Tan Ban goes down in crushing 10-24 vote

By -
Senate Bill 208, otherwise referred to here as the Tan Ban (a moniker I coined that I've noticed has been picked up by at least one newspaper), went down today with hardly a whimper on a crushing 10-24 vote.

Al Hoerth and Sandy Jerstad testified in favor of the bill, as did Tom Katus (I think... the sound wasn't very clear), but it was absolutely slammed by testimony from Senators Ed Olson and Jason Gant.

I don't think Hoerth's case was helped when he testified that the enforcement burden would be placed on business owners and states' attorneys.

My favorite was the questioning from Jean Hunhoff who asked if the permission note from th parent had to be signed in the businesses' presence. Al Hoerth sheepishly answered "no" as Hunhoff pointed out that kids have been faking parental notes for some time, and didn't think this one would be any different.

So, the vote was 10-24 in favor of sensible government. Take that, nanny-staters.

Comments

Anonymous said…
more idiocy from Sandy Jerstad...she's a one-termer
7:39 PM
Anonymous said…
No b.s.

I was in year round brown today and they busted me when I didn't have my eye shades.

So I had to buy the little pasties for .40 cents.

Anyway the owner was in there and told me that they were trying like hell to kill the bill.

Anyway it slipped that Jerstad was not too welcome anymore among business owners in the S.F. area.

The other gossipy thing was a question of whether Jerstad herself tans or not. Didn't confirmation on that one.
8:01 PM
Anonymous said…
I doubt that anyone is going to consider Jerstad's position on this unimportant issue when deciding who to vote for in 2008. I've never seen an "I Tan and I Vote" bumpersticker.

I'll bet she is reelected because she is a tough campaigner.
10:42 AM
Anonymous said…
anon 10:42

Yeah, her feminazi attacks on fellow Senators in committee should go over very well with voters in her district.
10:44 AM
Anonymous said…
Good to see that Bill Early has lots of free time to blog.
10:58 AM
Anonymous said…
Oh sure, a woman with strong opinions is a feminazi.

Plenty of male knuckle-dragging assholes on this blog.

You guys bitch about the nanny state, yet you don't make a peep about the daddy state we're in?
1:36 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A note from Benedict Ar... Sorry. A note from Stan Adelstein why he thinks you should vote Democrat this year.

By -
Image
(Click on letter to enlarge) And while it may not be printed at taxpayer expense, I don't see a disclaimer, either. When they hold the special session (supposedly at the end of November) , since he's left them already, I think his colleagues should expel him from the caucus. Sure. At that point it's only going to be symbolic. But since he's already said he's running again in the near future, sometimes symbolism is enough.
Read more

Corson County information on Klaudt Rape Charges

By -
Here's some of the information on the Corson County Charges: COUNT I That on or about December of 2005, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT II That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT III That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration, separate and distinct from the act alleged in Count II, with...
Read more

It's about health, not potential promiscuity.

By -
As the only South Dakota blogger out with 5 daughters, I feel I need to weigh in on the whole discussion that's occurring with regards to the HPV vaccine, and Governor Rounds' proposal to make it available. My family (including my three oldest girls) watched my mom, their grandmother, succumb slowly and painfully to cancer which spread throughout her body. If a similar fate from a different type of cancer was preventable through a simple shot, why wouldn't anyone advocate for it? At the age most of my kids are going to be getting it, they're still playing with barbies, and negative influences such as most of the programming on MTV, and other assorted trashy television is verboten in my house. All they're going to know about this vaccination is that it's a shot, just like for teatnus or measles. They'll go "Ow, I don't want a shot," and that will be it. Just another mark on their vaccination record. One check box for DPT, one for HPV, and so on...
Read more