May 31, 2007
Oklahoma lawmakers seek to prevent microchipping, not promote it
Interesting legislative goings on in Oklahoma around human chipping.
Oklahoma State Sen. Brian Crain and Rep. Sue Tibbs are the authors of a bill opposing the microchipping of people, SB 47. It passed out of the state Senate in March and has been making its way through committee. Creepily, it was apparently amended to allow for the microchipping of criminals, but calmer heads are prevailing and that provision has now been stricken (see article below). One interesting human interest note: Rep. Tibbs is a 73 year-old grandmother.
While I am pleased to see these legislative efforts (Liz and I submitted testimony in favor of the bill), we need to let lawmakers nationwide know about our Bodily Integrity Act. It covers all the bases and is urgently needed before society becomes numb to the violation these chips represent.
Our model bill is just one page long and written in plain English.
House rejects microchip implants for violent criminals
By Tim Talley Associated Press Writer
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Legislation that would authorize microchip implants in people convicted of violent crimes was sent back to a committee for more work Wednesday after state House members questioned whether the proposal would violate constitutional civil liberties.
The measure, approved by the Senate, authorizes microchip implants for persons convicted of one or more of 19 violent offenses who have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence, including murder, rape and some forms of robbery and burglary, while prohibiting government from requiring microchips implants in anyone else.
The tiny electronic implants are commonly used to keep track of pets and livestock, but several House members questioned whether their forced use in people would be unconstitutionally invasive.
"We are going down that slippery slope," said Rep. Ed Cannaday, D-Porum.
Lawmakers never voted on the measure. During debate, its author, Rep. Sue Tibbs, R-Tulsa, asked that it be sent back to a joint House-Senate conference committee where the exception for violent offenders was inserted.
Cannaday and others said the measure may violate the Fourth, Fifth And Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment contains the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
"I see it as invasive," Cannaday said. He said many sex offenders and prisoners convicted of other crimes are already required to wear wrist or ankle bracelets when they are released from prison so their movements can be monitored by satellite tracking devices.
Posted by Katherine Albrecht at May 31, 2007 8:36 AM
Way to go, Oklahoma!
Posted by: Ann at June 12, 2007 7:11 PM