Good afternoon. Welcome to the Mike Janusik Show. And again with me in the Copiala
seat today we got an ass as because our guests are getting confused. I'm Mike, the voice
over here is Mike and Vince is talking about. I'm Vince and no you may not weigh in on
the Mike Janusik Show. Why not? Well because it's because we have things important things
to talk about and you just getting the way. This is the name only. I'm the moderator.
All right. We got a lot going on. And in fact it's been great because I think we
booked our first segment a couple of weeks ago and we have some developing news and they
Kentucky legislature that we're going to talk with representative David Floyd on the
second part of the program. But with us again today they've been on before. I consider
them friends and I hope they do likewise with me because they were kind enough to invite
me to come and help them at CPAC last year. We have Heather Bodwyn and Mark Hyden, both
of which are with a group of fabulous group. In fact I encourage people to look them up.
Conservative concern about the death penalty and they've got a website. In fact I think
there's a video of me on their Vince. They're actually used to be maybe. Hope they take
it off. I hate seeing myself on video. It just reminds me that the treadmill we bought
for Christmas has still not been used. Anyway let's introduce our guests and we're going
to talk a little bit about this. Heather Bodwyn works for Eagle Justice USA National
grassroots organization working to build criminal justice system that is fair, effective
and responsive to everyone impacted by crime boy. That's a big job. That's a lifetime job.
She is also the advocacy coordinator for conservatives concerned about the death penalty.
A group of political and social conservatives who question the alignment of capital punishment
with conservative principles and values and we also have with us Mark Hyden and he's the
national advocacy group. A coordinator with conservatives concerned about the death penalty
and he was with the National Rifle Association. That's kind of interesting. We're asking about
that where he served as a campaign field representative in the state of Florida and prior to
his service with NRA he was also campaign manager for a Republican congressional race in
Western Northern Carolina and he has served the legislative liaison public affairs specialist
with the Georgia emergency management agency, Homeland Security and as the legislative
aide to Georgia State President Pro Temporis. So we have with us Heather Bodwyn and Mark Hyden.
Are you guys with us? Did we get you?
I think we're here and I really appreciate you having us back on and dancer a couple of
your questions. I definitely consider you a friend and unfortunately that video is still
on our website.
Bomber. Well, I'll have a lawyer. Does somebody that doesn't know you very well?
It is, but we're going to serve together. We're going to be in Lexington at the UK. We're
going to have a lot of fun there, Mark. So I can't wait.
I've got a lawyer. I'll have him send some letters over there to get that video off.
All right. So let's start more generally speaking again. It's been a while since we've
had you on the program and I understand CPAC has worked for free. I'm sorry to interrupt
you. I know. I know what your rates are. So let's start. First off, are we going to be
at CPAC again this year? I know I can attend because I've got the National Rifleife Convention
thing I'm dealing with here and I appreciate the invite again, but I won't be able to
attend, but I guess you guys are going to be there in force.
Yes, we will be at CPAC once again. And as you know, you are actually a major part. You're
two modest earlier when you were talking about your experience with going with us to CPAC.
You are a major force and make that very successful and you can talk to some of the
steps we've had. They're natural. We're seeing nationally. So we're coming back one
year later and we're seeing that in the one year since we've been at the National Narrative
Convention, and we're seeing that the National Narrative Convention has changed and
conservatives across the spectrum are starting to come out against the vet building.
What about chop liver? You dominated on the common good discussion last week. But I want
to go to CPAC. I want to hang out in the booth. I can talk to talk. The vents is good on the
death penalty. You should invite Vince up. He'll have to drive his van at well. He was telling
me stories about the van. Maybe you don't want him driving that up. All right. So since last
year, I know that you've had a couple of major advances, including I think, because I remember
receiving the news item. Heather, did you guys land? I think Ron Paul came out in support
of what you guys are doing. That's right. We've had a really terrific
year and have just been thrilled with the amount of conservative leaders across the country
who have come out and said, you know, we no longer support the best penalty. And our
most exciting one in my opinion was Ron Paul. Mark worked really hard to get him to come
out and endorse conservatives concerned about the death penalty. We can't be more thrilled
about that. That's a big one. There are plenty of others. I'm so glad, as I talked about
last year, I thought the whole group was very well received at CPAC. I think we're going
to see more and more of that. In fact, we're going to have on Representative David Floyd
on the second part of the segment because he's introduced a bill here in Kentucky. He
is the chief co-sponsor. He has definitely considered a conservative. In fact, he earned
the title from our very liberal career journal newspaper, the enemy of the state a few years
back. So the fact that David Floyd is sponsoring legislation to abolish the death penalty in
Kentucky as a Republican conservative is pretty, I think, important and pretty newsworthy.
Mark. Absolutely. I've been able to talk with Representative Floyd a couple of times
and I've been able to work with him. What he's doing really shows what the death penalty
really is. It shouldn't be surprising that conservatives are coming out against the
death penalty because capital punishment offends the very core principles of conservatives.
