Friday 3/31/2006 DAILY NEWS DIGEST

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/114380075766940.xml&coll=2 – Summary of yesterday’s legislative activity.

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060330/APN/603301075&cachetime=5 – Legislature gives final approval to Sentencing Commission bills.

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060330/APN/603300765&cachetime=5 – Compromise reached on “unborn child” bill.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060331/NEWS/603310337/1001 – Landlord-tenant bill goes to Riley for signature.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060331/OPINION01/603310310/1012/OPINION – Editorial urges Governor’s approval of landlord-tenant act.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060331/NEWS/603310305/1012/editorial1 – Editorial in support of income tax reform measure, expresses hope that this is first step toward comprehensive reform.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060331/NEWS/603310306/1012/editorial1 – Editorial speculates that constitutional reform, although delayed this year, “may yet prove to be the long-distance champion of issues in the Alabama Legislature.”

http://www.oanow.com/servlet/… (Opelika-Auburn News) – Editorial sees proposed child restraint bill as “not practical in the real world.”

FROM TODAY’S ANNISTON STAR:

EDITORIALS

Lawmakers and a certain natural law

In our opinion
03-31-2006

As we have noted on numerous occasions, of all the laws governing legislation passed down in Montgomery, the most important (and the one most often ignored) is the “law of unintended consequences.”

That is a natural law, as certain as laws of gravity and motion, that says that no matter what the intended purpose of a piece of legislation, once it is passed the consequence will be otherwise.

For example, our Legislature has been working on two matters that, on the surface, have little to do with each other.

The first, a bill that gives our citizens a wider range of options when they want to shoot someone to protect home or automobile, has passed and is going to the governor, who reportedly will sign it.

Opposition to the measure was pretty weak. We love our guns. We love our homes. We love our cars. Few legislators were bold enough to suggest that a person should be restrained from opening fire willy-nilly if they feel person or property is threatened.

More controversial is legislation that would add criminal penalties if a pregnant woman is killed or assaulted or if she miscarries as a result of an assault. Up till now, most of the debate on this has centered on the status of the fetus as a “person” and whether criminalizing harm to the unborn would eventually make abortion illegal in the state.

The chances are better than good that a bill upping the penalty for attacking a pregnant woman will pass and be signed into law.

Which raises the question, what if a pregnant woman breaks into your house and you shoot her? The state says you can.

But what if your use of deadly force to protect home and hearth results in the death of the fetus she is carrying?

Does this mean that you will be arrested for harming the unborn even though you were well within your rights as a citizen to protect yourself from the pregnant person?

Or does this mean that if the mother commits a crime, the fetus is guilty as well?

Which might lead some to suggest that the fetus does not have rights and responsibilities apart from those possessed by the mother.

Which might lead some to suggest that our legislators have, once again, forgotten about the law of unintended consequences.

It might.