Child Safety Standards And The Idiocy of ABC

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

I know better. I really do. In truth, I was simply trying to be polite. Nonetheless, I opened the email from my honorable friend, clicked on the link, and suffered through a clip of ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson, a man who somehow manages to look grave while pronouncing utter rubbish.

The clip in question, "Lagging Safety Standards for Baby Products," was not news, but rather an inexcusably fear mongering advocacy piece calling for greater government regulation in response to the recent crib recall. My honorable friend sent it along to me in the hope that I could explain why the federal government does not already set strict safety standards for baby products.

Contrary to ABC’s histrionics over what it sees as a complete lack of regulation, the federal government does indeed impose rather exacting safety standards upon manufacturers and retailers of child products. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) stands as just one example of such regulation. This is nothing to celebrate, however. The CPSIA serves only to impose crippling costs on business, and actually undermines the safety of the children it purports to protect. All it successfully does is increase the size, scope, and power of government. Only Mr. Gibson could breathe a solemn sigh of relief over that. Sensible people should be alarmed.

The Economic Costs of Regulation

The economic costs of the CPSIA are fairly obvious. The CPSIA requires that any product intended for the use of children under age 12 must be tested by a third party and certified for safety under standards promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the Commission). Other than prohibiting excessive levels of dangerous substances such as lead or phthalates, the CPSIA leaves it to the Commission to define and set safety standards. Once certified, a manufacturer must affix a proper label to each of its products. Even without knowing what additional testing standards the Commission will impose, this third party testing, certification, and labeling requirement imposes enormous expense.

For a large toy manufacturer such as Hasbro, these additional expenses, though irksome, are manageable. The company will simply pass the costs along to consumers, and young parents, struggling to pay bills, will marvel at the outrageous prices of baby products while no doubt cursing the "greedy" corporate executives they mistakenly blame for the cost. The consumer suffers, but the large company may survive with less profit. A small business, however, will suffer even more.

A stay at home mother who designs and creates baby bibs for her own children, then has them manufactured for public sale, will suddenly find her business faced with expensive new testing requirements for every fabric she uses, for every fastening device and material she attaches, and for any pacifier or toy she may include with the sale of such a creation. It makes no difference that she thoroughly researched the safest types of products and materials for use in her designs. She must meet the requirements of the regulations, though the cost of doing so is greater than all the revenue of her small start-up company. The time commitment alone is more than she has as a new mother. So she closes her business. Others like her are prevented from entering the market at all. Government has just set a high wealth barrier to market entry.

Regulation’s Cost to Safety

Perhaps even more worrying than the financial costs of the CPSIA, though, is the damage it does to the cause of child safety. This may seem counterintuitive given that CPSIA is intended to do the exact opposite. Make no mistake, though, the existence of the CPSIA ensures that baby products will be less safe than they would be without the CPSIA.

If the CPSIA and its like did not exist, children would not be in any imminent danger. Rather, the safety of products would be determined by the courts. If a child were injured by any given product, and the parents brought suit against the manufacturer, a judge would look to see whether the manufacturer knew, or should have known, that the product could be expected to cause injury. A judge would hold a manufacture responsible for knowing the best practices of his or her industry. Thus, even if a particular manufacturer was ignorant of a product defect or risk which others in the industry had discovered and corrected, he or she would still be held responsible in tort (and sometimes under criminal law) for failing to maintain best practices. The beauty of this system is that the safety standard is always rising as the industry gains new information. Manufacturers have great incentive to keep up with or exceed best practices as punitive damages can put them out of business and the safest products have great marketing appeal.

The CPSIA changes all that. Under the CPSIA, the Commission sets industry standards by law. That then becomes the minimum safety level, and as long as a manufacturer meets the legal standards for its products, it cannot be held liable for the injuries its products may cause. The industry may, in fact, develop best practices far in excess of the safety standard set by law. However, as these standards are more costly and the law does not require them, many manufacturers will not use them in the production of their goods. While the Commission will attempt to issue regulations modified for industry development, it cannot possibly keep pace. It is but one underfunded government agency charged with setting standards for millions of baby products in the industry. Inevitably, its regulations will lag by many years. That is the sole point ABC correctly reported. The government, acting through the Commission, cannot possibly set safety standards as exacting or as efficiently as the industry itself through the proper operation of our court system and the market.

ABC and Mr. Gibson seem to think government must involve itself in everything we do for our own good—especially to protect the children. As I hope you see here, though, further government regulation of child safety standards actually leaves our children more vulnerable while imposing crippling costs on our small businesses. Just ask yourself: do you want the products your child uses to be subject to the highest standards the market and toy industry can offer? Or do you really want to leave your child’s safety at the bottom of a federal bureaucrat’s inbox?

　

　

　

Clear The Bench Colorado Launches Judicial Non-Retainment Initiative

A followup to BlueCarp's earlier post--Clear the Bench Colorado launches anti-retainment campaign targeting Colorado Supreme Court justices who value partisanship above the rule of law:

The Colorado Supreme Court has trampled our Constitution one too many times…

This is a rogue court, populated with partisan “justices” with no respect for justice or the rule of law.

This partisan court violated accepted legal practice in ignoring the “findings of fact” of the trial court which heard the case and ruled (correctly) on the unconstitionality of the mill levy tax rate freeze.