It risks innocent life. Mike, you and I are both pro-life conservatives. We can't stand
for that. I'm also a fiscal conservative. It costs the definitely cost far more than
its alternatives. I believe David Floyd said and he said very well that against the
mistake pro- a mistake pro government far too much power. We should be we should be
very concerned about this. But what you're seeing with House Bill 330 that Representative
Floyd is sponsoring and also the Senate bill 77 from Senator Neal is there's agreement
from the left and the right on this. And I think there's something beautiful about that
when both the left and the right can come together and agree on something. And it's
something you don't see because in politics, especially in today's day and age, that kind
of bipartisan ship is really considered taboo. I totally agree and Vince, what about this
risk of executing innocent people? Does that risk especially in today's judicial system
as you and I both know it has some problems with corruption here and there? Is it proportioned
enough that we ought to be opposed to this just because we're bloodless means? I mean,
what we're finding out, the procedures, the evidence available changes as technology
advances. But what we're finding is an awful lot of people that we've put in prison for
crimes weren't even possibly there, DNA evidence. And there are other things. But we're often
wrong, but never uncertain, right? Exactly. And the risk, you know, the Holy Father says
in the Evangelium Vitae that it's not listed to resort to executing someone unless it's
necessary to protect society. And the chances of being wrong are the least of our worries
that the morality of actually killing people as a society, that ought to be pretty high
up on the radar screen. Well, I definitely think that's the case, which is interesting
to me, Mark, because I didn't quote, change on this issue. I mean, I've been a conservative
the better part of my adult life. And I've always thought that if we're going to be limited
government conservatives, because of all the issues we regard as problematic and big government,
I don't know why so many conservatives, although I think it's a dwindling number now,
thank God. But I think it's been odd that it's been conservatives who generally believe
in the unlimited recourse to capital punishment. I was baffled by the leadership in the house
in Kentucky, the Kentucky legislature saying that they wanted the death penalty. They're
in big advocates, not going to get rid of it. What was that? I didn't. Did they? Is that
the? Yeah, that was what's the guy's name? He leads in the house speaker, stumble, stumble
on the news last night was saying that we are not going to ban the death penalty. Well,
it looks we have that well interesting. But Mark, what about that? I mean, how does that
argument play with other folks around the country who say they're conservative? And I know
that, you know, Ron Paul is maybe I guess more of a libertarian, but still the same principle
here applies. How can we be for limited government? But then in this one case, we are not.
Well, first I'd like to say, I believe it's a Reagan that said libertarianism is at the core
of conservatism. So I'm not sure if I would label Ron Paul necessary, a liberal, a
libertarian. He does have a lot of conservative policies that he court. And he, I was able
to find out a lot about him, obviously, from from this process and his numerous issues
with the death penalty. I mean, it disproportionately affects people of color and those that live
in poverty. And you don't hear a whole lot of conservatives, at least before he said
that coming out and saying that. So it's good that he's bringing that to the table. And
you know, Mike, perhaps not as a good man as you, because I actually used to support the
death penalty. So I can speak to this. I got an evolution. I really as a Southern conservative,
I mean, by George, I really wanted to support the death penalty because I thought that was
the kind of strict justice that kept our streets safe and served what people deserve.
But you know what? I looked up, I did a little bit of research on Kentucky and what kind
of waste is going on there. It's not.
You had to do research.
This 1976 Kentucky spent more than $100 million just to maintain the death penalty program.
And what did you get for that $100 million? You executed three people. But in that same
span, not people were wrongly convicted and had to be released. I mean, this is a program
that's not working. At least the way it's supposed to be. And I think we need to take
us that back and, you know, reconsider whether this is a program that Kentucky and so I can
get behind.
You know, that's funny. You said we executed three people, but nine people were wrongly
convicted. We don't know of those three people were right. We're wrongly convicted.
So I mean to raise a doubt there. But most of the death, most of the people who are executed,
no one ever goes back to see if it was right or wrong. So we'll never know.
That's right. That's right. Well, the state usually doesn't like to admit when it makes
mistakes. So back to do that doesn't make much sense. Oh, it's not a new best interest.
Absolutely. Now Heather, this has to be a question you get. Let's just talk about Kentucky
here. I'll ask the question. So all right. All right. Fine. Maybe I can be with you guys.
But what's the big deal here? We've only executed three people in our entire history. Is it
really worth all this effort? Why do we have to do this?
Sure. I mean, I think I think a lot of folks are waking up to the fact that innocent people
are convicted as we were talking about earlier, Mike. And we've been so, so very thankful and
appreciative of the Catholic community across the country and and and they're added voice to
this issue and saying that innocent life is valuable, right? And and Catholic value life from
conception to a natural death. And there's nothing very natural about the death penalty. And we've
been in the same scene. Problems with lethal injection lately as well and the debacle about
is treating it with, you know, pharmaceutical companies not wanting to provide drugs for lethal
injection and secret procedures and all sorts of things. But but I think innocence is a really
is a really big problem with a death penalty and and Catholics have has been very supportive
and we've been appreciative of that. One person who recently joined our effort with conservative
concern about the death penalty is Abby Johnson. Oh, yeah. I'm sure many of your listeners will
know who she is. Sure. And you know, someone who who worked in abortion clinic and then changed her
mind on abortion and is now pro life and has such a powerful testimony. And she's also against
the death penalty because she values life. And so I think that that's an issue that we need to talk
about and that we can't talk about enough because of the reality that we're facing. Vince, let me
ask you this question because I know there are going to be listeners out there and they'll be
right that the church in over the history of the church has always affirmed the right of the state
to have recourse to the capital punishment. And the state does have that right. And so what do you
say now with regard to Pope John Paul the seconds teachings? And I think I think it's fair to say
even generally more speaking Pope Francis and even Benedict, I think we're seeing a shift,
what I'll call a shift and I'll put quotation marks around it because I think you'd like to talk
about maybe a little bit development of doctrine here. Oh, and yeah, exactly that. It's not just a shift.
