James Horsley, Published June 04 2011
Gov. Dayton’s vetoes reveal his definition of ‘inclusive’Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton’s veto of four bills discloses just how democratic the governor is. But possibly he has not gone far enough. Possibly, in the spirit of being even more democratic, he should consider encouraging the introduction of four other bills that would carry out his philosophy to its logical conclusion.
For instance, in vetoing a bill that would ban gay marriage by a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a women, Dayton commented that such a bill was “mean-spirited, divisive, and un-Minnesotan.” Possibly he should consider a bill that would be more inclusive, such as a bill that would allow a person to marry his pet or his toaster. I am not sure that would be more Minnesotan, but it would certainly be more liberal.
He vetoed the bill sponsored by Sen. Gretchen Hoffman, R-Vergas, that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. That bill claimed a fetus can feel pain at that stage of development. Possibly a bill that would require a fetus at 20 weeks gestation be administered anesthesia prior to the surgical procedure would be appropriate.
However, it’s possible he is right when he says that such a bill “infringes upon a woman’s basic right to health and safety.” Perhaps a bill that would ensure females at all stages of life the basic right to health and safety should be passed, with one of those stages being the fetal stage.
Or if he means only mature women as having the basic right to health and safety, then perhaps termination of the life of a child in utero, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, could be extended to ex utero, also. Say a woman’s mental health could be impaired by a child at a fetal stage near the end of gestation, say the 35th week of pregnancy. Why stop there? Why not one week after delivery? Why not a bill that would provide for the termination of a post-partum life at, say, up to the second week if it is so determined that having this child would be harmful to her mental health?
And what about the divisive bill that would require a photo ID for voters? Let us scrap photo IDs altogether and eliminate them from driver’s licenses. And as far as that goes, national sovereignty is really mean-spirited, for it excludes others. Let all and everyone in whatever numbers come across our borders. Since we don’t want to enforce our laws against illegal immigration, we should legalize the practice of winking at the law and drop such exclusive requirements as visas and passports necessary to enter our country.
We could have a sign over all entrances to our nation: “Welcome to America: The Land of Open Minds, Open Borders, Open Marriages and a Woman’s Right to Openly End Her Child’s Life.”
If Dayton sponsored such bills, he would simply be logically carrying out the intent of his vetoes.