Daily Archives: January 12, 2009

The Nanny State: where all the adults are babies, so they don’t want babies of their own

Forget December 21, 2012.

Let’s worry about February 11, 2009.

They’re calling it “National Bankruptcy Day.”

Let’s recall how, several years ago, the pro-abortion movement began suing Birthright and Crisis Pregnancy Centers for “endangering” babies by giving away equipment to mothers in crisis pregnancies. (So much for “We want to reduce the need for abortion”).

So CPCs and Birthright started saying, “All we can accept are diapers and formula. Give your other donations to Goodwill or Salvation Army or St. Vincent’s, and we refer our clients there.”

Now, they’ve passed this stupid law that effectively shuts down the resale of children’s items by thrift stores. It will make it all the more expensive to have children–just the way the Democrats want it–and will cost retailers and manufacturers millions and probably put a lot of small businesses out of business.

Ostensibly, this is a law to prevent another “lead paint” fiasco, and also includes some other chemicals that our paranoid culture is freaked out about.

Basically, the law says that any product sold after Feb. 11 and intended for children–whether it’s clothing (because buttons and decorations are painted), toys, equipment or whatever–has to be tested for lead based paint and carry a certificate. Anyone who sells a product containing lead based paint will be liable to huge fines and worse.

At *minimum*, this means that all products now on the shelves need to be pulled if they don’t have these certificates. That means that they’ll just go to waste: so much for caring about the environment! That means a fortune lost to retailers, so then they can go to the government for a “bail-out,” and the Soviet Socialist Republic of ObamaPelosi will get its clutches on another segment of the economy.

Then there are the ramifications for manufacturers.

But the big question mark is small businesses: does this law effect stay-at-home moms who produce cloth diapers? Does this law effect thrift stores? Garage Sales?

On January 8, the Consumer Products “Safety” Commission issued a press release to “clarify” the law, but it doesn’t clarify much.

As I understand it, here’s the situation:

1. Family X buys a car seat on Feb. 12, 2009. That car seat is supposed to come with a lead testing certificate. OK. They basically have to keep track of that certificate, because, if they when their youngest is out of the car seat, and they want to take it to a thrift store, they need to have the certificate to show it’s lead-free.

2. Family Y has an old Thomas the Tank Engine set that was recalled. I doubt anyone would think they’re gonna try and sell it. But let’s just say they know nothing of the lead paint scandal, and they know nothing of the law. Let’s say they have a garage sale, and some officious person happens by their yard sale. . . . . Potential jail time for Family Y.

3. But if you have a used product that “may” have lead paint, and you sell it, and it turns out it *does* have lead paint, but you didn’t *know* it, you’re in trouble.

This is where things get sticky. Supposedly, the press release clarifies that resellers only have to be concerned about products *known* to have lead paint, or products very likely to have lead paint. But, as we must always do when it comes to the Nanny State, and to paranoid businesses, how will *businesses* interpret the law, even if that doesn’t mean the government doesn’t mean it that way?

And the press release carries the warning that, if Family Z sells a product that has *not* been recalled, and they don’t *know* it doesn’t have lead paint, and the purchaser finds out it *does* have lead paint, then Family Z could face the same penalties.

That is the gaping loophole that has a lot of people up in arms.

Stojan Adasevic

This one has been around for a couple months, but I haven’t gotten around to posting it: the story of a Serbian abortionist who was converted by a vision of St. Thomas Aquinas.