It's a development of an understanding of things and and there are many reasons why we punish people
and there are many ways in which we do that. Detering others from doing something is a legitimate
reason to punish people and restoring a sense of justice, the retributive retribution kind of a sense
is a legitimate reason to punish people that everybody think, well, okay, fairness, you know,
justice has been done here. What's happened in the church is the recognition that life is sacred
and that these motives are not sufficient to to support killing someone. If we're to have this
culture of life we've been mowling off as pro-lifers about for so long, we need to recognize that we
could be wrong about taking a life. And and at the only legitimate there is no legitimate reason
for taking a life other than to protect yourself or the rest of us from an aggressor. And so the
death penalty is finally, frankly, developed into the situation where it's just like defensive self.
You can't shoot someone intending to kill them. You have to shoot intending to protect yourself
from their aggression. That's self-defense. Well, the society has the same right of self-defense.
We just haven't been very clear over the years about what really makes this work.
So the church teaching in this you believe would be developing into something like this. If someone breaks
into my home at four in the morning and my family's there and I have an obligation to protect them,
I should try to stop those. No, no, no, no, no, you don't, don't carry in too far. This is not,
you're the police officer is not required to try to figure out if he can shoot the gun out of his hand
or some. No, no, I agree. But then you're not required. If you can shoot in on, I tell my wife, okay,
pump the 12 gauge if they don't, if they're not impressed, shoot over the door frame so that
that's what I'm saying. I realize, okay, fine. But, but in the death penalty, we have plenty of time
to deliberate. There's no exigency. There's no urgent circumstance. Excellent. The, the point there
is that when we can avoid taking a life, we, we need to do that. And for many reasons, both,
you know, church doctrine develops mostly negatively. In other words, we, we, we, we, we,
go through time and things are allowed. Everything is allowed until we say, hey, wait a minute. This
isn't proper. And so here we're saying that these other motives, the, the retributive or deterrent
motives are not sufficient. And so we're just making it perfectly clear. These are not enough.
Many times you have all sorts of motives, including defensive society. And so it's not perfectly clear.
It's fuzzy in history about, well, was that really just retributive? And you know, with all due
respect to Father George Rutler and some other writers, savory, dole, who, who've, who've come out
saying that wait a minute, it's important that the society, the government do justice. Okay.
But, but the doctrine is, is, is, uh, um, been clarified. And that is that there's only one motive
that's adequate to justify taking a life. And that is defensive society.
Well stated, my friend. That's why we have you on the Mike Janisak show every week.
Oh, I think that's not Sally. Is my salary going to go up? I'm sure it's not. No, but we need the
bell. We need the bell. I keep forgetting to bring the bell out. All right. So Heather, um,
in light of that, I think, you know, even though in Kentucky, we haven't executed a whole
lot of people. I think this has to do a lot about us more than so, more so than even those convicted
of these heinous crimes in the sense that we don't necessarily want to be participants in what
many would consider to be, uh, simply in the moral use of the state power.
Right. Well, and, and these days, you know, as Vincent saying, we don't need, we don't need to
execute people. We have modern day prisons where we can keep society safe. We can keep people
out of society and, and locked away forever if that's what we need necessary. And so we don't need
to be executing them. And, and I've heard so many beautiful stories of redemption. And I,
I do a lot of work with, um, national evangelical leaders as well. And, and if there's one thing they
care about, boy, it's redemption. And there are more and more of them coming out every day and,
and talking about why they're changing their minds on the death penalty. But, but why should we cut
cut those beautiful stories of redemption short? I mean, God has a plan and a purpose for every
person. And even someone who's made really terrible choices and committed really terrible crimes,
I still have seen the proof that God can still use that life, even in a prison cell for his
getting ready. One has to be careful with that sort of thinking, you know, they're always made
as a vessel of wrath, for example. So, yeah, you may have a plan. It may not be the one we'd really like.
Well, no, I think that's, that's a good point. And especially when you, when you, when you bring in
as I think any right thinking conservative necessarily must consider, uh, the problems with the state.
And that's all the way. Yeah. So, so Mark, talk to us a little bit about some of the
recalcitrant thinking out there because we, Heather and I, in fact, we went over to meet a particular
person. We won't mention names on the program. But she was gracious enough to come along with me
and we could tell there was just, there's a, there's a, there's a blindness there. But
tell us about some of the more recalcitrant positions and how you would urge listeners of this
program who are definitely sympathetic to your cause. How do you break through some of those barriers
with conservatives who continue to advocate for the death penalty? Well, I'd like to say that
not all conservatives are homogenous in their views and they're supporting the support of death
to make some of them for different reasons. But for me, I usually give, uh, policies like
all the conservative litmus deaths. Is it pro-life? Is it just a response for, in that limited
government because that's the most conservative award about that in addition to it being constitutional.