The majority on the court is apparently incapable of interpreting the plain language of the Colorado Constitution (including TABOR) which “specifically says voters must approve ‘any new tax, tax rate increase, mill levy above that for the prior year … or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.‘”

The court’s majority is also apparently incapable of interpreting the plainly expressed will of the people, who previously “crushed a ballot amendment [32] in 2003 that would have frozen property tax rates.”

It is time to remind the court’s majorityof their responsibility to the rule of law, the state Constitution, and the will of the people.

John Andrews has more:

"We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around." Reagan's words speak defiance to statism, but they are only as true as we make them. The 2010 election is Coloradans' chance.

Supreme Court justices Mary Mullarkey, Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice will be up for another 10-year term. Poor stewards of the law since they last faced voters in 2000, all four deserve dismissal. Whether they're retained or bounced will signal how much we cherish liberty.

Voting judges into office ended here in the 1960s. Gubernatorial appointments replaced the unseemly spectacle of jurists soliciting campaign funds. No court can overrule us, nor need we explain why. In this, at least, we're still sovereign.

Capriciousness isn't justified. "Prudence will dictate" avoidance of political changes "for light and transient causes," the Declaration of Independence cautions. But terminating a dishonest judge is warranted, and so is termination for breach of trust. Mullarkey, Bender, Martinez and Rice have failed their constitutional trust.

The justices up for renewal are poster kids for the "living constitution" racket of legislating from the bench in disregard of the written text. Under Chief Justice Mullarkey, as The Denver Post's Vincent Carroll wrote after last month's TABOR ruling, "the Colorado Supreme Court seems to think that it is . . . free to redefine words however it likes." Let's answer their abuse of judicial review with electoral review and retire them.

Clear the Bench Colorado--bookmark it.

Colorado's Liberal Abortion Laws

Colorado's record on abortion is long and storied (and an indicator of just how purple the state has been--or at the very least, with libertarian leanings):

Mary Rita Urbish remembers perfectly the moment 40 years ago when Colorado became ground zero in the battle over abortion.

It was April 25, 1967 - the day a proposal by a legislator named Lamm was signed into law by a governor named Love, making the state the first in the nation to liberalize its abortion law. In that moment, as supporters cheered the potential end of illegal abortions, a social movement was born.

"I was so angry," said Urbish, one of the founders of Colorado Right to Life. "It's like a continuous loop in my mind that just runs and runs and runs and runs. It makes me mad to think about it, even now, 40 years later."

Future Gov. Richard Lamm was a freshman state legislator when he introduced the bill to overhaul Colorado's century-old abortion law. His proposal, based on the recommendations of the American Law Institute, allowed a three-doctor panel to approve abortions in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal defects, to save a woman's life or if the pregnancy threatened her physical or mental health.
. . .
"Prior to that bill, it was just totally illegal, and all the abortions were in back rooms," said John Bermingham, a Denver Republican who was the bill's chief Senate sponsor. "(The bill) just seemed like the right thing to do. Back-room abortions were disgraceful."

Until Roe v. Wade asserted judicial supremacy on the issue of abortion, states including Colorado recognized that legislation offered the most appropriate road to resolving differences over such a divisive issue.

The anniversary, of course, is nothing to celebrate, even if you support choice.

Courthouse Tryst Could Lead To Disbarment For Judge, Prosecutor

Disorder in the court as Grafton Biddle (there's a name!) and Laurie Steinman engaged in a little extra-judicial hanky-panky, and could face disbarment for their, uh, exertions:

A Douglas County judge and a female prosecutor admitted having sex in his chambers, and on more than one occasion he slipped into the women's showers at the courthouse for a tryst.

Those are some of the details included in a complaint filed Friday with the Attorney Regulation Council, which is looking into allegations that could result in their disbarment.

Grafton Minot Biddle, 57, resigned Dec. 18 after his fourth wife sent a letter to the chief judge saying he was having an affair with Laurie A. Steinman, 29.

Carol Chambers, district attorney for the 18th Judicial District, fired Steinman on Dec. 22, the day she admitted to the affair, the complaint said.

As rumors of their romance became fodder for courthouse gossip, the complaint said, Biddle encouraged Steinman to permanently delete messages they exchanged using their e-mail accounts at work.

"If people read this stuff, we're dead," Biddle told Steinman, according to the complaint.
. . .
The relationship began last spring, with Biddle offering to mentor Steinman in his chambers over morning cups of coffee.

They had sex on the Fourth of July, a courthouse holiday, in Biddle's chambers. "Both admit they had sex a number of times in . . . Judge Biddle's judicial chamber during the summer of 2006," according to the complaint, which said the pair "degraded the sanctity of the courtroom."

Biddle asked Steinman to join his gym and enroll in a Navy Seals training class, where they were together three or four times a week. After working out, they went to the courthouse, where there were showers in the basement.

"On a number of occasions, Judge Biddle would 'sneak' into the women's shower facility in the courthouse early in the morning to shower with Ms. Steinman," the complaint said.

Biddle's wife, Gail Liles, first reported the affair in December to Judge William Blair Sylvester, chief judge of the 18th Judicial District.

"I'm shocked and thoroughly disgusted," Liles, who filed for divorce, said on Monday after reading the complaint. "This has devastated my whole family."

Penalties for the amorous couple range from private reprimand to disbarment. Then there is Biddle's divorce settlement.

Justice may be blind, but this brief legal affair is certainly eye-popping in its licentiousness! More details here.

PS--The Drunkablog was on this yesterday--salaciousness!