| Subject: |
|
Re: ABATE OF LOUISIANA ISSUES URGENT NATIONWIDE CALL-TO-ACTION! |
| Name: |
|
GirlGeek |
| Date Posted: |
|
May 15, 08 - 11:13 AM |
| Email: |
|
girlgeekdel@aol.com |
| Message: |
|
from Shirley Vandever hide details 11:08 am (0 minutes ago)
to
abramson@legis.state.la.us,
larep021@legis.state.la.us,
armesj@legis.state.la.us,
larep102@legis.state.la.us,
auberte@legis.state.la.us,
larep100@legis.state.la.us,
badonb@legis.state.la.us,
larep053@legis.state.la.us,
barrast@legis.state.la.us,
larep029@legis.state.la.us,
billiotr@legis.state.la.us,
burfordr@legis.state.la.us,
burnsh@legis.state.la.us,
larep089@legis.state.la.us,
larep002@legis.state.la.us,
carmodyt@legis.state.la.us,
carters@legis.state.la.us,
champags@legis.state.la.us,
larep022@legis.state.la.us,
chaneyb@legis.state.la.us,
connickp@legis.state.la.us,
cortezp@legis.state.la.us,
cromerg@legis.state.la.us,
danahaym@legis.state.la.us,
dixonh@legis.state.la.us,
larep010@legis.state.la.us,
larep052@legis.state.la.us,
larep012@legis.state.la.us,
edwardsj@legis.state.la.us,
ellingtn@legis.state.la.us,
larep013@legis.state.la.us,
foilf@legis.state.la.us,
franklina@legis.state.la.us,
larep011@legis.state.la.us,
larep035@legis.state.la.us,
gisclait@legis.state.la.us,
larep066@legis.state.la.us,
larep040@legis.state.la.us,
larep041@legis.state.la.us,
guinnj@legis.state.la.us,
hardyr@legis.state.la.us,
harrisoj@legis.state.la.us,
hazelc@legis.state.la.us,
hendersr@legis.state.la.us,
henryc@legis.state.la.us,
hilld@legis.state.la.us,
hinesw@legis.state.la.us,
hoffmanf@legis.state.la.us,
ahoney@legis.state.la.us,
howardf@legis.state.la.us,
larep104@legis.state.la.us,
jacksong@legis.state.la.us,
larep061@legis.state.la.us,
johnsoro@legis.state.la.us,
jonesr@legis.state.la.us,
joness@legis.state.la.us,
larep016@legis.state.la.us,
larep036@legis.state.la.us,
larep081@legis.state.la.us,
larep096@legis.state.la.us,
larep059@legis.state.la.us,
lebasb@legis.state.la.us,
legerw@legis.state.la.us,
ligit@legis.state.la.us,
littles@legis.state.la.us,
lopintoj@legis.state.la.us,
larep094@legis.state.la.us,
larep099@legis.state.la.us,
larep062@legis.state.la.us,
larep046@legis.state.la.us,
monican@legis.state.la.us,
montoucj@legis.state.la.us,
larep097@legis.state.la.us,
larep001@legis.state.la.us,
nortonb@legis.state.la.us,
nowlinr@legis.state.la.us,
pearsonk@legis.state.la.us,
perryj@legis.state.la.us,
larep093@legis.state.la.us,
pontie@legis.state.la.us,
poper@legis.state.la.us,
pughs@legis.state.la.us,
richardj@legis.state.la.us,
richardc@legis.state.la.us,
larep101@legis.state.la.us,
larep075@legis.state.la.us,
larep045@legis.state.la.us,
royc@legis.state.la.us,
schrodej@legis.state.la.us,
simons@legis.state.la.us,
larep088@legis.state.la.us,
larep008@legis.state.la.us,
larep56@legis.state.la.us,
smithp@legis.state.la.us,
larep060@legis.state.la.us,
talbotk@legis.state.la.us,
templetr@legis.state.la.us,
larep031@legis.state.la.us,
larep086@legis.state.la.us,
larep18@legis.state.la.us,
larep005@legis.state.la.us,
larep064@legis.state.la.us,
larep004@legis.state.la.us,
willmott@legis.state.la.us,
larep105@legis.state.la.us
bcc svandever@gmail.com
date May 15, 2008 11:08 AM
subject HB 1295 - House Floor Amendments 3676, 3754, and 3794
mailed-by gmail.com
Honorable Representatives,
A series of spurious and malevolent amendments have been proposed to HB 1295, which provides for the repeal of the motorcycle helmet law.
