfortunately she is not capable of securing its passage, but she sure as hell got her name in the paper. Should help her real estate business if nothing else.
Sometimes the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, but the fact remains she is nothing more than a publicity hound. There isn’t a sincere bone in her body. Right now she is riding on the extremist bandwagon until something better comes along.
–Should help her real estate business if nothing else.
What a despicable thing to write.
There is no evidence that she’s sponsoring this bill to garner publicity, or to generate business leads.
How ugly.
I think you need to be tested but for different reasons.
As expressed, you are an ugly person.
Have you ever looked in the mirror, Andrew? I’ve seen your picture, do you really want to pull at that thread?
Anonymous 5:19:
I think the FOR this bill is what it might save in unpaid benefits or the degree the money is used to buy drugs is not persuasive to me.
With regard to your statement “proposed process (isn’t) worth the time and treasure” is arguing its savings are too little to consider the bill, I also find that argument unpersuasive.
Any person who has lived with a person with an addiction has never said “government/friends/employers/society did too much to help a person with an addiction.” Never been said. Further, they lament most of the “help” provided did nothing but enable.
I guarantee you if I were an addict, the impact on my family would be significantly less than the impact on a child in a poor family. It is wholly appropriate for Legislators/government to target strategies to stop enabling addiction at families where the impact is most significant.
With regard to your statement that asserts “poor people are assumed to be drug addicts in this case,” I think that assumes too much. The link between poverty, child abuse, crime, etc. and addiction in the house is too strong to ignore. While I don’t support this particular remedy, I EXPECT my government to focus on drug addiction in poorer families (regardless of the numbers). The middle and upper incomes can fend for themselves.
That said, if your statement “this proposed process (isn’t) worth the time and treasure” is an argument that it distracts us from strategies that would be more effective, I agree with you.
Troy,
If you are arguing that this program would be a useful mechanism to find drug addicts and reform them we can agree on that. However the sponsors of this bill make the implication that this is a cost savings mechanism and an attempt to kick addicts out of the system. Again I would point to other states that have the similar legislation that shows statistically 2 to 3% of beneficiaries test positive compared to 8 to 9% of the general population.
I see no such proposals in this legislation that calls for rehabilitation.
Let me ask you this, do you agree with Trump’s assertion that Muslims should be profiled because a higher proportion of Muslims are terrorists?
Anonymous 6:48,
1). Knowing I don’t always communicate clearly. I find neither the argument program savings justify the bill or the argument the numbers are too small disqualify the bill persuasive either way. In fact, they both may sway they justify the opposite position.
2). Passing this bill is irrelevant to whether it includes or requires greater rehab options. The sufficiency of rehab options is immaterial if your low incidence numbers are true.
3). My views on profiling Muslims is irrelevant as those views neither affirm or discredit my arguments on this issue. For they to affect how you receive my arguments, by definition you would be committing one of two logic fallacies- argumentum ad hominem or its opposite.
What about the kids of the recipients? These kids are already dealt a rough hand and now, because Dad or Mom can’t pass a drug test, they do not even get a chance to rummage through (almost barren and probably not healthy choices) cupboards?
I don’t want to pay for somebody’s drug habit either, but let’s at least give the kids a chance.
Disanto is among the worst legislator in Pierre.
There are some really bad legislators in the capitol but few are as ego centric as she is.
There are some really good far right legislators in Pierre like most of them that signed on to this bill but they aren’t doing it to get attention. They actually believe in this.
Our little group is pretty conservative, and we don’t have a lot of sympathy for drug abusers, but this isn’t a good law. Take it back to the drawing board and focus in on those who waste their social support on meth, marijuana, and Red Bull energy drinks. I am just floored when I see an EBT transaction and it looks like a bender is set to occur rather than a wholesome family meal. Maybe we simply do away with the program all together and just expand WIC? At least there you are pushed to purchase healthy foods.
Focus on Red Bull energy drinks? Surely you can’t be serious. Sure, it contains caffeine but that ingredient is included in a great number of other beverages.
Sewing Ladies, did you pour too much vodka in your orange juice this morning? Next time, try Red Bull with vodka. It’s simply marvelous.
Do you ladies make good pancakes and sausage gravy for your meetings?
–I am just floored when I see an EBT transaction and it looks like a bender is set to occur
Neither TANF nor SNAP benefits can be used for alcohol. Now, most outlets will automatically block the sale of banned items, but some nefarious merchants will allow such purchases and they become well known among the ebt crowd. It takes the state a while to catch up to them, but the merchants are prosecuted for fraud.
TANF benefits can be converted to cash just like debit cards, and the cash used for whatever.
Those who believe in Christ also believe that those whom we once loved who have departed are in heaven. Whether children or spouses, we believe that they’re with the angels.
Based on some of the comments here, one must grieve at the tears that must be falling from heaven. Would your deceased child in heaven be proud of what he reads? Would your deceased spouse in heaven be proud of what she reads? How do you sleep at night after a day of countless words proclaiming your love of Christ while typing the nastiest things about people you’ve never met? What would those loved ones in heaven think? Have you any shame?
Matthew says:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. Matt 6:6
Or as Eric Clapton put it:
Would you hold my hand
If I saw you in heaven?
Would you help me stand
If I saw you in heaven?
I’ll find my way through night and day
‘Cause I know I just can’t stay here in heaven
Time can bring you down, time can bend your knees
Time can break your heart, have you begging please, begging please
Beyond the door there’s peace I’m sure
And I know there’ll be no more tears in heaven
Incline, O Lord, Your ear to my prayer, in which I humbly beseech Your mercy, that You would place the soul of Your servant, that has hardened with bitterness and hypocrisy, into the region of peace and light; and unite in the fellowship of Your Saints including our little children whom you cradle. Through Christ our Lord,
Are you BFFs with Anita Bryant? Did she provide you with this prayer while you two were baking banana cream pies for the homeless and sipping vodka or gin with a splash of Florida Orange Juice? You are an odd, odd duck.
Andrew Shiers,
To whom is your above admonition addressed? Pat, me, everyone who had the temerity to disagree with you?
By the way, you are of course free to bastardize any prayer you like. However, the prayer upon which you take it from is from a person of immense humility, one who wouldn’t deign to judge others interiorly or exteriorly (“bitterness and hypocrisy”) as it is a look to the I AM asking for Divine Mercy on another one who is fallen. Judgement is a call to Divine Justice which this prayer is actually a request for a preponderance of Mercy.
It’s amazing! It’s like rolling hillbilly thunder. It’s obvious from some comments here why a good chunk of the nation thinks we’re morons out here in South Dakota. .Though I do not agree with the bill, in our system our lawmakers have to the right both introduce legislation as well have a myriad of reasons for doing so. It’s not like she submits this damn thing tonight and it’s law tomorrow. It probably won’t pass-and shouldn’t-however let there be legislation. I agree that DWC has its own right to argue a point however Mr Powers always does so in an objective manner. Hardly can be said about some of the heartless and ill-mannered other comments by the readers though. The uneducated or critical thinking I see here lacking is a great example of why the founders sought to limit government to those elected to represent. The rest of us generally are part of a clumsy brute, rambling forward in an awkward and dangerous manner, led by blind emotional thrusting. I am all for one having an opinion however if it does no good other than to belittle or condemn I’d say keep your words or grunts or whatever they are for describing the newest bash of mash cooking down in the holler. I think there is a point where the business of both our state and nation require serious people willing to keep advancing our progress as a species.