Send letters to renoletters@newsreview.com
What comes around Welcome to this week’s Reno News & Review. For some damned reason, I was trying to figure out my one-year anniversary with my girlfriend Kelly. (Do you call it an anniversary? Sort of like an anniversary of a first date? Not that there was any actual date planned. What? Get your mind out of the gutter.) Like most things in my life, I can backtrack it through these Editor’s Notes to see when and where I did stuff. Since I killed off my historic data on Facebook, this is the most efficient method of finding specific dates regarding myself—when memory doesn’t work, that is. Anyway, the one that I was looking for was “Chortling out loud,” and it ran on May 17 of last year. It described a particular Friday in May last year when Accuweather said it was 73 degrees outside. All I wanted to do was go sit on the deck at St. James Infirmary and drink wine. This office seemed like a jail cell with an open door, and I had a bad influence on the other end of the internet encouraging me to meet her at dive bars. Huh. Here it is, Friday again. Accuweather says it’s 69 degrees out, and I just wrapped up a semester in my dual master’s degrees. I graded my students’ final papers. All I have left to do is grade their final tests—and they don’t even take them until Monday. I have nothing, repeat, nothing to do this weekend. We’re even a bit ahead for the week here at the newspaper. So, there it is in a nutshell. If it weren’t for the editorial meeting I scheduled for 1:30 p.m. to plan for my vacation in Turkey, well, I could walk out of here right now, and feel no guilt at all. Postscript, Tuesday: Well, truth be told, I made it through the 1:30 meeting, and I was down at St. James Infirmary before they even had the deck open. It wasn’t very long before my honey showed up, and just like last year, the friends kept coming, the beer kept flowing, and the breeze kept calming. —D. Brian Burghart
Support the First Amendment Re “War on women: The Nevada front” (Left Foot Forward, May 2): Former State Senator Leslie’s May 2, 2013, column about the bipartisan Nevada Preservation of Religious Liberty Act, Senate Bill 192, is more partisan vitriol of the type that Nevada voters have rejected over the past several election cycles. Voters have asked their elected officials to move beyond the so-called “culture wars” and work together to enact laws and policies that benefit all Nevadans. Nevadans, men and women of all faith groups, need SB 192 enacted to strengthen the protections Nevadans have historically enjoyed to freely exercise the convictions of their faith and conscience. In this regard, the purpose of SB 192 is to strengthen that protection by enacting into law the “strict scrutiny” standard used to determine religious freedom cases at the federal level, as well as in 27 other states. When the government at any level takes action that burdens a citizen’s religious freedom, this standard requires the government to prove that its action(s) are (1) essential to achieve a compelling governmental interest, and (2) the least restrictive means of achieving that compelling interest. SB 192 will guarantee the State will not substantially burden the free exercise of religion and a person’s right to act in accordance with his or her conscience without a compelling justification. After SB 192 was unanimously passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and passed the Senate on April 22, the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) delivered a memorandum responding to a senator’s question regarding “whether SB 192 would cause health care professionals to take certain actions that conflict with their religious beliefs.” Contrary to Ms. Leslie’s bold assertions, LCB—which has provided reliable legal counsel to both parties for decades—confirmed that SB 192 will do exactly what the bipartisan sponsors said it would do. “Should SB 192 be enacted, a court analyzing the constitutionality of a government
Our Mission To publish great newspapers that are successful and enduring. To create a quality work environment that encourages people to grow professionally while respecting personal welfare. To have a positive impact on our communities and make them better places to live.
action alleged to violate a person’s free exercise of religion would require the plaintiff to show that the conduct of the plaintiff constitutes the free exercise of religion.” In this regard, LCB confirmed that SB 192 enacts a legal standard to protect the free exercise rights of all, not the means to guarantee an outcome benefit for a preferred group or political cause. Ms. Leslie’s concern about a woman’s reproductive rights in parts of the state where doctors or pharmacists are few in number is unfounded for several reasons. In the nearly 20 years since the enactment of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), as well as the 15 years since the enactment of the first state RFRA, there are no recorded cases under either the federal RFRA or any state RFRA where either (a) a pharmacist has been permitted to refuse to provide contraceptives or morning after pills based on his or her deeply held religious beliefs, or (b) an emergency room physician has been permitted to refuse to abort a child in emergent circumstances based on his or her deeply held religious beliefs. Ms. Leslie has created a phantom threat based on fear, fantasy and gross speculation. SB 192 does not provide that a pharmacist or other health care provider has the right to refuse to provide contraception or to perform an abortion in emergency circumstances. Nothing in S.B. 192 changes this established law. Senator Barbara Cegavske Senate District 8
Faith-based law Re “War on women: The Nevada front” (Left Foot Forward, May 2): In response to former State Senator Leslie’s May 2, 2013, column about the bipartisan Nevada Preservation of Religious Liberty Act, let me be clear: Senate Bill 192 is not about the broader culture war regarding such issues as whether an unborn child has a right to life or whether a woman has a right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. SB
