House vote

Sorry, folks, I wasn’t able to watch the entire debate before the vote. I just caught bits and pieces. So, I can’t give my usual full summary. However, the snippets I did hear sounded just like what we’ve already heard in previous debates. I’m getting about tired of hearing the “what are you afraid of” line.

Final vote: 71-43. Bill passes. [edited to add: It looks like some votes came in a little late. Vote right now stands at 72-44.]

Now we have to see whether the different House and Senate versions can be worked out.

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in "Academic Freedom" bills '08. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to House vote

  1. Paul R. says:

    I caught most of the debate and paraphrase freely here – these are not meant to be verbatim comments:

    In Debate on SB 2692/HB 1483 on 28 April

    In one question – someone referred to transitional species as in evidence in Key West during the annual Freedom Fest there – it was Rep. Kreegel who said this. This elicited some hoots and hollers and probably forebodes passage if this is the “party line”

    Rep. Fitzgerald was awesome and exposed several weaknesses of Hays’ arguments

    Rep. Cusack – also spoke against the bill – not important in the overall needs of the House, not as effective in her argument

    Rep. Domino – Republican! – spoke against the bill as not needed

    Rep. Gelber – obviously spoke eloquently against the bill

    Rep. Long – opposed – waived debate

    Rep. G. Thompson – questioned what rights if any students would have – engrossed bill still contains an exemption apparently, related to biological and chemical evolution. Opposed.

    Rep. Skidmore – vote no

    Rep. Gibson – opening Pandora’s Box – vote no

    Rep. Brandenburg – opposition based on grounds of what is best for science teachers – unnecessary

    Rep. Schwartz – legal exposure is risky – vote no

    Rep. Kreegel – believes in evolution, but is in favor of bill in that it requires teachers to include a critical evaluation (same one that

    Rep. Bendross-Mindingall – teacher and principal – we trust our teachers have the knowledge to do their work – have our teachers been afforded the opportunity to carry out a critical analysis like the sponsor wants? Are stakeholders properly involved in this process? Get the support for all stakeholders – implication – none have spoken up here to warrant this bill (? – my words) – opposed. Lesson plans must be high quality and correct and rigor – may create havoc and mayhem and further misunderstanding.

    Rep. Attkison – challenging science in medicine – vitamin E example – Dr. Shoot (?) – evolutionary flaws – raising minority views is important – theory is not a fact – he has no idea what a theory is – he quotes Darwin (!) – claims that Darwin would thank Hays for doing this bill! In support.

    Rep. Holder – talked about a professor who got fired for teaching anti-American ideas – claims that the only basis for the opposition is that it is based in a conservative issue. In support.

    Rep. Vana – in opposition, obviously. There are a number of issues of concern (she has raised effectively before). In particular, mandating teaching this by law, with a critical analysis – how is this protective if they don’t do it the “right” way? Conclusively makes the connections to the “Family” groups that are definitely based on religious views. Got somewhat lost in her debate points – ended up referring to the desire to be high quality and highly competitive – this bill does neither. Wants the bill TP’d.

    Governor is in the house with the press corps

    Rep. Coley – speaking in favor (obviously) – defines “critical” and “analysis” – there is no hidden agenda – the debate in the House chamber establishes why this bill is needed to protect teachers – claims that students can analyze various components of evolutionary theory without bringing in religion – what are opponents afraid of?

    Rep. Evers – talks about religion and religious beliefs – polls say majority of Americans want “both sides” of this debate taught – speaking in favor. Talks about how this bill will enable our students to excel by opening their minds to both sides of an issue.

    Rep. Sands – speaking in opposition – he has strong religious views and opted to send his children to a religious school to be sure that they understood that belief system – but this is a separation of church and state issue here.

    Rep. Altman – not about religion – it is about freedom. The affirmative right to present objective scientific information…repeats the bill. This is a vote for academic freedom, standards that are based in science, free speech, freedom of thought, science inquiry, etc. [why are scientists not supporting this?]

    [Recognition of guests from Bradford Co.]

    Quorum Call – 111 voting

    Rep. Hays – closing – he considers lots of what he heard today not factual. Harking back to the founding fathers of the USA – suggests that our Constitution would have been revised if they had heard today’s debate – to further protect our religious heritage. Most of the speakers in opposition today appear to be against religion. [murmurs] Vote for this bill to allow for our teachers to lead our students in a critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.

    Vote – 71/43 – bill passed.

  2. Robert says:

    Hoorah ! This is great for our kids !!!

  3. Green Earth says:

    Robert, you are an IDiot
    But, the vote is not all that surprising, considering that it is a Republican majority

  4. Green Earth says:

    Religious indoctrination is NOT great for our kids, especially because it is a PUBLIC school, children of many faiths/beliefs attend.
    This IS unconstitutional.

  5. BMH says:

    There is nothing religious in the bill. The bill itself is not bad, just completely unnecessary and much too vague. If passed in the Senate, its vagueness will almost certainly be used to get religion into some science classrooms and this will lead to expensive lawsuits. That will be decidedly bad for our kids. I don’t get why the politicians don’t get this. They are usually good at spotting lawsuits a mile away.

  6. Realist says:

    Robert Says:

    Hoorah ! This is great for our kids !!!


    The stupid, it burns

  7. Robert says:

    Don’t you want freedom of thought ?

  8. S.Scott says:

    Did anyone else notice that it said SB 2692 on the screen? Is that what the house voted on? Are the bills identical now?

  9. S.Scott says:


  10. Brandon Haught says:

    No. Make sure to read through my previous posts. I explain all of this. Basically, the House adopted the Senate bill, but then Hays proposed an amendment that completely stripped the Senate bill and replace it with his old House bill text. So, the Senate bill the House just voted on is actually Hays’ old House bill under the Senate bill number.

  11. Green Earth says:

    S. Scott, I know, probably a good idea, as I feel myself becoming increasingly less intelligent every time I explain…

  12. Green Earth says:

    Oh, and Brandon, thank you for doing such a wonderful job of keeping us up to date!

  13. S.Scott says:

    Thanks Brandon – I was just confused that they had “SB’ displayed, rather than “HB” .

    Well, it looks like our teachers will be required to give a critical analysis of evolution that is not already in the standards. That critical analysis will be left up to the “Teachers Discretion” because not one of the bill sponsors could present one.

    Might I suggest that our teachers have a “Critical Ananysis Day”!
    (This could be fun)!

    I like this one! 🙂 (HT-PZ)

    What are some of your favorite critiques?

  14. MelM says:

    ID is religion. Implicitly, it boils down to the claim to a non-natural undesigned designer. If not the christian god, then is it Allah or perhaps yet another god? Could the “Christian Nation” cult even consider another god? I don’t think so.

    The Bait and Switch of “Intelligent Design” by Keith Lockitch of Ayn Rand Institute

    Their premise seems to be that as long as they don’t explicitly name the “designer”–as long as they allow that the “designer” could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study–that this somehow saves their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character.

    But does it?

    While I’m thinking of the “Christian Nation” cult, I’ll throw in a little plug for the book “Liars For Jesus” by Chris Rodda.

    Oh yes, Panda’s Thumb has a post about a remarkable article at National Review. (Yes, THAT National Review!)

  15. Robert says:

    Its interesting you quote Ayn Rand – the biggest eugenics promoter of all time. Hitler would have been proud.

  16. Green Earth says:

    Um, Rand had Jewish parents (though non-observant) and she supported Israel, somehow I don’t think Hitler would have “been proud” as you say.

  17. zygosporangia says:

    Robert –

    Apparently you haven’t read much Ayn Rand. Anything else you want to argue from ignorance about?

Comments are closed.