Context and Consequences: Alabama’s Missing Link
Guest Opinion by Alicia Boothe Haggermaker
Guest Opinion by Alicia Boothe Haggermaker
The recent exchange between Tanveer Patel and Perry Hooper Jr. about Sharia law revealed something much bigger than a disagreement over Islam. It exposed a deeper flaw in how Alabama makes policy: we are using the same words to describe entirely different realities, and then legislating from the confusion.
What Patel described as personal spiritual practice was interpreted as a foreign political system. Two people said the word “Sharia,” but they weren’t talking about the same thing. And that — right there — is the core problem.
Alabama Lawmaking Often Lacks Two Things: Context and Consequences
Missing Context
Policy here is frequently written with no grounding in:
- history
- science
- real-world data
- social impact
- the lessons of other states
- or even the lived experience of the people affected
This is how Alabama ends up debating caricatures instead of issues.
Years ago, during the filibuster over medical marijuana, Rep. Juandalyn Givan stood on the floor in her bedazzled face shield and proudly announced she had spoken with “the weed man,” who assured her the bill wouldn’t affect him.
It was a moment that revealed exactly where we are:
debating plants, people, and policy with no agreed-upon definitions and no shared frame of reference.
Missing Consequences
The other half of the problem is the lack of clearly stated outcomes. Most Alabama bills do not specify:
- what the law will actually do
- what the measurable goal is
- how success will be evaluated
- how enforcement works
- what limits exist
- what evidence supports it
- or what happens if it fails
Instead, terms shift based on who is speaking and what narrative they’re trying to advance.
Consider cannabis itself — a perfect example of semantic drift in legislation:
“cannabis,” “hemp,” and “marijuana” are the same plant
- yet lawmakers use different terms depending on the storyline they want to sell
- scientific facts take a backseat to political framing
- enforcement becomes incoherent
- citizens pay the price for terminological gymnastics
When definitions are fluid, accountability evaporates.
This Problem Appears Everywhere
We are now a state — and a country — where almost every major word has competing definitions:
Sharia: spiritual practice vs. foreign legal code
- Jew / Semite: ethnic vs. religious vs. linguistic vs. political identity
- Christian values: holiness? nationalism? compassion? restriction? depends who you ask
- Rainbow: divine promise vs. modern identity symbol
- Sovereign: constitutional autonomy vs. extremist caricature
- Southern symbols: heritage to some, generational pain to others
Even logos: a Cracker Barrel sign feels comforting to one person and exclusionary to another
It’s not that any group is wrong.
It’s that there is no shared dictionary anymore.
One word.
Ten meanings.
Zero clarity.
And that vacuum is where political manipulation thrives.
The Human Condition Behind the Confusion
Here’s the part we rarely acknowledge: no two people see a symbol or a word through the same psychological lens.
- We bring our:
- histories
- wounds
- educations
- cultures
- generational experiences
A cross doesn’t land the same way for every Christian.
A flag doesn’t land the same way for every Southerner.
A rainbow doesn’t land the same way for every generation.
We aren’t reacting to the word.
We’re reacting to our story about the word.
But Alabama policymakers legislate as if we all come from the same story.
We don’t.
And pretending we do is how bad laws get written.
That’s why we cannot legislate on vibes and assumptions.
Meanwhile, Look at the Fine Print They Require From Us
Think about how many hours you’ve spent listening to legal disclosures on the phone — word-for-word scripts where every syllable matters because it’s binding.
Think about the contracts you sign just to:
- rent an apartment
- get internet
- open a bank account
- buy a car
- agree to medical care
Pages of definitions.
Clear obligations.
Detailed consequences.
Specific timelines.
Binding terms.
Companies know how to write clarity when you must comply.
But when lawmakers write the rules that bind them and govern us?
Suddenly the WHEREAS clauses disappear.
- Definitions vanish.
- Consequences get fuzzy.
- Accountability becomes optional.
Citizens get fine print.
Government gets vibes.
Maybe It’s Time for Terms & Conditions — for Legislators
If we’re expected to follow rules with crystal-clear wording, maybe lawmakers should be required to write rules with crystal-clear wording.
Imagine if every bill in Montgomery had to include:
- clearly defined terms
- a stated purpose
- measurable outcomes
- evidence requirements
- fiscal impact
- enforcement limits
- sunset clauses
- a plain-language summary
In other words:
👉 Terms & Conditions for the people who write the laws.
Because the only people bound by fine print should not be the citizens who had no hand in writing it.
A Campaign for Clarity — Not Office
I’m not running for office.
I’m basically Forrest Gump during his running era — without the running.
What I am running for is clarity.
Alabama cannot continue governing with undefined terms, shifting narratives, emotional interpretations, and semantic sleight of hand.
We deserve:
- precision
- transparency
- measurable policy
- shared definitions
- context
- consequences
- and accountability
Clarity 2025 & Beyond
Because clarity isn’t partisan.
It’s foundational.
And Alabama has gone without it for far too long.
Alicia Boothe Haggermaker is a lifelong resident of Huntsville, Alabama, and a dedicated advocate for health freedom. For more than a decade, she has worked to educate the public and policymakers on issues of medical choice and public transparency. In January 2020, she organized a delegation of physicians and health freedom advocates to Montgomery, contributing to the initial draft of legislation that became SB267.
Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.
References and Further Reading
1️⃣ Pew Research Center — U.S. Muslims (Education, Civic Life, Economic Integration)
2️⃣ American Academy of Pediatrics — Discrimination Harms Youth Mental Health
3️⃣ Congressional Research Service — Hemp vs. Marijuana: Legal Definition Confusion
