Our friends at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) have this interesting article, Antievolution bills on the New Hampshire horizon, which informs us, with our bold font:
Antievolution bills are on the horizon in New Hampshire. Included on a list (PDF) of legislative service requests dated June 14, 2011, are two requests to have antievolution bills drafted for the 2012 legislative session. LSR 2012-H-2176-R, submitted by Jerry Bergevin (R-District 17), asks for a bill “requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools as a theory”; LSR 2012-H-2320-R, submitted by Gary Hopper (R-District 7), asks for a bill “requiring instruction in intelligent design in the public schools.”
What’s going on here? The state of New Hampshire has a legislative peculiarity known as “Legislative Service Requests” (LSRs). The legislature’s website says: “A Legislative Service Request is when a legislator makes a request for the drafting of a bill.” After Googling around a bit, it seems that that a LSR is the world’s first clue that a legislator is considering introducing a bill, which will be prepared by the legislature’s administrative staff. We’re not sure, but we think the drafting is done by the Office of Legislative Services. When the bill is drafted and approved by its sponsor, it then gets filed and the text becomes available.
Probably all state legislatures have professional staff for this function. But in New Hampshire the public gets early notice of what the staff has been requested to draft, well before the bills are filed and they start going through the process of committee hearings, etc. So it’s an early warning system. In this case it’s for the 2012 legislative session.
Who are the legislative geniuses making these requests of the staff? Here’s the official page for Jerry Bergevin of the House of Representatives. That link is quirky and doesn’t give much information anyway, but merely from the existence of his LSR for a bill “requiring the teaching of evolution in public schools as a theory,” we pretty much know enough. Oh, wait — here’s his campaign website. It doesn’t tell us anything. He’s a clean slate.
The other legislator is Gary Hopper. His page at the legislature’s website is also barren of information; and like the other one it’s also quirky. But this website says he’s a mold maker. That sounds like an honorable trade. He’s the one who wants a bill “requiring instruction in intelligent design in the public schools.”
The New Hampshire legislature is scheduled to adjourn on 01 July, so nothing’s going to happen this year with these two bill requests. We’ll have to wait for the 2012 session to see what their bills look like. If we learn anything more, we’ll let you know.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
That’s not even as thinly veiled as other relatively recent antievolution bills. And, if I’m not mistaken, wasn’t the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools deemed unconstitutional in Kitzmiller v. Dover? I could be wrong, I’m only a kid, but if so, wouldn’t that make the bill that Hopper wants unconstitutional as well?
Caleb says:
Absolutely.
The Dover Case was argued before a US district court in southern Pennsylvania. It is not absolutely controlling, except in that district. That said, Judge Jones wrote his opinion extremely carefully, and it will undoubtedly be regarded as a strong precedent at least, in other districts. So Hopper’s bill is not automatically unconstitutional, as it would be if the case had been argued before the supreme court.
TGIANAL
Is there a point of contact that we can reach these clowns at? I would like to bring the full power of science to bear on these IDiots and explain to them that what they are doing is not only downright wrong.
Ugh, need an edit function… (I forgot to say that I am getting a 404 when I click your links.)
Mold making is an honorable trade. I would consult Mr Hopper in a nanosecond if I needed expert advice on making vases, for instance. But not so much regarding the science education of my child. (@Bob Carroll: Thank goodness for Google! I never would have figured out what TGIANAL means…)
shucks, magpie, I stuck the TG on by myself, bored with the old IANAL bit. Had I but known (or perhaps HIBK) IWNHHTTTSANN.
Sorry for the delay, Bob Carroll. The filters are fussy. It must have been a letter-sequence in your comment.
@BC:
?? – Um, Had I But Known…
…I Would Not Have Had To Take The Streetcar At Nuckolls, Nebraska?
Dammit. Not New Hampshire. I like New Hampshire. This thing is like a fungus. It spreads and when you think you’ve gotten rid of it one place, it pops up somewhere else.
I’ll go out on a limb here and predict neither bill will ever go anywhere in NH.
Two things to keep in mind about the NH legislature:
1) a legislator can file any bill he wants — there’s no need to get a “mother may I” from leadership to file a bill. Thus, there’s all manner of weird stuff that gets filed every year but which never goes anywhere, as it generally needs an affirmative vote in committee to get it on to the floor for full consideration. Most silly stuff dies in committee, as it gets deemed “inexpedient to legislate” — the official kiss of death signaling the full house to not bother taking it up.
