If you thought Citizens United – the 2010 Supreme Court decision upholding free speech rights for corporations – was controversial, you haven’t seen anything yet.

In March, the high court will hear arguments in two linked cases – Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius – that will require the justices to determine whether corporations have religious freedom rights under the First Amendment.

At first blush, corporate religious freedom may strike many people as absurd. After all, as one judge put it, corporations “don’t pray, worship or observe sacraments.”

But like most First Amendment conundrums, the questions raised by religious freedom claims from private businesses are complicated and contentious – and the answers will have profound implications for defining the future of religious liberty in America.

Both cases before the Supreme Court involve challenges to a provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring for-profit businesses to provide coverage for contraception in health insurance plans.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are private companies owned by deeply religious families – evangelical and Mennonite respectively – who believe that life begins at conception. On grounds of religious conscience, they cannot offer employees insurance plans that cover certain types of birth control (e.g., the “morning after” pill). Refusal to do so, however, subjects them to millions of dollars in fines.

Both corporations sued on the grounds that the contraception mandate violates their free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a law passed by Congress in 1993 to “restore” free exercise protections that many believed the Supreme Court had unduly restricted in a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith).

The threshold question for the justices is whether these businesses have standing to make a religious freedom claim.

Does the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause apply to for-profit corporations, and, if so, are such corporations “persons” for purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)?

Appellate courts have given conflicting answers. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, companies like Hobby Lobby may assert free exercise claims. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, ruling, “a for-profit, secular corporation cannot engage in the exercise of religion.”

Corporations, of course, are often treated as “persons” for legal purposes. And non-profit religious corporations – congregations, parishes, charities and the like – have long been able to assert religious freedom claims under the First Amendment. But until now, the Supreme Court has never considered whether for-profit corporations have religious freedom rights.

The answer, I would argue, should not turn on the “profit” versus “non-profit” distinction, but rather on the principles and policies that guide the operation of the business.

Hobby Lobby, for example, commits to “honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” And Conestoga Wood is operated entirely by a family of devout Mennonites who “integrate their faith into their daily lives, including their work,” according to court documents.

It should not be difficult to determine when corporations have policies that articulate a commitment to religious principles and practices that seek to apply those principles. Few corporations would qualify, but those that do should have corporate free-exercise rights.
Making money, in and of itself, shouldn’t define a business as “secular.” Religious people should be free to enter the world of business without giving up their right to religious freedom – as long as the business they run is clearly committed to their religious principles and objectives.

Recognition of free-exercise rights for these and similar companies would not, however, settle the question of whether these corporations are entitled to an exemption from the contraception mandate. But it would require the government to apply RFRA by demonstrating a compelling state interest – and no less restrictive way of achieving that interest – before denying the exemption.

With all the complications corporate religious freedom may bring – finding alternative ways to provide contraception coverage, for example, if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga win an exemption under RFRA – the benefits to a free society far outweigh the costs.

When people of faith chose to live out that faith in the world of business, they should not be put to what the Supreme Court once called “the cruel choice” between following their God and making a profit.

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Washington-based Newseum Institute. [email protected]

By NICOLE LANE
Kansas Wheat

The Wheat Foods Council continued its battle on fad diets when it met late last week in Phoenix, Ariz. Cindy Falk, nutrition educator for Kansas Wheat and the Wheat Foods Council vice chair, represented Kansas farmers and their need to combat anti-wheat messages.

A major addition to the 2014 Wheat Foods Council program will be a second “Wheat Safari” held in North Dakota to give insight to influential bloggers and health industry leaders. The “Wheat Safari,” set to be held in August, will arm influencers with the science and first-hand knowledge of how durum wheat is produced. The first “Wheat Safari” was held in Kansas in 2012.

“This is not the first time the Wheat Foods Council has had to set the record straight about grain foods,” said Falk. “Fad diets have been around for a long time, and they don’t seem to be going away. A question I often get is ‘What is the Wheat Foods Council doing to combat the anti-wheat messages being spread by consumer books, media, internet, and word of mouth?'”

