This is in response to Robin (Admin) on Nov.29 2017 1:54am. Your response in part is; “The question is NOT whether the policy achieves its purpose. The question here is whether the state of Oklahoma has a “rational basis” to believe that the law is necessary.”
I would like to know who and how the criteria is established, and its guidelines, to determine what constitutes “rational basis” that proves a law or policy protects the public?
I know we can all agree that most of these policies and laws are emotionally motivated and fear based, but how does a court approve such law/policy without valid statistical data? Why aren’t the authors of such laws/policy’s required to statistically prove their case? And, why not is more proven statistical data brought up/against these laws to fight them? How can a court deny proven statistical data? If there is not enough data than by what means can it be obtained?