2) another quirk of NH legislative tradition is for legislators to file bills at the request of constituents. It is possible for a legislator to file a bill he may not personally endorse, merely as a constituent service for someone in his district. (the legislator/constituent ratio is large enough in NH for this to be viable. )
While the GOP currently controls both houses of the NH legislature by veto-proof margins, the fundies are not a large segment of the total, and thus I doubt very much either of these bills will make it out of committee, let alone pass on the floor.
But it is worth keeping an eye on……
BTW, if you use the link to the NH legislature page, you need to search for the member’s name to get their info — it’s there.
Hopper represents Weare — a rural town; Bergevin represents several wards in the city of Manchester.
Caleb: “And, if I’m not mistaken, wasn’t the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools deemed unconstitutional in Kitzmiller v. Dover?”
Not being a lawyer, I’m not sure how binding it is, but Judge Jones made sure to include the “replacement scams” along with ID in his ruling. Which means that those merely wanting to teach the “strengths and ‘weaknesses'” of evolution might also have a hard time in the courts given this precedent. I hope that’s the case, because scams like S&”W” are even more misleading than teaching ID or creationism. At least teaching the latter directly risks exposing the real weaknesses. S&”W” is nothing but a well-crafted scam to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution. Whereby students can and do infer any mutually-contradictory fairy tale their hearts desire.
Frank J says: “Not being a lawyer, I’m not sure how binding it [Kitzmiller] is”
It’s not binding outside of Judge Jones’ area, but there’s more going on here than a decision from an appellate court (which Kitzmiller wasn’t) or the US Supreme Court. To begin with, people behave illegally notwithstanding Supreme Court rulings. Binding precedents come into play only when there’s litigation, and the judge follows the established law (at least he should). For example, after Edwards v. Aguillard, Louisiana ought to know creationism isn’t going to fly, but they keep trying.
What’s really so powerful about Kitzmiller is the facts that came out in that case. Big-time advocates of intelligent design (like Behe) testified under oath, and their arguments were utterly shredded. The facts that came out in that case exist not just in the jurisdiction of Jones’ court, but everywhere, and only Casey Luskin refuses to accept this. That is why, when school boards seek the advice of their attorneys, they always abandon their plans to teach intelligent design. And that’s why I answered Caleb as I did. If New Hampshire passes such a law, it’s going to be a nullity. But it’ll take another court case to establish that.
If New Hampshire passes such a law, it’s going to be a nullity. But it’ll take another court case to establish that.
I’m not sure what that means, SC.
Let’s say New Hampshire passes the first bill, requiring the teaching of evolution “as a theory”, which we all know is code, with a nod and a wink, for undermining Darwin and spreading doubt about science. Are you saying that it will take another court case of Dover-like proportions to establish the unconstitutionality of teaching the so-called “strengths and weaknesses”?
Science by its very nature already encourages critical thinking. It doesn’t need legislation to enforce that. But there’s no concrete law against innuendo and subversion that I know of. (It would be difficult to prove, anyway.) Is that where is all this “teach both sides” and “teach the controversy” talk is headed – to the courts?
magpie61 says:
I wasn’t clear. I should have specified the other proposed bill, the one that requires teaching intelligent design.
Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture
by David Buckna (June 26, 2011)
[spam link deleted]
It seems there’s an IDiot in our midst, peddling the same shopworn wares. How novel. Did you have something original to contribute, David?
As a NH resident, I can assure you that while some kooky bills have not passed, some have, and we cannot count on the “grownups” (the State Senate) balancing the “Kindergarteners” (the House.) Speaker O’Brien has so bullied some normally reasonable GOP members that one GOP Rep. has filed a LSR prohibiting bullying in the State House.
Each time I think they have reached the apex of outrageousness, they proceed to outdo themselves again.
magpie61 asks:
He doesn’t, and he won’t be back.
you get the best scientific understanding not listening the critiques and deficiencies of Darwinian evolution theory. bass
@dodo: I can’t parse your sentence and make it understandable. You seem to be missing some words. Care to try again?