So that's, that's usually what I talk about. Now, there's one thing that Mike and Ben, you guys know
about conservatives is they don't have a whole lot of trust, a whole lot of faith in the government.
So, you know, I try to ask him, if you don't trust the government too efficiently around the
DMV or probably deliver the email, why don't you, uh, come on, come on, come on, come on,
administer this program. I mean, it doesn't make much sense. Ben, if you are serious and if
you're principled about your fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism, this is not a program for
you. I mean, I think that's obvious. And the dollars and cents are playing the seat. So,
there's a few lots of reasons to oppose the death penalty. Um, and I, you know, if you may
support it, if you, if you just support policies that support some sort of revenge that you prefer,
but it's hard to argue with that. If you want to argue about facts and the philosophy of
conservatism, I think it's indifference. I agree. And I'll go one further and ask either one of
you Heather remark, um, what about this deterrent argument? Is that a good argument or do we,
do we actually see that this policy is being deterrent or not? Well, uh, Mike, I might hop in there.
There's been several studies that have been done that have shown that there's no positive
correlation between deterrence and the death penalty. And I don't know why people would think that
it would deter something because if you are convicted, there's a possibility you might get executed
30, 40 years later. I don't know what that would, why that would cause you to, but if it did
deter crime, wouldn't taxes the state that uses the most here after a year, after a year, finally,
by now, the lowest murder rate. Well, they don't. In fact, they're, they're not even remotely close.
Wow. Yeah. Well, I didn't know that. If we were going to be deterred by the 20 year plan,
why wouldn't we be deterred by simple arrest? Okay. Exactly. So that doesn't work.
Well, tell us Heather a little bit more about the group when it was founded, how people can take a
look at the website and so forth. Uh, and speak broadly about how this whole thing came to be, what,
what made, uh, equal justice decide, hey, there might be some support among our conservative
friends on this issue. Sure. Well, actually, the group did not start as a national group. Um,
it started in Montana and I had the privilege of being a part of that, um, a few years ago when
I was working for the Montana abolition coalition. And there were several, uh, conservatives, one
of them, um, with someone that you met, Mike at CPAC, his name is Roy Brown and he was the Republican,
how it's majority leader in Montana and also the, uh, juvenile choreo candidate there. Um, very
well respected Republican in the state of Montana and he was one who really helped us to get this
group off the ground. There were, you know, conservatives who wanted space to be able to talk about
their concerns with the dust penalty and there wasn't really a space to do that. So, so a group came
together, uh, we started dialoguing about the issue and it, it was very successful because let's be
honest, even if you support the dust penalty, we should all be really concerned about the problems that
exist within the dust penalty. So, we were able to really gain some traction and, um, and then
decided that, you know, we should, we should launch this national group because there's a need for
it on the national stage as well. And so we had our launch at CPAC last year and as Mark said, we're
so appreciative that you were a part of that and it's just, it's been sort of a whirlwind of excitement
ever since then, my opinion. Um, we have an overwhelming number of, of folks who we still need to talk to,
on the national level that are interested in the issue and we have groups like Dona Americans for
Liberty who've come out and partnered with us and, and folks like Jay Seculo, who many of your
listeners, I'm going to recognize that name, um, who've been supportive of our issue and of
conservative concern about the dust penalty. So, we've got, we've got a lot more work to do and a
lot of potential and we're excited about it. Um, and to your question about how folks can get in touch
with us, please come and check out our website. It's, um, conservative concern.org and check us out
and see what other conservatives are saying about the dust penalty and get in touch with us. We'd love
to hear what you have to say about the issue as well. It's a really, really good website. Well done and,
it's not overwhelmed with information, which is what I like about it, that you get right to the
arguments and do it in a very concise way. Now, Mark, over the last, I would say probably as much,
is 10 to 15 years ago when I started getting active in politics. This seem, this issue seemed to be
almost a litmus test for whether or not you were a quote unquote true conservative. Um, I don't
sense that's the case now. I think this is, this is an issue where people are given quite a bit of
latitude here. Uh, would you think that's fair assessment? I think for the most part you're
correct. I mean, I'm reminded by Rick Perry recently saying, well, if Washington doesn't have
death penalty, you should come live in Texas because we like killing people. And I don't know if that's
what you want on your chamber of commerce or your poor, I don't think conservatives are like that
anymore because we're, we're, we're in real life. I mean, an innocent life can be killed through this.
So we are worried about that. And I, I also, you know, I'd like to always end with that, with
a compliment if all possible. I'm a Protestant. So a Protestant complimenting a Catholic. I
that should mean a lot to you. We can beat that out. Mark, don't worry. We can take off the
program now. conservative Catholics are the ones that really blaze the trail for the rest of it.
We, I mean, Richard Vigory is a Catholic who opposed the death tone in the longest time. He was
kind of the lone voice crying out in the wilderness about this. But he's been joined by people
like Brent Bozell and Michael Spiel, the former RNC. And these are, these are to bonafide conservative
Catholics. And what they've done, what you've done, Mike, is as, as Blake, blaze the trail so other
conservative, I want you, I want you all to contact the president of the USCCB and tell him that we
rock. We do rock, ever. Well, I don't know about blazing the trail. I know I enjoyed the crab cakes,
but I had a good time and you guys are great, a great group of folks, but I just sense because I
know what it was like 15 years ago. And maybe the topic might have been hotter than for some reason,
but I don't, I don't sense anymore that this is an issue where, where people are going to put you
out to the side if, if you disagree. And I think that's, that's progress in and of itself.