In order to help spread its message, the Wheat Foods Council selected three advisory board members to promote the consumption of wheat foods. Julie Miller Jones, phD, CNS, LN, Professor Emeritus, Foods and Nutrition, St. Catherine University; Brett Carver, phD, wheat breeding and genetics professor at Oklahoma State University; and Glen Gaesser, PhD, professor and director of the Healthy Lifestyles Research Center at Arizona State University are the spokespersons who provide sound-science information on behalf of the Wheat Foods Council.

At the 2013 Food and Nutrition Convention and Expo, the Wheat Foods Council interacted with an audience of more than 8,500 key influencers in the dietetic and nutrition profession. Sara Olsen, a wheat farmer from Colorado, and Dr. Carver were the featured experts available to answer questions and educate attendees.

Dr. Miller Jones reached more than 2 million people this year when she conducted a media tour to combat fad diets and was interviewed across the U.S. on television and radio stations. Her message “Busting Fad Diets” provided counter messages to the anti-wheat claims in the wheat-free cookbooks on the market.

The Wheat Foods Council educational outreach includes a variety of professionals and consumers communicating the facts about gluten and low-carb diets. This was accomplished at many events throughout the past year, primarily through presentations and exhibits at three of the largest state dietetic association meetings in Texas, North Carolina and New York. Experts presented on behalf of the Wheat Foods Council on the truth about food intolerances and shopping for health.

“The Wheat Foods Council members support an ongoing pro-active force of pro-wheat messaging. We have a good story to tell and wheat farmers, millers, bakers, researchers, food professionals and others in the industry have to keep telling it,” Falk said. “Science is in our favor.”

Kansas wheat producers have had an active role in the Wheat Food Council since its formation in 1972. The council is an industry-wide partnership dedicated to increasing wheat and other grain foods consumption through nutrition information, education, research and promotional programs. The council is supported voluntarily by wheat producers, millers, and related industries.

By RON WILSON
Huck Boyd National Institute for Rural Development

“Happy mistakes.” That sounds like an oxymoron – a contradiction in terms. But “happy mistakes” is one way of describing the experience of a woman who was seeking a better diet for her daughter and ended up developing a new business.

Rani Force is the owner and head baker at Marie Antoinette’s Gluten-Free Bake Shoppe. Rani grew up in a farming area of Michigan where she cooked and baked in the kitchen with her mother. She got married and became a mother herself and later moved to St. Joseph, Mo.

In 2010, her 11-year-old daughter started exhibiting major symptoms of illness. The daughter experienced dizziness, vomiting, daily migraines, lethargy, and imbalance. Her doctors were baffled. The family went to specialist after specialist.

One day while sitting in yet another doctor’s waiting room, Rani happened to glance at a medical journal article about eating gluten-free. The symptoms of gluten-intolerance sounded a lot like her daughter’s. Rani described this to the doctor who agreed to let them try a gluten-free diet until her next appointment.

“In a matter of days, my daughter’s condition improved,” Rani said. That was a breakthrough, but it was still a challenge to find foods which would work in her daughter’s diet. Furthermore, it turned out her daughter also had allergies to yeast and corn. Rani began actively seeking foods that her daughter could consume.

When their older daughter graduated from Wellesley, Rani and her family went back east and visited gluten-free bakeries along the way, but with disappointing results. “As I sat and tried to choke down a tasteless, dry, and crumbly gluten-free cupcake in Boston, I knew we could offer a more tasty, moist, and sweet cupcake,” Rani said.

Through trial and error, Rani began developing gluten-free recipes of her own. Her daughter’s eyes would light up at the sight of cupcakes and cookies that she could consume. “We figured if our family had this problem, we couldn’t be alone,” Rani said. She decided to open a bakery to serve this need.

Using a logo of a pretty, young Marie Antoinette, the drawing of which resembled their daughter, Rani and her husband opened Marie Antoinette’s Gluten-Free Bake Shoppe. They located the shop in the nearby rural community of Wathena, Kansas, population 287 people. Now, that’s rural.

“I love Wathena,” Rani said. “It reminds me of the farm country where I grew up in Michigan.”  Rani’s husband developed the graphics and filmed commercials for the store.

The bake shoppe menu has broadened beyond gluten-free products as people learned that there could be alternative recipes for other popular foods as well. “We now specialize in allergy-free cooking,” Rani said.

The menu includes breakfast and lunch items as well as cookies, cakes, cupcakes, and holiday treats. Marie Antoinette’s also caters parties and special events. The company is having K-State food scientists analyze its foods for nutritional value as the company prepares its products for shipment and delivery. Already, visitors have sought out Marie Antoinette’s from across the country. For example, the bake shoppe has had customers from Ohio, Virginia, Texas and California.

Rani continues to develop new allergen-free products. One was what her husband called a “happy mistake.”

“I was trying to make a (gluten-free) donut recipe, but it looked like cinnamon roll dough instead of donuts,” Rani said. “I tried it that way and I’ve had people say these are the best cinnamon rolls they’ve ever had.”

Not only has this venture helped her family’s diet and created a business, it has been personally rewarding. “It is really nice when people say things like, `This is the first time I’ve been able to have a birthday cake for my daughter,’” Rani said.

For more information, go to www.mariesglutenfree.com.

“Happy mistakes.” That’s what Rani’s family calls it when she discovers an alternative use for a recipe that can benefit those with food allergies. We commend Rani Force and all those involved with Marie Antoinette’s Gluten-Free Bake Shoppe for making a difference with creative entrepreneurship in the kitchen. Rural Kansas needs more entrepreneurs like this, make no mistake about that.

Ron Wilson is director of the Huck Boyd National Institute for Rural Development at Kansas State University.

By BARRY GRISSOM
U.S. Attorney, District of Kansas

The fight against human trafficking is one of the great human rights causes of our time.

Traffickers target individuals who are poor, vulnerable, living in unsafe situations or looking for a better life. Prosecutors have shown that someone can be enslaved without chains and that traffickers often go beyond physical abuse to use forms of psychological abuse that exploit human vulnerabilities to maintain control over victims and prevent them from escaping. This modern day form of slavery can occur in plain sight, often involving subtle methods of coercion in the form of false promises, isolation, surveillance, threats of deportation or arrest or economic dependence.

That is why the U.S. Attorney’s Human Trafficking Working Group in Kansas is striving to promote collaboration among state and local law enforcement, trafficking victim service providers and federal law enforcement. Our goals are to bring human trafficking crimes to light and to justice – and to stand up for the rights and interests of victims.

Contrary to some misconceptions, human trafficking crimes do not require any smuggling or movement of the victim. Federal law defines human trafficking as the act of compelling or coercing a person’s labor, services or commercial sex acts. The federal law is rooted in the prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sex-trafficked women and girls are the victims of human trafficking we most often see in Kansas. In one case we successfully prosecuted in the Kansas City metropolitan area, a defendant was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to sex trafficking. In his plea, he admitted that, when a woman who worked for him as a prostitute attempted to run away, he beat her into unconsciousness. He admitted he forced one woman to have sex with as many as 11 men in one day. He boasted on his Facebook page that it would take him only 10 minutes to turn a woman into a prostitute. His goal, he declared, was to have so many women working for him as prostitutes that he could fill the entire front page of the escort section of an adult Web site.

Our Human Trafficking working group is dedicated to prosecuting human trafficking cases, providing victim services and helping to train law enforcement and community members to identify and rescue trafficked persons. Working with the Department of Justice, our goals are to help victims of trafficking recover and rebuild their lives and to move from being victims to becoming survivors. The Department of Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime and Bureau of Justice Assistance are leading efforts nationally to train law enforcement communities to identify, rescue and provide comprehensive services of victims.

