Hello. I am responding to your survey at the suggestion of a fellow pro life advocate. While my position is not Mayoral or City Council, it is, never the less, for an organization whose mission is the protection of life. I also believe that as a Catholic a Christian, and a teacher, that the dignity of life, especially for those who don’t have the voice to be self advocates, is not being heard, in alarming numbers. So, I hope that this is ok to answer the questions anyway, since I am not part of the targeted survey. For what it is worth all elected officials, regardless of their capacity, have a responsibility to honestly and correctly respond to your questions.

Thank you,

Robert Torrens
 

AN ETHIC OF LIFE IN MUNICIPAL PUBLIC POLICY
1. Do municipal governments have a serious responsibility to advance a consistent ethic regarding the respect of human life?  A consistent ethic of life often focuses on major policy issues which include first abortion and euthanasia, but also others such as poverty, capital punishment, war, racism, nuclear arms and exploitation.  While these are national issues, municipalities can and should address local policy and social factors.  A consistent ethic of life recognizes that each and every human being is unique and important, that no person is defined by someone else's choices, and that no one exists solely as a means to someone else's happiness.  The choices we make, as individuals and as a society, must be weighed in light of their impact on human life and dignity.   Do municipal governments have a serious responsibility to implement public policies and facilitate community action that further a consistent respect of all human life? If the word “serious” in the question could be replaced with the word “implicit”, it would be a better question. Regardless my answer is yes. My wife and I  work with the young. We also added on an apartment to our house for her aging parents, to spare them the indignity of being shuffled off to “a home”. Life, at any age is a precious gift.

PUBLIC LIBRARY PORNOGRAPHY
2. In the US Supreme Court ruling United States v. American Library Association, Inc, 2003, which upheld the use of library internet pornography filters, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated for the plurality that "to fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons.  Although they seek to provide a wide array of information, their goal has never been to provide 'universal coverage,'" and "most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion."   Will you as a city council person appoint, recommend or request (depending on your level of authority) only library board candidates who oppose the inclusion of pornography in public libraries, whether by internet or as printed materials?  As a  fire commissioner, that is out of my jurisdiction. Based on where I live, I believe the same applies. However, that being said, to any extent possible, my answer is absolutely. I am sure that the Supreme Court’s Decision was based on what they are held, constitutionally to do:  use the First Amendment as their filter, in this particular argument. However, there is a civic argument that needs to prevail and that argument is much more simple than weeding through interpretations of the First Amendment: do we want tax dollars spent on allowing these kinds of materials into our schools and libraries or other publicly sponsored municipalities? The answer in my eyes is no! While Freedom of Speech is a right we can all exercise, that “freedom” comes with responsibility.
 
REGULATION OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
3. The U.S. Supreme Court in Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., (1976) and Renton v. Playtime Theater, Inc., (1986), concluded that municipalities have "substantial governmental interests" in protecting and preserving the quality of life for its community against the adverse secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses while allowing for "reasonable alternative avenues of communication."  Land Use Studies from cities around the United States were cited in both U.S. Supreme Court cases documenting the harmful secondary effects including 1. Increased Crime - rape, sexual assault, prostitution and illegal drug sales; 2. Decreased Property Values - both residential and commercial; and 3. Urban Blight - people and businesses fleeing the community.  Will you diligently seek and maintain zoning ordinances, licensing procedures, permit requirements and operational regulations which serve to minimize the adverse secondary effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses?  Again , this is out of my jurisdiction. However, that being said, any fire department is predominately male. I am on record as being an advocate for changing the paradigm. Further, I have listened to voices of women who have passed the written test, barely failed the physical agility test, and as a consequence were not considered for employment. The Fire Chief knows where I stand on this matter. Short answer is yes
 
ABORTION
4. Do you believe that it is scientifically accurate and honest to say that human life begins at conception? I don't believe how life can begin any other way so my answer is absolutely yes

5. The 14th Amendment states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 1973, stated that "if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."  The Court regrettably concluded though that "we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."   Do you believe that life begins at conception and that the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life? Whether it be local, state, or federal, the purpose of any level of government is to ensure the well being of its citizens. However, the Constitution is vague on the definition of what a citizen is. So, given that, I think it is incumbent on any governmental decision making body to consider any living being to be under its protective arm. My argument takes into consideration those unable to to apply for "citizenship".