So I'm, I'm hopeful we can continue to move this long. Now I know I've, I've spoken with a lot of
people as you guys have a CPAC, but even my own conservative friends, I, and I think it's also
somewhat of a generational issue. I think people, you know, older than 60 are a little bit more
difficult to persuade on this front. But I will say this. And one of the arguments that I found
very effective here in Kentucky was a few years ago, our Republican Senate was trying to pass
tort reform. And I remember at the time calling in some radio programs that, you know, that's great.
I'm all for tort reform, especially as a husband of a wife who's a physician. But if we're going to
be concerned about the flow of money because a jury can't properly assess the situation in medicine,
then we ought to be concerned about the flow of the sodium pentathol for the same reasons. And,
and I got a lot of traction with that argument. Heather?
Yeah, I, I, I think that completely makes sense. I mean, I, I absolutely get your correlation. And,
and to your point about generations, I have absolutely found that, especially within the
Evangelical community, there are lots of younger folks who are open minded on the issue. And I think
it's because we're able to sort of break it down and say, okay, the dust penalty is a
philosophical issue. Sure, you can support it or you cannot support it. But let's take a look at
how it's actually functioning and how it affects our governments and how it affects our, our dollars
that we're paying. And I think that's where we're gaining traction. And that's where we're
able to talk about the realities of the dust penalty and that of sort of this ideological system.
When we know it's not a perfect system. So, I think you're right about that. I think younger folks
are able to take a fresh look at what's actually happening. Yeah. And I think younger folks have,
have a built-in level of untrust of the government that many others don't because I think they're seeing,
well, first off, we spent all their money. We've spent them into oblivion. But, you know,
that's another show topic, Vince. We'll get it. But I think the point is I think they have a healthier
skepticism of big government or of government in general, which I think is good in some ways,
but bad in others. But anyway, we got about two minutes left. And I'll give you each the floor for
about 45 seconds. Let us know how we can help. Mark, I wouldn't invite everybody to come see us
at the Young Americans for Liberty Conference in Lexington on April 5th. We'll have a booth there.
And you'll be able to hang out with Mike and me and we'd love to see you. And just to add your
point about the youth, I'd like to mention that we actually formed a strategic partnership with
the Young Americans for Liberty. So the youth gets this thing. I think we lost Mark. Heather, are you there?
Yes, I'm here. Yes. And I would also say as folks are planning on coming to CPAC, we'll give
there again definitely stop by and visit us. We would love to see you. As I said before,
check out our website, www.conservativesconcern.org. We'd love to get in touch with you and to hear
your thoughts on the issue and we're excited about things that are happening in Kentucky. So thank you.
Absolutely. Thank you, Heather. We're going to talk with Representative Floyd on the other side of
the break. Till Mark, I don't know, maybe he fell off the libertarian stool he was on. But we'll catch
up with Mark on in April. In fact, I will and I look forward to seeing him again. You guys were great.
It had a great time at CPAC and great group of smart folks. And you guys keep up the great work. And we'll
have you back again. Sounds great. Thank you so much, Mike. Take care. We'll see you.
Vince, a pretty good group here. They've got the arguments down pad. I mean, they really have
got the three. They're not Catholic philosophers like you are. But I mean, I think they hit the right
points. I think they hit the right point. So we're all Catholics are supposed to be able to talk
about philosophy. So we're working. We're working. We're working. And we're going to have
Representative David Floyd on the other side of the break. And I can't, I got to get this bill
number a house bill 330 and we're going to chat with him. So then we'll round that out.
I want to bring up this article in the career journal by Father. We're definitely going to do that.
We'll save it for the end. Exactly. Well, Representative Floyd will be with us about 10 minutes
and then we'll kick around the father. Yeah, we're going to do that. Stay with us.
Got some great discussion with Representative Floyd. And then the father-fowler article.
On to get us out of the break.
All right. Welcome back to the Mike Janicek program. Thanks again to Vince sitting in the Copilot seat.
I call him the copilot. I don't know. It makes sense. He's over there. He's, uh, he's ready to roll.
I know he's biting and chomping at the bit over there to get to the father-fowler article in the
career journal. Which we need to get to. This thing is really, really bad. But anyway, before we do
that, I want to have on the program friend of mine, a great leader in Frankfort. And in fact,
I hope you listen to the first segment and was able to over the live streaming. But anyway,
we have Representative David Floyd, who is Republican rep from House District 50, which covers Nelson
County parts of bulletin Spencer County. He was elected to the House in 2004. He has been
considered an enemy of the state by the career journal. Well, not the career journal, but at least some
of the more liberal editors of the career journal for doing nothing more than simply defending the
lives of unborn children. And we've always appreciated his efforts there. But today, we're going to
speak to him about House Bill 330. And let's just get to it. David, are you there? I am. And so
good to be with you, Mike. Thanks for being on the program. So I'll be frank. I'll plead guilty. I
have not read the text of the bill. So briefly, tell us about House Bill 330. And why you decided
to sponsor it would be the chief sponsor of this bill as a Republican. Well, first of all, I
want to the revelations that has come to me recently is that Michael Janicek has a radio show.