Editor/Publisher D. Brian Burghart News Editor Dennis Myers Arts Editor Brad Bynum Calendar Editor Kelley Lang Editorial Intern Sage Leehey Contributors Amy Alkon, Chanelle Bessette, Megan Berner, Matthew Craggs, Mark Dunagan, Marvin Gonzalez, Bob Grimm, Michael Grimm, Sheila Leslie, Dave Preston, Jessica Santina, K.J. Sullivan, Kris Vagner, Bruce Van Dyke, Allison Young
brian b@ n ewsreview . com
OPINION
|
NEWS
|
GREEN
|
FEATURE STORY
|
ARTS&CULTURE
|
ART OF THE STATE
|
FOODFINDS
Design Manager Kate Murphy Art Director Priscilla Garcia Associate Art Director Hayley Doshay Design Melissa Arendt, Brian Breneman, Vivian Liu, Marianne Mancina, Skyler Smith Advertising Consultants Meg Brown, Gina Odegard, Matt Odegard, Bev Savage Senior Classified Advertising Consultant Olla Ubay Office/Distribution Manager/ Ad Coordinator Karen Brooke Executive Assistant/Operations Coordinator Nanette Harker
|
FILM
|
MUSICBEAT
192 is simply codifying a standard that will guarantee that free exercise of religion will be afforded the same protections as other civil liberties protected by the Nevada and U.S. Constitutions. SB 192 is not a sword to inflict violence on the rights of women, as Ms. Leslie has recklessly asserted. Rather, SB 192 is a shield to prevent the state government from inflicting violence on the constitutional rights of people with sincerely held religious beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be. Many states have enacted legislation patterned after the federal RFRA in order to provide additional protection for the free exercise of religion. State RFRAs have been enacted in about 14 states. These include progressive states like Illinois and Rhode Island as well as more conservative states like Alabama and Idaho. Meanwhile, six more states, through state court decisions, have established a “compelling interest test.” Notably, there have not been any recorded cases where women’s reproductive rights have been attacked or otherwise undermined. Likewise, there has not been one case under a state RFRA that has permitted a person to unlawfully discriminate against any protected class of persons based on deeply held religious beliefs and the free exercise of those beliefs. However, if federal precedent is any indication on how these cases might be decided if one did arise, the U.S. Supreme Court, when applying strict scrutiny, has already held unequivocally in Bob Jones University v. United States that the government has a fundamental, overriding, and compelling interest in eradicating discrimination and that such an interest substantially outweighs whatever burden enforcing anti-discrimination laws may have on a person’s free exercise rights. Finally, Ms. Leslie’s curious commentary on some supposed “right wing conspiracy” to attack the rights of women has no foundation in fact. Bipartisan sponsors of SB 192 are simply asking that a fair legal standard be applied to all cases that substantially burden the free exercise of religion and conscience of all men and women
Assistant Distribution Manager Ron Neill Distribution Drivers Sandra Chhina, Sean Karp, John Miller, Jesse Pike, David Richards, Martin Troye, Warren Tucker, Matthew Veach, Sam White General Manager/Publisher John D. Murphy President/CEO Jeff vonKaenel Chief Operations Officer Deborah Redmond Human Resource Manager Tanja Poley Business Manager Grant Ronsenquist
|
NIGHTCLUBS/CASINOS
|
in Nevada regardless of what faith they profess. Senator Mark Hutchison Senate District 6
We miss you, too Re “A beer to remember” (Feature story, May 9): Some “red-state” people might not be into BJ’s or Brewhouse. Maybe some of us like the local businesses and mom and pop ventures. Maybe we like the way Reno has this energetic vibe and courage to even start businesses in these somewhat tumultuous times. This “red-stater” is happy to read about all the new businesses, farms, restaurants that have sprung up in the area. I grew up in Reno and have seen so many changes over the years and applaud local new businesses. I try to stay away from corporate chain restaurants. Keep it in the community! I am presently living out of state, but we are definitely moving back ASAP! Oh, and by the way, this “red-stater” always reads the Reno News & Review and has really missed the paper copies each week. Candy Webb Tilton, N.H.
Historic destruction Re “A landmark case” (Green, May 9): On the eve of Nevada’s Sesquicentennial Celebration it is sad to think one small mining company can open pit mine within this important historic landmark. Historic landmarks are not renewable resources. A kiosk explaining what was does not make up for the destruction left by open pit mining. Donating money to help preserve another historic site does not negate the damage done by open pit mining. This important Nevada landmark should be preserved for our future generations. Why are “we” allowing this to happen? Open pit mining is not historic! Barbara Peck Dayton
Business Mary Anderson, Tami Sandoval Systems Manager Jonathan Schultz Systems Support Specialist Joe Kakacek Web Developer/Support Specialist John Bisignano 708 North Center Street Reno, NV 89501 Phone (775) 324-4440 Fax (775) 324-4572 Classified Fax (916) 498-7940 Mail Classifieds & Talking Personals to N&R Classifieds, Reno Edition, 1015 20th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 or e-mail classifieds@ newsreview.com
THIS WEEK
|
MISCELLANY
|
Web site www.newsreview.com Printed by Paradise Post The RN&R is printed using recycled newsprint whenever available. Editorial Policies Opinions expressed in the RN&R are those of the authors and not of Chico Community Publishing, Inc. Contact the editor for permission to reprint articles, cartoons or other portions of the paper. The RN&R is not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts. All letters received become the property of the publisher. We reserve the right to print letters in condensed form.
Cover and feature story design: Priscilla Garcia
MAY 16, 2013
|
RN&R
|
3
