BATON ROUGE — “Freedom of choice” is a remarkable phrase. You hear it often in the halls of the Legislature. It has been used to pass bills and to kill bills. We saw the freedom of choice argument used to perfection on two pieces of legislation in the House this week. It helped kill a broader public smoking ban, and it was a factor in getting a bill passed that liberalizes the motorcycle helmet law. Defeat of the bill that would have extended the smoking ban to bars and casinos wasn’t unexpected. However, the 71-29 margin by which it lost was a surprise. The overwhelming rejection of the stronger smoking ban came after the Senate voted 22-10 for a similar bill. Consider what some opponents of the broader smoking ban had to say when the bill was in committee, in the Senate and on the House floor. “We live in America. What do people fight for?” said Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Abbeville. “They fight for our freedom of choice.” What about smokers? Sen. John Alario, D-Westwego, said, “I think smoking is a terrible thing. I don’t like to be around it, quite frankly, but in a democracy sometimes you’ve got to look at the rights of other people. Some people like smoking.” Rep. Rick Nowlin, R-Natchitoches, said, “We still have one-fourth of our population who still smoke. What about their rights?” Rep. Reed Henderson, D-Chalmette, asked, “What about the 22 percent of people who do smoke? Where are they going to enjoy themselves?” Some legislators said it is a person’s choice about where they go, and when they visit a bar or a casino they know smoking takes place. Later in the day, the House voted 64-33 for a bill that makes the wearing of a helmet on a motorcycle optional for those 21 and older. Helmets have been required for all riders since 2004. Rep. Jim Morris, R-Oil City, sponsor of the helmet bill, told a House committee, “For me, it’s a freedom-ofchoice issue.” Rep. Barbara Norton, D-Shreveport, said, “I don’t think we should have to police grown people.” Gov. Bobby Jindal, who supports the bill, said, “I recommend that people wear a helmet. If I rode a motorcycle, I would wear a helmet. But I believe people, adults, have a right to make the choice themselves.” Freedom of choice was a clear winner in the debate on both bills. Give credit to those in and outside the Legislature who use the freedom of choice argument to help their cause. However, a writer to The Advocate of Baton Rouge says there is another side to that argument. “The premise is that all of our citizens should have the right to choose for themselves what risks they incur while riding a bike. “Really?” she said. “If we should have that right, then what about other rights that we could claim? Why do I have to wear a seat belt? I’m over 21. Doesn’t that make it OK? “What about putting our kids in car seats, smoking in bars, having car insurance, drinking while driving? “Doesn’t it make sense that safety sometimes must be the rule of law?” she said. It’s obvious that freedom of choice is a two-edged sword. How you use it, of course, depends on your motive. Legislators have used another favorite tactic to defeat bills. They were effective again this week in pitting elected officials against appointed officials to help kill a school board measure. Some elected officials figure they have earned their stripes at the polls, and those who are appointed don’t have that same credibility. House Bill 851 by Rep. Steve Carter, R-Baton Rouge, would have given more power to local superintendents of schools, who are appointed officials. It was defeated 51-46. Carter’s legislation would have made it illegal for school board members to micromanage day-to-day operations of school systems. Carter said board members would be responsible for budget matters and for setting school system policies. Opponents claimed the bill denied voters access to their school board members, who are elected officials. Pastorek blamed School board members from across the state have been attacking the legislation since it first surfaced. They voiced their suspicion of state Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek, who supported the reform bill and who also holds an appointive position. “It’s basically a ploy by the state superintendent of education to attack school boards in this state,” one school board member said. Others claimed Pastorek was trying to take control of local school systems. Rep. Pat Smith, D-Baton Rouge, said she received 1,700 e-mails asking her to vote against the bill. Smith said it removed the public from the process and eliminated public input because appointed superintendents aren’t accountable to the voters. School board members are elected, and they are accountable, she said. The House agreed. I suppose the moral of this story is to use whatever strategy works, but remember that it can be used against you by someone else. • Jim Beam, the retired editor of the American Press, has covered people and politics for more than four decades. Contact him at 494-4025 or jbeam@americanpress.com. Jim Beam Columnist