And so on the way home from Frank, as long as he behaves himself, such as it is.
I turned it into 1040 and I was able to listen to a different program before I arrived. And well,
congratulations. I first met Mike through the Kentucky Ride to Life Association and I appreciate
his work there in the work of Marginal Gummer and all those who were involved in the
in the fight for life for the unborn. Absolutely.
House Bill 330 is a repeat of Senate Bill 77. Senator Gerald Neal has introduced that
this session in the Senate. You know, a lot of people may not be aware of this, Mike, but I have
been since I arrived in Frankford as a representative after the 2004 elections. I have been
on the on the on the side that wants to abolish the death penalty and the copy of course in my
second term the first time there was a bill about it. I co-sponsored it. I have co-sponsored
sets then. But I was asked to take a lead on this year and I'm happy to do that. You know,
we have in the past we have advanced certain arguments on the matter of the death penalty. For me,
my initial my initial epiphany was more along the line of a spiritual side when I considered
just who man is and the and the way that he came to be and the breath that is in him. And so
when a person is in is incarcerated and is no longer a threat to anyone,
I tried to imagine that I was given the surrender. I was given the, depending on the method of
execution, if I was given that option, would I pull that lever? Would I inject that poison?
And I concluded that I could not based on who man is. And so Senate bill 77, House Bill 330,
that I took the lead on this year for the first time is to simply the abolishment of the death
penalty is an option for jury. And so that's where we are with it and the difference this year is
that as lead I can advance a conservative cause as one who is of course pro-life but also one who
believes in the conservative principles. You know, once we understand who's in charge of this
and I know some people have said that and I concluded that I could not based on who man is
that the government is us but it is not. The government is people that we entrust with running
the day-to-day activities of the government. But as I said at the press conference, you know,
conservatives typically don't trust our government to do certain things. We don't trust them.
And so Senate bill 77, House Bill 330, I'm health care and as the earlier session said, you don't
have any trust in what the Postal Service would, and most recently we've been mindful of
that I took the lead on this year for the first time is to simply the abolishment of the
death penalty is an option for the abuse of political power of those in office, the degrees.
And respect the constitutional limits on their power. While at the same time, conservatives
typically trust that same government with the power of life over death over a human being.
And in Kentucky it's different than many other states because those who prosecute this,
those who judge this are in political positions. And so that's why I asked the question.
Is pursuing the death penalty a political decision? And if so, then we need to rethink the way
we do business with regard to the crime. That's interesting. I hadn't thought about that particular avenue
of this but I think that's a very good point and I would also like to throw this to Vince because
the way you described your own spiritual conversion on this is interesting because it brought
to mind Vince. Well, what would we say of a US soldier who captured an enemy combatant and then
just basically summarily killed them even though that wasn't required to protect any of his
troop mates or anything else? Would we say that would be not honorable? Yeah, well clearly we'd
say we'd be dishonorable but I think we court martial people still for that kind of behavior.
That's interesting though because as representative Floyd points out, if you have the person
in custody and they're no longer a danger and if someone were to ask me or anybody else and you
might characterize this if I might. I'm not a character as it is emotion. I think that's what happens
when we had I had with email some debates a couple of years back with folks in the community here
over this issue, mostly Catholic folks but there was a very strong feeling that if we stop killing
the the convicts that were abandoning traditional Catholic teaching which is of course Baldur
Dash and if we let go of the retributive and deterrent motives for killing people that somehow
society's going to come unglued or that's violates tradition and the state has the right to do that
just to make people feel better blah blah blah. This is it really is all emotional is I don't you know
I'm no I'm quick to resort to that but but if you think about this in a rational way why do we really
need to kill person a so that we can convince person being not to commit a crime that's stupid.