As U.S. Attorney for the District of Kansas, I view the fight against human trafficking as part of our nation’s long struggle for fairness and freedom. I want to commend the many dedicated public servants — and their partners at schools and non-profit agencies – for the work they are doing to stand up for the rights and interests of the victims.

Barry Grissom is the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas.

Dear Dave,
My husband died eight years ago, and I never closed his bank accounts that were opened when we lived in another state. We lived in Florida before moving to Oregon. I didn’t probate the estate, and he did not have a will. I’m trying to work with the banks to get this settled, but they’re giving me the runaround. Do you have any advice?
Melinda

Dear Melinda,
The first thing you need to do is contact an attorney who handles estate planning. If the accounts were opened in Florida, but you both lived in Oregon at the time of his death, technically the estate would be probated in Oregon. That may be what has to happen. If so, a judge would appoint you as executor. As executor, you can close the accounts and disperse any money to the rightful heir—which is you.

Be prepared, though. It may take somewhere between $250 and $500 in attorney fees and court costs to make this happen. If you’re lucky, you might get a simple motion from the court that would cost you next to nothing. But find a good estate planning attorney who knows Oregon law inside and out. Estate laws and probate laws differ from state to state, and Florida and Oregon both have some weird laws in these areas.

This probably seems like a lot of trouble, but you have to remember the banks are simply trying to protect themselves and follow the law. Anyone could walk in with a death certificate (they’re public record), and claim to be an heir. So, they have to have a court document in order to avoid any potential liability.

I’m sorry for your loss, Melinda. I know it still hurts after all this time, but you need to address this as soon as possible. I’m sure it’s what your husband would have wanted.
—Dave

Dave Ramsey is America’s trusted voice on money and business. He’s authored four New York Times best-selling books: Financial Peace, More Than Enough, The Total Money Makeover and EntreLeadership. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 6 million listeners each week on more than 500 radio stations. Follow Dave on Twitter at @DaveRamsey and on the web at daveramsey.com.

You never miss the water till the well runs dry.

No truer words have been spoken about Kansas water needs. Mired in the midst of a four-year drought, the Ogallala Aquifer continues to decline. Reservoirs — critical water storage structures for much of the state – fill with sediment.

At the current pace throughout the next 50 years, the Ogallala Aquifer could be 70 percent depleted while Kansas reservoirs may be 40 percent filled with sediment.

What does this bode for the future of the Sunflower State? How do we sustain the lifestyle we enjoy? How do we grow the economy? How do we ensure life in Kansas will continue to be desirable?

These questions are relevant to all Kansans. And while the Ogallala Aquifer is often viewed through the nozzle of a center pivot system, this topic is far more than that.

Irrigation stimulates higher land values, greater crop production and increased production inputs that result in enhanced county, regional and state prosperity. It has supported the world’s largest animal industry whose feed yards and packing plants grow and sustain Kansas communities and the people who live there.

Water usage in Kansas is not just an irrigation issue. It affects citizens whether they live in western or eastern Kansas.

Nearly two thirds of this state’s population depends upon water stored in our reservoirs. Each and every day this water supply dwindles as sediment slowly creeps downstream settling in and diminishing valuable reservoir storage space.

To address these issues, Gov. Brownback recently called for the development of a 50-year vision for the future of water in Kansas. The Ogallala Aquifer and Kansas reservoirs will receive top priority in this plan.

Key players include the Kansas Water Office, Kansas Department of Agriculture and the Kansas Water Authority. Throughout a one-year period, this team will seek input from water users, compile data, conduct research and chart a path for future water use.

All Kansans have a stake in this issue. Every citizen of our state will be impacted by the decline of the Ogallala Aquifer and sedimentation of our reservoirs.

It does not matter if you are rural or urban, young or old, a student or working, everyone needs water in their lives.

As farmers, ranchers and landowners of Farm Bureau in Kansas, each and every member will have an opportunity to provide grass root’s input in creating this water plan for the Sunflower State. Through educational materials and district issue surfacing meetings, farmer and rancher members will have the opportunity to express their ideas and opinions on the future of water in Kansas.

