Advertisement

Opinion: Jerry Brown’s odd views on parenting

Share

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Tanning salons for teens are out, but a kid skiing without a helmet is OK. We’ve all heard about consistency, hobgoblins and small minds, but it’s still intriguing to wonder what Gov. Jerry Brown had in mind when he vetoed a bill requiring ski helmets for minors but signed into law a ban on minors patronizing tanning salons.

In his veto message on SB 105, the helmet bill, Brown wrote: ‘I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state.’ Of course, the state already has laws about buckling young kids into car seats and making minors wear bicycle helmets, but Brown might have considered those bills intrusive as well.

Advertisement

Yet Brown approved SB 746, which prohibits minors from using tanning beds -- even if it’s OK with their parents. In fact, it previously was illegal for minors younger than 14 to use the salons, but teens 14 to 17 were allowed as long as they had parental consent. So in fact, this bill was all about making parental choice a non-factor.

Confused? I am. Brown may simply have been weighing relative good -- perhaps that youngsters skiing without a helmet were not as big a problem in the state as those tanning themselves to toast. But it would be helpful to know what logical sense he makes of all this.

ALSO:

No respite from red-light cameras

Gov. Brown says no to labor on child care

Save the Sharks: the 21st century marine mantra

Advertisement

Open carry: Would-be Yosemite Sams are shot down

--Karin Klein

Advertisement