See how about that's been my argument and and why do we need to kill person a so that person b
feels better about the situation I mean that's what retribution is all about yeah and that's
what that's what deterrence is all about so representative Floyd brings up an interesting
proposition wherein I think in this case they properly formed conscience can the emotions of being
used to be able to as a Catholic to disagree and conscience with the church that said that was
okay to kill them or or even for some bishops who said it wasn't okay to kill the mix of
it used to be an unsettled question but as of evangelicalian vitae it's a settled question
it's in the shaticism as a settled question wow did you hear that usccb this was Vince
hyzer on the mic jenisex show all right now representative Floyd let me ask you this this is I
from the token liberal on the mic jenisex show oh come on you won't try me on that um let me ask you
this this is the first year you've been the chief sponsor of this bill correct that's correct yeah
what is the response been among your colleagues there for about that well just exactly what you
would expect and by the way Vince in the in the air force and I did a career in the air force
part of my time but there's a co-pilot so as your co-pilot did he neck to a mic our
heart concerned I can identify with you I want the bell run because this might be the first time
I've gotten a real recognition on the mic jenisex I don't know but except I'm usually the one
crashing the plane and he's usually trying to pull us out with regard to your your comments about
retributive justice retribution for it remember that that as far as the state is concerned the the
crime is committed against the state and so the state has an interest in pursuing justice and
you know unlike restorative justice where you restore to the victim anything and of course
when you murder someone there is no restoration possible and that brings up what you brought up what
you mentioned Vince which is the emotions about it and I've had I actually this morning a woman
who called me who husband was murdered and she is she's not upset but she she wants to help me
understand why she is for the death penalty she wants the murderer of her husband put the death
that's that is very easy to understand okay
all right it is emotionalism and the the the thing is sympathetic I can understand it and as far as
if I was in the same situation where my wife or a child of mine was was killed by some
person then then I might I might agree yes put that person to death however just because I think
that doesn't mean that it's right you might agree emotionally you might feel that and and we all would
and but we're talking about a life yeah exactly and and that's that's the thing and of course the other
part of of the argument the conservative argument is that when we don't trust the government to do
certain things how can we trust them with this you know especially when emotions are running high
especially when there's an egregious just just just something that really excites
the citizenry against someone who might have done this and what happens then well prosecution looks
for a person who committed it they'll do anything they'll do anything to make sure that this
thing can be closed and so whatever especially if it's an election year
well and that's true because those are political offices and and they do feel a responsibility
to those who elected them and they want to be uh efficient and effective at the job to which
they're elected however you know we all want that everyone wants a representative to be
responsive to them and and we must be but there are also higher considerations from time to time
if it's a minor matter then yes you can be but if there are principles involved then you must
stand firm and like I said this is this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone in my legislative district
I have always been opposed to the death penalty since I've been elected and and have always
co-sponsored bills with regard to it the difference is that now I have been asked to take
believe and you know the biblical injection I have I have been recently studying the old
testimony and yes yes it is there it is if person does this then you shall
let them to death but it is also there's a new covenant and you know Jesus of course
talked about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but then he disputed it but I tell you he
says do not resist and so on and so your arguments on both side biblical but there's a good biblical
case to be made especially under the new covenant thank goodness he founded a church and didn't just
drop a book out of this guy now now you're being contancers so well it is what it is well
represented flood I want to thank you because I know this is you know as you said and I hope I
didn't mischaracterize because I know for a fact that you've been a co-sponsored these bills in
fact I think I emailed you last year while from CPAC while I was with the group conservatives concerned
but as you well know that being the chief co-sponsor does carry different duties and obligations as
being a co-sponsor yeah the chief sponsor is a is a different thing and of course yesterday was
my first press conference about these about this my first press conference or anything and I was
very nervous about it but I'm glad that went off well we had so many distinguished people with
us and I was of course the Reverend Patrick Dela Hanty who's the executive director of the
Catholic conference but what a diverse group that we had who were there to argue the case for the
abolition of the death penalty you know from the the chairman of the justice committee it's the
Council of Churches in Kentucky the the executive director of the Council of Churches who is Dr. Mary
McClure Taylor right wherever and Terry White the Bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Kentucky
and also of course speaking of diverse groups Mr. Michael Aldrich who's the executive director of
the SCLU of Kentucky and and in the same room with me was Gerald Neal and on most things you know
this conservative and that liberal don't agree on things but on this we are coming into agreement
and that's why I think that I'm comfortable in in the role of advancing the conservative argument
and I was so glad to to hear the first segment when you had from the concerned conservatives you had
Mark Mark Heidmann Heather Bo Dwa which by the way I'm both Dwa I thought that was a beautiful name
because Bo Dwa would be beautiful and then doing she's doing the job that that she has been called
to do it's a beautiful etymologist not your strong point representative for the combination of
redneck and French you know that I could agree with
excellent all right representative Floyd thank you so much and again I would like to make
this program available to you along the session if we need to talk more about this send me an email
you've got my email because this conservative putting aside any Catholic or Christian religious
principles I've never understood how we can make the argument that they can't educate our children
they can't fill potholes they can't deliver a mail but they can kill people and are we happy
thanks very much and we're going to kick around to the topic here I won't drag you into this
publicly thank you very much take care good man he's a good man he's a good man and people down
there in district 50 continue to reelect representative David Floyd in fact I want to see him rise
to leadership we need more people like him all right Vince your chomping over there oh well I'm not
so much chomping but yesterday yesterday's career journal had what what I think is a really sad
this this a very sad article uh an opinion piece assembly disassembly is already we're looking to
disembling that's yeah yes but father Joseph Fowler who I guess um maybe he's mentally ill or something
I don't know there's some serious problem going on here because he you know nowhere has has