Plan to attend these meetings and voice your opinions and concerns.

“This is a defining moment in our state’s history and with each member’s input, we intend to help establish a water legacy that is good for agriculture and generations to come,” says Steve Baccus, an Ottawa County farmer and Kansas Farm Bureau president. “We must engage in this process and help define the vision for these precious water supplies, or others will do so for us.”

John Schlageck, a Hoxie native, is a leading commentator on agriculture and rural Kansas. Born and raised on a diversified farm in northwestern Kansas, his writing reflects a lifetime of experience, knowledge and passion.         

By BOB LORD
Other Words

As we commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.’s 85th birthday, we’ve all come to know his dream. Above all else, he dreamed that one day this nation would rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Yet here’s the grim reality facing black America today:

The net worth of just 400 billionaires, a group that could fit into a high school gym, is on par with the collective wealth of our more than 14 million African- American households. Both groups possess some $2 trillion, about three percent of our national net worth of $77 trillion.

We chose to honor Dr. King by making his birthday a national holiday because of his tireless work for justice. And MLK stood not only for social justice, but for economic justice as well.

Back in 1951, he told his future life partner, Coretta Scott, that a small elite should not “control all the wealth.” “A society based on making all the money you can and ignoring people’s needs, is wrong,” Dr. King explained.

And the “March on Washington” was “for jobs and freedom.” At the time of his assassination in Memphis in 1968, Dr. King was standing with striking sanitation workers in their fight for economic justice.

How would MLK view the Forbes 400 controlling as much wealth as our entire African-American population of about 41 million people? Could that state of affairs co-exist with his dream?

Hardly. At the outset of that speech about his dream, the civil rights leader noted that one century after the Emancipation Proclamation, “the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.”

Dr. King’s dream was as much about economic justice as it was about social justice. Today’s distribution of wealth in America represents his nightmare come true — even with Barack Obama serving as our president.

What derailed the dream? How is it that, 50 years out from MLK’s speech, black America has such a dismally small slice of our nation’s wealth?

Here’s how: In the 1940s through the 1960s, U.S. economic opportunity and upward mobility outside the African-American community were the envy of the world. Back then, economic inequality was plummeting.

While discrimination kept black America mired in poverty, Dr. King watched tens of millions of other Americans climb from humble beginnings to affluence. So, he justifiably believed that if African Americans could break free from the yoke of racial discrimination, they too could share in the American Dream.

It would take a generation or two until most of them made it, but eventually they’d get there.

Soon after the chokehold of racial discrimination on the advancement of blacks finally started to loosen, however, America began its return to the society that existed before Dr. King’s birth, where a small slice of the population lives in opulence while average Americans struggle to get by.

Today, it’s not social injustice, but extreme inequality that constrains economic mobility, not just for black Americans, but all of us. America, once the land of opportunity, now has a level of economic mobility lower than that of almost all other rich countries.

By the time African Americans broke mostly (but not entirely) free from racist constraints on their economic mobility, they were whacked with a new obstacle: the almost equally suffocating injustice of extreme inequality. They’re not the only ones suffering. But because they were locked out of the egalitarian economic progress that took place during Dr. King’s lifetime, they’re disproportionately represented in the group now stuck on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

So here we are, a half-century after Dr. King described his dream, living through a nightmare where 400 ultra-rich Americans control as much wealth as our entire African-American population.

Bob Lord, a veteran tax lawyer and former congressional candidate, practices and blogs in Phoenix. He is also an Institute for Policy Studies associate fellow.

This may be the weekend when we get our first pretty solid feel for just which direction the Kansas Republican Party is headed: Conservative, or way, way conservative.

The event is Republican Kansas Day, of course, in Wichita as the party continues to move its biggest annual convention around the state’s four congressional districts.