In my view, these amendments are attempts to obfuscate the very merit of the original bill in an attempt to entangle it with uninformed and specious amendments. Time and time again it has been shown that helmet laws do not save lives. That will not change, despite the misguided attempts of others to claim otherwise.
These amendments are also discriminatory and unconstitutional, meant only to prolong debate even in light of their obvious ridiculousness. The blatant use of outrageous amendments in order to condemn a bill to obscurity is a well-known tactic. It certainly does not show Louisiana in a favorable light.
The most egregious of all is perhaps House Floor Amendment 3794, introduced by Representative Morrell which reads in part, "Any person … who is critically injured due to his failure to wear on his head a safety helmet … shall be deemed to have given his authority to be an organ donor pursuant to the Anatomical Gift Act".
Let me get this straight. If a motorcyclist is killed in a motorcycle accident, and was not wearing a helmet, that person is deemed to be an organ donor, regardless of any other wishes of this person to the contrary. This is an absolute outrage on two fronts. "…Critically injured due to his failure to wear…." is nearly impossible to prove. A rider is more than likely critically injured due to the negligence of another driver, not due to the failure to wear a helmet. One would have to prove that the lack of a helmet was directly responsible for the critical injury, or would have to prove a negative: that if the motorcyclist had worn a helmet that the critical injury would not have occurred. Both of these scenarios would snarl the legal system for years, and would have the potential of allowing negligent drivers to get off with minimal penalties irregardless of the nature of their offenses.
Amendment 3794 also claims to make a decision of a most personal nature for a deceased person. It is also contrary to Louisiana law. The Anatomical Gift Act states that a person who is "competent to execute a will" may make an anatomical gift. An option other than a will is any document "signed by the donor, in the presence of two witnesses". Obviously, a deceased person cannot make these decisions and it is the ultimate intrusion and indignity for the State to make this decision for him.
The two other amendments that have been proposed are 3676 and 3754. Both are objectionable for the many of the same reasons. House Floor Amendment 3676 (Abramson) would require that any person who "chooses not to wear a helmet" uninsured motorist and health insurance policies with minimum limits of $500,000 each. House Floor Amendment 3754 (Abramson) denies the motorcyclist the right to sue unless he can prove that the "helmet would not have prevented the injury or death".
Both of these amendments are discriminatory in that they apply only to motorcyclists. If you would apply the same conditions to those who ignore Louisiana's mandatory seatbelt law, you might have some constitutional standing, however imagine the outrage if this was actually proposed. The very nature of these amendments assumes irresponsibility on the motorcyclist's part, assigning accountability to them and them alone, ignoring the fact that the majority of accidents are caused by the negligence of the other driver.
You may wonder why someone from another State would even care what happens in Lousiana. Here in Delaware, we have the freedom to decide. It has been that way since the 1970's. As in all other States, mandatory helmet law or not, in some years the fatality rate goes up and in other years it goes down. The existence of a law has no bearing on the results. As a citizen, I am concerned about what happens in other States because I feel that motorcyclists are being targeted unfairly. This is a matter for all to be concerned with. Who will be next? Those pesky pedestrians?
In this instance, it appears that the actions of a misinformed few, with what appears to be no small amount of malice, are being made in the attempt to disallow the due consideration of this legislation as originally written. It is this kind of legislative tomfoolery that Americans everywhere are becoming quite tired of.
Your own Governor supports the repeal of mandatory helmet law. From what I have read, he has quite a reputation as a good, honest, and measured man. I urge that you take his lead and disregard the attempts of others to inject unconstitutional and discriminatory conditions on legislation that will simply restore the rights and freedoms of motorcyclists in Louisiana.
Sincerely,
Shirley Vandever
(Address, Phone) |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
Hi Bruce by Al & Dolly Salmi · May 16, 08 - 1:12 PM
|
|
|
Reply
Home
bravenet.com