Controversial bills terminated in Indiana House of Representatives

The death of Joint Resolution 7 Monday in Indiana’s House of Representatives marked another standstill in the state’s debate over same-sex marriage. \nThe legislation would have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman and amended Article I of the state’s constitution. Under the resolution, Indiana law would not allow unmarried people to receive the same benefits as married couples. Joint Resolution 7 passed the Indiana Senate Jan. 29. \n“I’m glad to hear that it didn’t pass,” said IU senior David Campbell. “Wasting the legislature’s time with something like that is ridiculous. It’s up to the individuals to determine whether or not to get married, and it’s not something that the state should regulate.”\nMembers of the Republican party don’t all have the same view on the marriage issue, said Chelsea Kane, chair of the IU College Republicans. However, the party’s national platform does provide a stance. \n“The Republican party nationally does advocate defining marriage as between a man and a woman,” she said.\nAbortion bill had passed state senate in January\nAn Indiana Senate bill that would have allowed pharmacists to refuse to dispense prescriptions or medical devices that they believe induce abortions or assist suicide died in the state’s House of Representatives Monday.\nSenate Bill 3, which passed the Senate Jan. 29 with a 30-18 vote, would have given pharmacists the power to deny customers drugs or devices they thought would cause abortion, assisted suicide or death through euthanasia or mercy killing. Opponents of the bill claimed if the bill had passed, women’s access to birth control and other forms of contraception would be limited. \nThe bill’s death has caused mixed reactions among IU students.\n“I’m a little disappointed,” said IU senior and pro-life advocate Joe Pacold, adding that he didn’t think it would have made much of a difference if the bill had passed. “There’s nothing to prevent you from going to another pharmacy” if a pharmacist denied the prescription, he said.\nSophomore Laura Sargent said pharmacists would be “stepping above their job” if given this power. \n“That would be weird if a pharmacist would use their own judgment and use their own religious morals and backgrounds because they don’t know this person’s life and this person’s background,” Sargent said. “They shouldn’t be the final say.”