The real test here: How U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, who has been a GOP icon since the earth cooled enough to walk on, and Tea Party Republican Milton Wolf, of Leawood, who hopes to unseat Roberts in the Republican primary election, work the Republican activist crowd.

Now, this could have been a simple pulse-taking, counting the number of Republican activists—and these people are the “management level” Republicans who attend the state convention—at each reception, watching their general demeanor, and making a comparison.

But, Republicans of late don’t make these things simple.

Wolf—remember, he’s the radiologist who is a distant cousin of Democrat President Barack Obama—will  have a reception from 9 to 11 a.m. Saturday at the Hyatt Hotel where the convention is being held. It’ll be one of seven of those conventional walk-around receptions with coffee, rolls, and maybe if we get lucky, a bloody Mary or two.

Roberts, who has traditionally sponsored the after-the-Saturday-dinner “Coffee and Cordials” reception—for those Republicans who spend the money for the convention’s dinner gala—will see a crowd that has thinned considerably, making a nose-count probably inaccurate.

So, it’s going to be a weekend of watching Roberts and Wolf react with the several hundred Republicans who hang out together on the party’s biggest weekend of the year.

Now, there aren’t enough regular attendees of Republican Kansas Day to move the vote in a primary election. But those Kansas Day activists tend to be the GOP leaders in their communities, the people whom generally Republican voters see in the coffee shops and grocery stores, and occasionally, the country clubs, who can move votes.

After the weekend, we’ll maybe have a feeling for whether Roberts, who tends like most Republicans to get more conservative, or at least more loudly conservative, in election years is as far to the right as Kansans are willing to go.

Remember, chances are slim that either former Sens. Nancy Landon Kassebaum or Bob Dole could make it through a Republican primary election now.

Yes, there’s the start of a party-rending contest going on in Wichita this coming weekend…which is probably a dab uncomfortable for many Republicans.

And, it’s a chance for Democrats—who pay close attention to find out whether the GOP is moving farther to the right than many Kansans might be comfortable with—to dream of picking up some Republican votes.

Syndicated by Hawver News Company LLC of Topeka; Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report—to learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit the website at www.hawvernews.com

Do you make New Year’s resolutions? Sixty-nine percent of us do.

Here are the top three resolutions according to a recent survey — 1) lose weight, 2) get more exercise, and 3) quit smoking and be more financially responsible (tie).

Whether you make resolutions or not, this is a great time of year to focus on improving your health and fitness. Here’s how to have a healthy Happy New Year.

H – ealth. Make health a priority this year. Health should be more than the absence of disease – read on for ideas.

A – ttitude. A positive attitude may not cure a disease. However, thinking positive can help you deal with misfortune, make the most of your situation and enjoy life more.

P – hysical activity. The U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend “at least 150 minutes a week of moderate intensity physical activity such as brisk walking. Additional benefits occur with more physical activity. Both aerobic (endurance) and muscle-strengthening (resistance) physical activity are beneficial.”

P – eople. Numerous studies indicate social networks, whether formal (such as a church or social club) or informal (such as meeting with friends), make people less vulnerable to ill health and premature death. Be wary, however, of social interactions that drain you by being too demanding of your time or encouraging you to engage in harmful behaviors.

Y- our body. Schedule immunizations and physical checkups as needed: eyes, teeth, mammogram, colonoscopy, general physical, flu shot, etc.

N – O! Rather than adding “take a time management class” to your “to do” list, consider starting a “don’t do” list. You may discover doing LESS can bring MORE enjoyment to your life. Especially if doing less allows you to spend time doing more to contribute to your health and happiness and that of family and friends.

E – at healthy. To move to a healthier weight, you need to make smart choices from every food group every day. Smart choices are the foods with the lowest amounts of solid fats or added sugars: for example, fat-free (skim) milk instead of whole milk and unsweetened rather than sweetened applesauce. Also, consider how the food was prepared. For example, choose skinless baked chicken instead of fried chicken and choose fresh fruit instead of a fruit pastry.

