s.1062 was introduced by the suggestion of the former director of corrections. This legislation simply prohibits the department of corrections from paying for operations to change an inmates gender. This is not a current practice, however, s. 1062 may prevent a serious problem in the future. The states that have had inmates sue for a sex-change operation are:
Virginia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Colorado, California, Idaho

There was one Federal case from a inmate in Mass. He/she/? sued first at the Mass. Dept. of Corrections 11 years ago and then again at the Federal level 2 years ago.

Also, Michigan was one state that saw this as a problem and passed a Sex Change Prevention Act in 2006, similar to s. 1062.

A spokesperson from the transgender community testified at the hearing this morning with the arguments of cruel and unusual punishment and the unconstitutionality of s.1062.

Simply put, the cruelty would be on the taxpayer footing the bill for theses procedures costing 10’s of thousands of dollars. Also, I’ve never been one to check with the local liberal activist judge for permission on every piece of legislation.

If we were to start paying for “Dan” to become “Danielle”, were would we house the inmate? How can we protect the scarce funds of the already least funded department in the U.S.?

a good video to explain how out of every $10 the US Government spends, $4 is borrowed.

Here is a visualization of the unfunded liability (debt) of the United States of America. The image to the right of the world trade center is a stack of $100 bills.

Visit http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/ for frightening word pictures

The massive bill that set up “Obamacare” had one useful provision: states could vote to opt-out of coverage for abortion.

Seeing this opportunity, SC Senator Larry Grooms introduced a bill (S.102) to do just that. But, pro-abortion Senators responded, placing a “minority report” on the bill. That means this important legislation is on page 26 of the Senate Calendar! The bill will stay there and will die thereif we don’t act now.

The only way to save the Opt Out bill is to “set it for Special Order.” A Special Order would require the Senate to take the legislation up and vote on it.

TUESDAY MORNING Senators will meet together to decide which bills should be set for Special Order. Your calls are needed OVER THE WEEKEND AND ALL DAY MONDAYto get S.102 up to bat.

Please contact your Senator’s office now. Leave a message asking him to set S.102 for Special Order on Tuesday, February 14. Otherwise, the new Obamacare exchanges could allow SC taxpayer dollars to pay for taking the lives of unborn children.

Thank you for your help!

NOTE: The “Take Action” button or other link below will send you to Palmetto Family’s Grassroots Action Center.

After logging in, the Action Center will take you directly to your Senator’s office telephone number. You need not speak to the Senator or even call during business hours. A message with an assistant or voice mail will let him know of your interest. It is best that you complete your call by 5 pm on Monday, February 13.

If you have used the Grassroots Action Center before, be sure to click on the words“Returning Users click here.”

Questions? (866) 733-5605

Please use the Facebook and email forwarding features
to share this urgent message with your friends!

Click the link below to log in and make your call:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/pfc/5zJPWqBP.aspx

I have spent today researching the issue of legislative oversight over how the executive executes the laws, and the vast majority of authorities, whether from a conservative or liberal perspective, agrees that such is a good thing and leads to less secrecy and more accountability to the public. There are many relevant links, but I refer you to this one as being representative of them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/project-on-government-oversight/dont-be-afraid-of-the-con_b_780819.html

In this piece, the Project on Government Oversight (founded in 1981, an independent non-profit organization in the United States which investigates and seeks to expose corruption and other misconduct. POGO assists whistleblowers and investigates federal agencies, Congress, and government contractors) says this:
“At the end of the day, [legislative] oversight should lead to a better functioning government that better serves the citizenry. On that note, we were heartened when California Republican Darrell Issa, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said, ‘I want to prove the pundits wrong. My job is not to bring down the president. My job is to make the president a success.’

“There is a smorgasbord of real issues in need of greater oversight that can help make the government a success. Just for starters, POGO would like to see the new Congress investigate:
The shadow government, which includes the legions of contractors who perform tasks many think should be performed by government employees and so-called Self-Regulatory Organizations like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA);
Effectiveness and scientific integrity in the FDA’s drug, medical device, and food safety regimes;
The General Service Administration’s perverse incentives to charge other government agencies more for contract services;
Troubled multibillion dollar weapons programs, such as the Joint Strike Fighter; and
Ethical lapses at the Bureau of Land Management, which is responsible for one-eighth of America’s landmass and the mineral resources that lie underneath.
“There’s no lack of scandal in each of these areas, but more importantly, oversight can do a lot of good for the American people, especially if it leads to improvements. Improving government ethics rules and enforcement, strengthening inspectors generals and other watchdogs, protecting whistleblowers, increasing transparency, and reducing conflicts of interest are just a handful of broad reforms that both sides of the political coin can agree on.”

In South Carolina, we are rightly concerned with legislative abuse of power, but in creating a new Department of Administration, which will correct at least some of that abuse, we must not neglect the possibility of executive abuse of power, and the legislature can and should play a role in checking such abuse and providing the public with better insight to how its government works.

Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., speaking to this issue, noted that “The power to make laws implied the power to see whether they were faithfully executed. The right to secure needed information had long been deemed by both the British Parliament and the colonial assemblies as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the people to legislate.” He also noted that Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise its legislative powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. Moreover, the US Supreme Court made legitimate the oversight powers of Congress on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the it found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress was considering a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.”

I think it would be inappropriate for the General Assembly to abdicated this role to the Legislative Audit Council. For one, such would be on an ad hoc basis, and there is a value to regular oversight. How can someone in the legislature ask for an investigation of executive abuse it he or she has no idea if it exists? Second, an LAC audit would not be public, and there is a value to having the oversight function be a public one.