"Mark of the Beast" Bill Passes House, 88-9

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Wow. Just wow.
HB 53 Human tracking devices; unlawful use thereof by insurer or employer. floor: 02/10/10 House: VOTE: --- PASSAGE (88-Y 9-N 1-A)

YEAS--Abbitt, Abbott, Albo, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Athey, BaCote, Barlow, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Bulova, Byron, Carr, Carrico, Cleaveland, Cline, Cole, Comstock, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Cox, M.K., Crockett-Stark, Dance, Edmunds, Englin, Garrett, Gear, Gilbert, Greason, Griffith, Herring, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Iaquinto, Ingram, James, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, Keam, Kilgore, Knight, Kory, Landes, LeMunyon, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Lohr, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, McClellan, Merricks, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Morefield, Morgan, Nixon, Nutter, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Phillips, Pogge, Poindexter, Purkey, Putney, Rust, Scott, E.T., Scott, J.M., Sherwood, Sickles, Spruill, Stolle, Tata, Torian, Toscano, Villanueva, Ward, Ware, R.L., Watts, Wright, Mr. Speaker--88.

NAYS--Brink, Ebbin, Hope, McQuinn, Morrissey, Plum, Surovell, Tyler, Ware, O.--9.


NOT VOTING--Shuler--1.
I can't wait to hear the explanations from Democratic delegates - with the exception of Brink, Ebbin, Hope, McQuinn, Plum, Surovell, Tyler and Ware - as to why they voted "yea" on this. Just. Can't. Wait.

UPDATE: Courtesy of NLS, here's Bob Brink speaking against this bill.

UPDATE #2: Here's David Englin's reasoning on his support for this bill.
Most of the time, the law is stuck playing catch up on technology and ethics issues, and this is one time when we have an opportunity to deal with such an issue before it becomes a problem, rather than getting twisted in knots trying to fix something after the fact. I could care less what put this issue on Cole's radar, but the fact of the matter is that this technology exists and you can bet that some corporation somewhere is trying to figure out how to profit from it. Therefore, as a matter of public policy, prohibiting an employer from requiring an implant is completely reasonable. This is something that any civil libertarian should support.

Additionally, there are many religious traditions -- including my own -- that oppose anything seen as defiling the human body. (There are Orthodox Jews who won't even pierce their ears.) That is another good reason to oppose, as a matter of public policy, allowing an employer to require such an implant as a condition of employment.

Finally, as a matter of personal philosophy, I try to approach faith-based arguments with a dose of humility. People who proudly cut off their sons' foreskins (the one "kosher" body modification) should not be too judgmental about people who believe in virgin birth, practice symbolic cannibalism, and, in some cases, fret about the Mark of the Beast. Therefore, the mere fact that some people view in (what you and I may consider to be) bizarre religious terms what is essentially a question of technology and ethics is not reason enough for me to dismiss the idea out of hand.