okay we start off with this who am I to judge stuff that that Pope Francis said um and if you
go back and actually read what what exists of a transcript and frankly there's not a real
formal transcript uh you you see that he says uh just like we don't judge any other sinner we're not
judging people who have this sin of homosexuality um but nowhere does he approve homosexuality as a
practice and so here we have father Fowler saying times have changed and many Catholics have come to
the full acceptance of homosexuality as god given and therefore sacred for a Catholic priest to say
that is is is evidence of doubtful intellectual capacity uh that's just out of that that's outside
that would be the charitable that's the outside the the boundaries of reason sensibility faith anything
else it's it's just evil and and homosexuality this practice of of engaging in satamy is not
something that that we want to encourage as a society you know he's claiming that homosexuals
are poor victims and discriminated against and all that except that that study after study has
shown that the income of homosexuals is higher than the average income study after study I forget
the studies okay just look at the gay pride marches where they take off their clothes and act
loosely in public as as their expression of their self okay and then on top of it it's entirely
a political thing that that we have no proof at all that homosexuality is is genetic or based
that you're born with or anything like that even if you were even if people go in and out of these
practices let me tell you tell the right but let me pause this is because someone may be afflicted
with a disorder that's genetic or not genetic is there relevant to the question there are all kinds
of people that are afflicted with genetic problems or and we don't and we don't change the definition
and say well aren't you glad you have Down syndrome I mean well some people do that and I'm not
particularly on board with that but well no I mean every life is a gift but I don't think okay but
homosexuality is not a thing like Down syndrome okay no homosexuality is a practice and you might
have psychological distortions that cause you to think that that's what you are but but that is not
a defining thing for your behavior is under rational control and if it's not it needs to be brought
under rational control the choice to engage in or promote homosexual practice is a choice to do
evil and that's what we're talking about and this is a priest of the Archdiocese of Louisville I
frankly think it's incumbent upon the bishop to do something about a priest who speaks publicly in
this way this leading the faithful not only that but he's challenged his own bishop publicly
no that's a whole different ballgame bishop's ought to expect to be challenged yeah but not
publicly by their own priest but this is leading people into sin this is serious scandal and it's
a priest who ought to be removed from public why don't we have father founder on this road we should
have him on the program answer a few questions we will make sure that's put out there I'm sorry no
you tell the great beyond the pale it's a horrible article and by the way I think the the career
journal ought to be called into question well the career journals been been prosodemy for for many
many years the pro-borsion prosodemy that's their editorial policy I don't know why they want people
to commit so I mean what I'm saying they know they know darn good and well notice how I muted
the customer there they know darn good and well where the church stands on this issue and to use
a Catholic priest to advance their agenda they're not being honest well that I agree with that
but you know they want controversy because it sells newspapers and anybody who's dumb enough to
buy a career journal these days ought to be flogged did you notice how he just lumped in lgbt with all
that too oh yeah that that's right why why not pedophiles I mean if we can if we can dress up and
go in the the boys can go in the girls' restroom just because they want to wear a dress if chick
filet has to hire dude that wears a dress that why not why not pedophiles where does this stop
the study this is so stupid you know that the end of of the species the end of you know all the
all the metaphysical things you can say about this oh we're gonna get a marriage the purpose of
marriage I mean and you know look I had this I had a this this topic come up with father leje
on his program and and we got a phone call as soon as the show was over that phone was ringing
I spent 45 minutes on the phone discussing this with a homosexual who at the end of it said you
know no one's ever said these things I didn't realize these the ways of seeing it this way and
you know I'm and I know I'm not saying that people caught up in the sin and the evil of home the
homosexual movement and the homosexuality aren't aren't necessarily good people they may just be
confused but for father to do this is necessarily well did you notice how he's selectively quoted the
catechism selective oh yeah cherry picked we're very good okay yeah homosexuality is intrinsically
disordered looking up in the catechism the the there are good reasons to discriminate against people
with sexual disorders okay and that includes pedophilia we don't want our teachers to be pedophiles
or bus drivers and all that sort of stuff and that that includes people who engage in homosexual
homosexual acts there are times when it's appropriate to discriminate against them I don't want
them around my family frankly I think that's not not an unreasonable thing for a father to think
if you've got a sexual disorder go get cured well you've been on the my chanisex show
and when the state of california bans the psychotherapy of curing homosexuals you know there's a lot
more going on here than just than just why would you they don't they don't ban a fortune tellers
in california no kidding hello so why would they ban this what you have people who want to come
because because homosexuals are activists in this and and they're not satisfied with just being
able to live life they they have to keep pushing and keep pushing because they're unsettled what did
say in Augustine say our hearts are restless until they rest in the oh lord okay and so these
restless souls are destroying themselves with diseases and and practices that leave them wanting
and and so they're driven to impose it on everybody else you know compassion is one thing but
but to call homosexuality god given and therefore sacred and and to use and hide behind it well
many Catholics have come to full acceptance it's just nuts it's just nuts it's evil it's wrong
and and you know but let's call father and see if he wants to talk about this yeah I think we
frankly I think he he needs an opportunity to retract it I think he'll get that doubt it well he'll
get it here I'm perfectly willing to talk about it but but you know this is this is this is working
people this is someone who is not doing their job as a Catholic priest working people find this
article now this is on career journals website and it's February 12th it's yesterday 2014
like a look Joseph Fowler joined Catholics for fairness pilgrimage blah blah blah wow pilgrimage my
eye this is a protest let's get over it he still a point is to get an Archbishop Kelly's face now
that's docks that's that's an Archbishop curts his face okay that that's a good dock Catholic
obedient servant of the bishop yeah we need more like that that's that's way over the top
it's you know in fact I one thing to to review him to his face the the Paul and Peter sort of thing
it's another thing to be pushing for immorality in the society amen we'll be back next week don't
get emotional on his fence we back next week we've got remesh penuro republicans democrats in
the economy and also Wesley Smith who's come out with a great new little film called The War on
Humans we're gonna talk about that so stay with us next week on the mic jane sick show bye bye
you