W – isdom. Take time to listen to your own body. Rather than set your goals based on how fast other people walk or jog, how little sleep others can get by on or what someone else eats, concentrate on what makes YOU healthy.

Y – our hands. People do not wash their hands as often as they think. One study which observed more than 6,000 adults in public restrooms showed that only 68 percent washed hands (74% of women observed washed their hands compared with 61% of men.) Washing your hands is one of the best personal habits you can use to prevent illness.

E – nough sleep. Sleeping too little takes a serious toll on people’s health, productivity and mood. Cutting back on other activities rather than cutting back on sleep may be more effective in enhancing your health and quality of life.

A – void portion distortion. Rather than always worrying about “what” you eat, also consider “how much” you eat. Downsize your portion sizes. Serve food on smaller plates. Eat from plates and bowls rather than packages and bags, so you see how much you’re eating.

R – eading materials. Consider the source before starting a new drastic diet or exercise plan. Beware of plans that promise quick, dramatic results; charge large fees for consultations, equipment, supplements, etc.; or rely solely on testimonials or statements from “professionals” with unusual-sounding degrees.

Get a healthy start on your new year. For more information on health and nutrition, visit the K-State Research and Extension nutrition topics website at www.ksre.ksu.edu/HumanNutrition/p.aspx?tabid=64.

Linda K. Beech is Ellis County Extension Agent for Family and Consumer Sciences.

Dear Dave,
What do you think about the idea of putting your emergency fund into bonds?
Ryan

Dear Ryan,
I think that’s a really bad idea, and here’s why. Bond values and prices go down as long-term interest rates rise.

Right now, long-term interest rates — a good example would be mortgage rates — are ticking up. They’ve moved up a quarter of a percent recently. So, as this happens, the value of bonds goes down.

If these interest rates spiked, you could lose half your emergency fund.
Never, ever put your emergency fund into things where risk and volatility are factors. An emergency fund isn’t an investment.

It’s there to help protect things that are investments and your life. Keep it in something safe and simple, like a money market account where there’s no penalty for early withdrawal.

We’re not looking to make money with an emergency fund, Ryan. It’s insurance. Just let it sit there, safe and sound, until it’s needed.
—Dave

Dave Ramsey is America’s trusted voice on money and business. He’s authored four New York Times best-selling books: Financial Peace, More Than Enough, The Total Money Makeover and EntreLeadership. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 6 million listeners each week on more than 500 radio stations. Follow Dave on Twitter at @DaveRamsey and on the web at daveramsey.com.

Few topics in modern life have produced as much rancorous and visible public debate as abortion — and one hot point of contention today is simply how close that debate may take place to the clinics that perform them.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over a challenge to a Massachusetts state law, in McCullen v. Coakley, that creates a fixed, 35-foot “buffer zone” around the entrance or driveways of such clinics, forbidding protesters and others from entering the zone, with the exception of women seeking medical services, workers at the clinic, police and those merely walking to somewhere else.

The law at issue is rooted, its advocates say, in years of conflicts around such clinics in which protesters battle — verbally and sometimes more — and where women are harassed or even blocked as they attempt to enter. They argue that both pro- and anti-abortion demonstrators still can state their views, just not in proximity that’s likely to intimidate anyone.

On Wednesday, Justice Elena Kagan questioned the size of the Massachusetts zone, saying she was “a little hung up on why you need so much space.” Justice Antonin Scalia remarked that rather than bar all speech in the 35-foot zone, perhaps just a ban on swearing and screaming could be used.

But those in opposition to the law being challenged say that, as applied, it illegally targets only the speech of anti-abortion forces, and creates a constitutional conundrum in which listeners’ rights are favored over those of speakers, while offering no reasonable alternative for anti-abortion groups to effectively deliver their message. On Wednesday, justices also noted that not all those at clinics to oppose abortion are protesting: Many are there to offer a calm presentation of their views.

