[Vision2020] ign'ant Idahoans against daycare

[Saundra Lund]

In part, Sue Hovey wrote:
"Just another example of the workings of those whose aim it is  to protect
children from conception to birth."

BINGO!

Thanks, Debbie, for posting the article -- it was very informative,
distressing, and the outcome was ***incredibly*** disappointing  :-(



Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006, Saundra Lund.
Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
without the express written permission of the author.*****

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Sue Hovey
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:33 PM
To: Debbie Gray; vision2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ign'ant Idahoans against daycare

Yes, I'm a bit puzzled, too, at the contention this bill would somehow force
parents to use day care.  Tom Loertscher with his "what can we do to keep
mom's at home?" probably voted against the minimum wage bill, too.  I've
always thought of him as one who isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer,
even compared to JoAnn Wood--though she isn't ignorant, I think, just mean.

Of course the not so subtle message from these folks could be, "a loving
mother doesn't use day care, because we aren't going to provide you with the
legal means to protect your child...."  Just another example of the workings
of those whose aim it is  to protect children from conception to birth.

Sue Hovey


----- Original Message -----
From: "Debbie Gray" <graylex at yahoo.com>
To: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] ign'ant Idahoans against daycare


> So is the whole point that these ignorant people are
> trying to make daycare unsafe so as to keep moms at
> home? Or what? And even if moms (OR DADS) wanted to
> stay at home to care for their children 24/7, how many
> can afford to do that these days? Shouldn't it be a
> CHOICE??? Oh wait, R's don't like that word.
>
> Debbie Gray
>
> spokesman review
> Panel rejects day-care rules
> House committee limits supporters; 2 members suggest
> mothers stay home
> Betsy Z. Russell
> February 27, 2007
>
> BOISE With some members saying mothers should stay
> home with their
> children, members of a House committee on Monday
> killed legislation to
> require minimum safety standards and criminal
> history checks for Idaho day
> cares.
>
> "It's gut-wrenching for me," Rep. Tom Loertscher,
> R-Iona, said before the 6-5 vote against the bill.
> "What can we do to keep mom at home?"
>
> Loertscher said he "cannot imagine" ever taking a
> child to a day-care
> center and said, "There is no substitute, there is
> absolutely no
> substitute for families taking care of children."
>
> Rep. Steven Thayn, R-Emmett, said, "Being separate
> from your mother
> there's reason to believe this could be harmful."
>
> The House Health and Welfare Committee kept backers
> of the day-care
> licensing bill waiting until long after 5 p.m. for a
> hearing that was
> scheduled to start at 1:30 after it was put off last
> week then limited
> them to three minutes apiece to testify in favor of
> the bill.
>
> A stunned Cathy Kowalski, a Coeur d'Alene early
> childhood consultant who
> has worked on the bill for three years, said, "I
> think it is a committee
> whose members are definitely out of touch with the
> needs of their
> constituents, and I think the working families in
> their districts need to
> let them know."
>
> Sylvia Chariton, who testified in favor of the bill
> on behalf of the
> American Association of University Women of Idaho,
> said, "It's ridiculous
> those men live in a time warp, when 60 percent of
> all mothers of children
> under 6 years of age take them someplace to be cared
> for."
>
> Rep. George Sayler, D-Coeur d'Alene, the bill's lead
> sponsor, told the
> committee, "For working parents it is a vital
> concern."
>
> His bill, HB 163, originally would have set minimal
> health and safety
> standards, training requirements, and staffing
> levels, and required
> criminal history checks for day cares caring for as
> few as two unrelated
> children, but he offered amendments to raise that to
> apply only to those
> caring for six or more children. "We're not trying
> to be burdensome,"
> Sayler told the committee.
>
> Karen Mason, executive director of the Idaho
> Association for the Education
> of Young Children, told of complaints her group has
> received about
> children being locked in rooms at day cares with no
> escape, infants never
> taken out of playpens, and unqualified caregivers
> with criminal
> backgrounds.
>
> Elena Rodriguez of Idaho Voices for Children said,
> "The current lack of
> adequate standards for child care puts children at
> risk.  That's what we
> want to correct."
>
> More than 70,000 Idaho children under age 5 are in
> day care, Rodriguez
> told the committee.
>
> All the testimony was in favor of the bill, except
> that of one state
> representative, Rep. JoAn Wood, R-Rigby. Wood
> testified that when she
> served on the Health and Welfare Committee 25 years
> ago, "we had almost
> the same information brought to us."
>
> At that time, she said, the panel opted against
> state licensing for
> centers with fewer than 13 children. "I would plead
> with you I think it's
> working well," Wood told the committee. "We just
> don't see the problems
> there in the rural area where I am."
>
> Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, a physician who serves
> on the committee,
> disagreed. He said he's seen terrible cases,
> including a toddler who
> drowned in a horse trough that wasn't separated from
> the day care and
> other children with severe injuries suffered in
> unsafe day cares.
>
> Nine Idaho cities, including Coeur d'Alene, have
> stricter day-care
> licensing rules, but operators who run afoul of city
> regulations can move
> outside city limits.
>
> Boise businessman Bill Ziegert told the panel, "Our
> world has changed, and
> we no longer live in a society where all preschool
> children stayed at home
> or were left with relatives." He said for his
> employees day care is
> essential, and he called the bill "important and
> necessary."
>
> Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, said he thought
> that if the committee
> agreed to amend the bill, the backers would only try
> to remove the
> amendments in the future. "They only submitted the
> amendments to try and
> get us to buy off on this," he said.
>
> Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, urged support.
> "When I first saw this bill I was not in favor of
> it, but with the
> amendments I am more supportive of it. Because in
> our society, it's
> different than it was 15 or 20 years ago," he said.
>
> Rep. Paul Shepherd, R-Riggins, said, "It's a tough
> one for me, because my
> district has some large communities that it will be
> a positive thing, but
> I also have way more communities that it will be
> detrimental.  I don't see
> why we need to address it."
>
> Wood told the panel, "I think you're going to put a
> lot of young women
> that babysit out of business."
>
> In the final vote, the committee's three Democrats
> and two Republicans
> voted in favor of the amended bill. In addition to
> Rusche and Luker, they
> included Sharon Block, R-Idaho Falls; and Boise
> Democrats Sue Chew and Margaret Henbest.
>
> Six Republicans voted against the bill even as
> amended: Reps. Nielsen,
> Loertscher, Thayn and Shepherd; Janice McGeachin,
> R-Idaho Falls; and Jim
> Marriott, R-Blackfoot.
>
> Sayler said afterward, "What can I say it's
> disappointing. I'll tell you,
> frankly what I heard was not concern for children it
> was concern about
> regulation.  Our society has changed."
>
> Ziegert, the Boise businessman, said, "It was
> amazing to me, that you
> could have all of the testimony in support of it,
> people with facts and so
> forth," and still the committee rejected the bill.
>
> Kowalski said, "The problem has not been solved.
> The issue will not go
> away."
>
> House Bill 163 originally would have set minimal
> health and safety
> standards, training requirements, and staffing
> levels, and required
> criminal history checks for day cares caring for as
> few as two unrelated
> children.
>
> %^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
> Debbie Gray                dgray at uidaho.edu
> "We must be willing to get rid of the life we've
> planned,
> so as to have the life that is waiting for us."
> --Joseph Campbell
> %^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%