Nanny Staters were 1 - 1 at the legislature today.

Senate Bill 196 (protecting children from smoking when they hang out in bars) found itself referred to the 41st legislative day on a 7-6 vote. This bill from Republican Senator Tom Hansen bit the dust after discussion in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

But the nanny staters struck back in an even more ridiculous measure as the car seat bill for those up to age 8 passed the legislature. So, second graders who normally can walk to school by themselves will now find themselves strapped in. I'm seriously embarrassed that we had Republicans voting for House Bill 1189.

As one legislator pointed out, this summer, they'll slide in the dirt and have balls thrown about their heads at high velocity in Little League baseball. And as their mommy picks them up, they'll be strapped in a car seat.

You know, it's times like this one starts to refresh their memory on the requirements for referring laws.


Anonymous said…
So does up-to include 8 year olds or not? I dislike up to because depending on who you ask it includes those of that age and some see it as anyone below that age.

This could cause confusion.
Anonymous said…
If you're going to complain about 196 get it right, it died in the House HHS committee not the Senate. The bill would have removed the stupid malt beverage exemption that allows places like Perkins and Fryin Pan to get a beer license and never actually serve beer just so they can allow smoking. Disgusting.
Anonymous said…
pp says: "So, second graders who normally can walk to school by themselves will now find themselves strapped in."
Using that analogy, adults who can walk up the street shouldn't need to wear seat belts in motor vehicles.

The intent of the bill, to make certain all children are secure and safe in case of an accident, is good. It just isn't practical because people like pp - and others with smaller families and smaller vehicles - don't have room for more car seats.

Isn't that the real reason for protesting the nanny state?
Anonymous said…
Since when does a state lack an interest in the health of its citizens? Secondhand smoke is poisonous, period. By your logic, the state would have no interest in stopping Homestake from polluting Spearfish Canyon, or Morrells from polluting the Big Sioux River. What is the difference? nothing.
nonnie said…
What use is this law anyway on seatbelting in kids up to 8 years of age? It has no teeth, just a warning. So if I were driving a normal sized car (not a van) that only had room for two car seats and I was comfortable with my 7 year old only in a seatbelt, I wouldn't worry about it. Nothing will happen even if you get a warning. At some point some things should be left to parental responsibility. Most parents really aren't that dumb when it comes to making sure their kids are safe in a car. And those who are probably wouldn't obey the law anyway.
n_ _ sac said…
This week in the news a story about an 8 yr old that weighs 216 lbs. I wonder where you could buy his car seat??

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long