Similar arguments were raised over a Colorado buffer zone law upheld by the Court in 2000, in Hill v. Colorado – its last major ruling on the issue. The Colorado statute set out a 100-foot area around health care facilities, and forbade anti-abortion protesters inside such areas from coming closer than eight feet to anyone for the purpose of counseling or protesting – a so-called “floating buffer zone.”

A 1994 federal law forbids violent actions, obstruction, interference, and intimidation outside abortion clinics – in other words, it governs conduct, not the message. Challengers to both the Colorado and Massachusetts laws say those more-restrictive state statutes have it the wrong way around, targeting just anti-abortion speech, while those supporting abortion rights are free to move within the zones and to speak to women as they enter and leave clinics.
Generally, the First Amendment precludes government from considering “content” or “viewpoint” when regulating speech. Massachusetts officials say a history at such clinics of confrontation and violence justifies overriding that general limitation, in the name of public safety.

There are other significant First Amendment issues raised in this case and in the earlier Hill decision, including a proper balancing of what some call “a right to be let alone” vs. free speech rights of speakers on sensitive or even offensive matters.

The essential point of laws banning protests near such clinics is to shelter women seeking information or abortions from the emotional distress produced by often-graphic language, signs, handouts and “in-your-face” tactics used by anti-abortion forces, who see such actions as the final opportunity to reverse a decision to end a pregnancy.
And the equally basic First Amendment question raised is whether protection of “vigorous public debate” over significant issues in our society can be muzzled because of the undeniable distress it causes some women who hear – or are challenged by – that debate.

A clue as to how the Court may view McCullen may be found in a 2011 ruling in which emotional distress to the listener also was a core issue, involving protesters at a funeral service for a U.S. Marine killed in the line of duty. In that case, Snyder v. Phelps, the father of the fallen Marine sued a group known as the Westboro Baptist Church over its virulently anti-gay signs and visible picketing at his son’s funeral.

In an 8-1 decision, the court upheld the Westboro group’s right to protest and to use the most-effective place and manner of free speech, as long as it did not physically disrupt the services, and even if it caused pain to the Snyder family.

“The principle (is) that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in the majority opinion. “The First Amendment protects our right to express ourselves, and the depths of our opinions and emotions, in the most strident terms,” he wrote. “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain … (but) we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course, to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Nothing about the national debate over abortion is simple – and that applies at times to even the words and manner we use in talking about it.

Gene Policinski is chief operating office of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center. [email protected]

Can antibiotic medicines, long hailed as miracle drugs, be too much of a good thing? Yes.

Two factors are at work here. First, bacteria (one of the earliest forms of life on Earth) are miracles in their own right, with a stunning ability to outsmart the antibiotic drugs through rapid evolution.

Second is the rather dull inclination of us supposedly superior humans to overuse and misuse antibiotic drugs. Sometimes, when we take an antibiotic to kill some bad bacteria that’s infecting our bodies, a few of the infectious germs are naturally resistant to the drug. They can survive, multiply, and become a colony of Superbugs that antibiotics can’t touch.

Multiply this colony by the jillions of doses prescribed for everything from deadly staph infections to the common cold, and we get the antibiotic paradox: The more we use them, the less effective they become, for they’re creating a spreading epidemic of immune Superbugs.

A big cause of this is the push by drug companies to get patients and doctors to reach for antibiotics as a cure-all. For example, millions of doses per year are prescribed for children and adults who have common colds, flu, sore throats, etc. Nearly all these infections are caused by viruses — which antibiotics cannot (repeat: cannot) cure.

Taking an antibiotic for a cold is as useless as taking a heart drug for heartburn. The antibiotics will do nothing for your cold, but it will help establish a colony of drug-resistant superbugs in your body. That’s not a smart trade off.

In fact, it’s incomprehensibly stupid.

Antibiotics are vital drugs we need for serious, life-threatening illnesses. Squandering them on sore throats has already brought us to the brink of superbugs that are resistant to everything.

That’s the nightmare of all nightmares.

OtherWords columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer and public speaker. He’s also editor of the populist newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown. OtherWords.org