S. 532 (Peeler R-Cherokee) requires a recipient of unemployment benefits to pass a drug test to continue benefits. Simple enough? Well, as you know, they’ll throw out the lame “unconstitutional” argument, so we amended it to conform to a employee being fired for failing a drug test. The bill now reads that if you fail (or refuse to take) a drug test in an application process, you’re benefits will discontinue. There is no requirement for employers to require a drug test, but many currently do.

What I thought was a nontroversy,we recommitted S. 532 to clean up a glitch. S. 532 will come out very soon. (This link leads to the original version of the bill which reads differently than the explanation that I’ve given in the post. The amendment now under consideration would cut off the benefits of any UI recipient that fails a drug test as part of an application process. The disqualification would fall under the premise of “able and available” for work which a beneficiary who fails a drug test as part of an application process clearly would not be. The test would be paid for by the potential employer, and that employer would have to notify DEW of a failure.)

Here’s a popular e-mail being circulated, you may have seen it. I wish I had it this week in the Labor, Commerce, & Industry Committee:

Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes & The government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question: Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? Because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their BUTT doing drugs while I work. Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program “URINE OR YOU’RE OUT”! Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don’t. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country – AND SOON!

Recently, drug manufacturer Janssen was involved in a lawsuit. The manufacturer was accused of mis leading the public on possible side affects of the then patented mental health medication Risperdal. Here’s the article Spartanburg Herald.

Also, our friend over at schotline.com, Jeffrey Sewell, has been involved these issues.

One thing to consider. A drug company markets their product hoping to convince physicians to prescribe their product to increase their profits. There will always be all kinds of accusations in this process. I’m even suspicious of competitors’ involvement somehow.

After a manufacturer looses the patent, the marketing comes to a complete halt since an unlimited number of generic companies can make the drug. So now, we have total unbiased science and experience dictating the use of a drug. Here’s another reason (along with the obvious financial savings) why it is a good idea to use the old “tried and true” generic drugs first.

You can only turn the other cheek so many times!

Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:04pm EDT PIERRE, South Dakota (Reuters) – South Dakota’s governor signed into law on Tuesday the longest abortion waiting period in the nation at 72 hours, and opponents immediately promised a legal challenge to stop it from going into effect.

The law signed by Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard also requires a woman to submit to counseling to ensure her decision to have an abortion is “voluntary, uncoerced, and informed.”

The new law is one of many abortion curbs being pushed by conservative lawmakers in dozens of states this year. Other proposals include bans on late-term abortions and requirements that providers offer women sonograms of their fetuses.

“I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives,” Daugaard said in a statement. “I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices.”

No other U.S. state has a waiting period longer than 24 hours, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports reproductive rights. The South Dakota law also is the first in the nation to require a counseling session at a center whose mission is to encourage women to continue their pregnancies.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only health center in South Dakota that provides abortions, said on Tuesday it would file a lawsuit to stop the law. Supporters of the legislation have pledged to raise private funds to finance a defense of the law that is scheduled to take effect on July 1.

South Dakota has been at the center of some of the most bitter recent fights over abortion, which was legalized in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

State lawmakers passed laws in 2006 and 2008 to ban most abortions unless they were necessary to save a woman’s life. Voters later overturned both bans.

“We know that women reflect, talk with friends and family, and consult with pastors and their doctors before making this difficult decision,” said Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota.

Alisha Sedor, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, said the bill was an “egregious” invasion of the doctor-patient relationship.

South Dakota lawmakers set aside another bill earlier this year that sponsors said would protect pregnant women from attack, but critics said could have legalized the killing of abortion providers in the state.

(Reporting by Michael Avok in Pierre, additional reporting and writing by David Bailey in Minneapolis; Editing By Greg McCune)