Conscious Choice: Common Sense Laws Get Lost

May 2005 | Editor’s Note

Common Sense Laws Get Lost

There are a few things in life that seem like no-brainers: Don’t step in front of a speeding train. Don’t dive into an empty pool, spit into the wind, or even think about telling the truth when your beloved asks, “Do I look fat?” The correct answer is: “You look fabulous.” Especially if you’re in a romantic mood.

It’s all plain common sense. And because of common sense, State Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-57) recently confessed to being somewhat confused by the reluctance of some of her colleagues to pass environmental measures, including one that would outlaw toxins in baby food.

Now, it’s not easy being a legislator, being pulled this way and that by all those lobbyists who are more than happy to spring for fancy meals and then confuse you, making simple things seem complicated. And with a mountain of proposed new bills to crawl out from under, it’s possible that during the May legislative crunch time, lawmakers misplace a few good ideas. So let’s remind them of a few things we like because they just make plain common sense.

Because of the fluid nature of the legislative process (things that appear dead can be resurrected later) I won’t bother you with these proposals’ various ups and down. As they say at the opera (and on the statehouse floor) it’s never over until the fat, ah, fabulous lady sings.

In case you think your action won’t make a difference, I’m thrilled to report that intense public pressure helped the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finally cancel the controversial Children’s Health Environmental Exposure Research Study, known as (cheers). The proposed study, which has been the subject of several editor’s notes in recent months, would have measured the effects of pesticide exposure on babies living in Duval County, Florida. So now we need to work on a few more good ideas.

The first overall good idea is to ban, or at least seriously restrict, chemicals that have been linked to a growing body of evidence showing they do serious damage to people’s health.

“It just makes sense to me,” said Nekritz.

It also makes sense to Dr. Peter Orris, an M.D., who works for the Cook County Bureau of Health Services, who joined Nekritz to urge support for HB 2572 that would ban something known as PBDEs (poly-brominated diphenyl ethers). This is a fire retardant used in everyday household products, including furniture and electronics.

PBDEs have been found in alarming concentrations in mother’s breast milk and linked to serious health problems. Since safer alternatives exist, and bans or severe restrictions are already in place in other countries and states, it’s a no-brainer to pass this.

State Rep. Karen May (D-58), who chairs the House Environmental Health Committee, is the sponsor of two bills that make a whole lot of sense if you care about children. HB 695 would require school districts to adopt an indoor air quality policy and HB 1585 would ban the use of arsenic for treating wood used on school playgrounds.

To support these bills or for more information visit www.ilenviro.org.

And because we’re talking about good ideas, let’s talk about some bad ones, including a couple that have been cooked up by our neighbors to the north, who seem to have gone a bit gun crazy lately.

It’s bad enough that because Wisconsin residents voted in favor of the very cruel idea of shooting cats, the proposal is scheduled to come before the Wisconsin Natural Resource Board in May. How about launching a spay and neutering program instead of turning the state into a feline shooting range? Visit www.dontshootthecat.com.

And now, according to the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has just given Wisconsin a new permit to “euthanize up to 34 (grey) wolves this year.” If the wolves are bothering livestock, how about trapping and relocating them to more remote areas where efforts are underway to re-introduce them? Does it make any sense to start shooting and killing the same magnificent animal that the government went to extensive, expensive efforts to bring back from possible extinction to help balance the ecosystem? The logic here is: Let’s bring ’em back, so we can shoot ’em. Is it just me, or does this not make any sense to you, either?

— Marla Donato

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: