Two Indiana Republicans want welfare recipients to pass drug tests before they can receive benefits.
Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, and Rep. Heath VanNatter, R-Kokomo, said they have asked statehouse staff to draft bills
that they plan to submit when lawmakers return for their 2012 session on Jan. 4.
"I can tell you there are an awful lot of people out there that want this thing done," Leising said Wednesday.
Other states including Missouri and Florida have pushed for the testing, but measures have run up against Fourth Amendment
protections against unreasonable search and seizure. At least one federal judge has placed a testing law on hold.
In Indiana, Leising wrote a bill earlier this year cutting off job-training programs for anyone testing positive for drugs.
Indiana was the first state in the nation to mandate those seeking job help to be tested. When working on the measure during
the 2011 session, Leising fought off efforts to amend the bill to require testing for welfare recipients after state lawyers
told her such a move would likely land the measure in court.
But the issue has resurfaced, and supporters of such a measure say it's a matter of fairness: Indiana residents scrapping
for a paycheck shouldn't have their tax dollars go to welfare recipients who abuse drugs.
"I think people are just fed up with the government not spending their tax money wisely," VanNatter said. "If
(welfare recipients) have money to spend on drugs maybe they shouldn't be on welfare."
VanNatter and Leising haven't worked out the specifics yet, but say they broadly want recipients of state aid under the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to undergo drug tests in order to qualify for aid.
Ken Falk, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said the measure sounds like a clear violation
of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
"The question is 'Is there a special need to drug test welfare recipients?'" Falk said.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Mitch Daniels said the governor is watching the bill. It's not clear whether he would support
it.
A federal judge ordered last month that Florida's testing law be put on hold while a challenge from the ACLU and a single
father works its way through the courts. A federal appeals court blocked Michigan's attempt to mandate drug testing in
2003.
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
IBJNews
Indiana Republicans push drug tests for welfare money
Associated Press
November 30, 2011
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
 Follow IBJ's Tweets on these topics: |
||
| @IBJNews | @Propertylines | @IBJTheScore |
| @IBJArts | @IBJHealthcare | @IBJDining |
| @IBJLists | @IBJSmallbiz | |
-
These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.
-
The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)
-
As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.
-
The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.
-
I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
30 Comments
Add Comment
we should urine test
and if on welfare you should be on birth control
you obviously don't have enough to support your family, you don't need any more to support a bigger family. So mandating birth control would be a great asset to add on.
Perhaps we should first randomly test all elected officials and government employees. Why should any of these get tax payer money for drug abuse? Lets get all or none.
the very notion of drug testing is so unconstitutional it makes my head hurt. where exactly did the Founding Father's give Congress, the Executive or the Judicial branches the authority to determine what substances i, as a tax paying, informed, consenting adult, may or may not consume at my discretion? how is this NOT Big Brother looking into my lungs and veins and telling me what i can and cannot do with my own life? there is no Bigger Government than the one that tells me what plants i can grow, process and consume.
Employees get paid and they answer to their employer in many, many ways, including being drug-free. Corporations take money from shareholders and therefore work for those shareholders; if the managers don't perform, their bosses (the shareholders) can get rid of them.
Why do people think that money recipients in this case are exempt from accountability? They should be drug-free and should have to work at least part time for the paychecks they get from us taxpayers.
What is unreasonable to require someone who wants money for nothing to have to at least qualify to get it?