Rocky article, PBS host Dobbs parroted conservative "nanny" label for regulatory legislation

Summary: The Rocky Mountain News used the derogatory phrase "nanny bills" to describe regulatory measures pending in the state legislature and suggested there would be a "flood" of such legislation now that Democrats controlled the Assembly and the governorship -- downplaying the fact that Republicans have introduced similar measures. Colorado State of Mind host Greg Dobbs also invoked "nannyism" on a recent broadcast without noting its frequent use by conservatives to criticize government regulation.

In a February 24 article titled "Republicans brace for 'nanny' bills," the Rocky Mountain News reported that with Democrats controlling the state legislature and governorship, "many Republicans are bracing for a flood of 'nanny' bills -- regulatory measures they complain do little more than let government meddle in people's affairs." The article did not quote anyone using the derogatory phrase " 'nanny' bills," suggesting that the wording was the newspaper's own, and did not note that the phrase is a label conservatives have invoked in opposing government regulation. Moreover, while the article reported in its next-to-last paragraph that Republicans have introduced similar measures, it did not note that four of the seven regulatory bills cited in an accompanying list had primary sponsors who were Republicans.

Similarly, on the February 23 broadcast of KRMA Rocky Mountain PBS' Colorado State of Mind, host Greg Dobbs also invoked "nannyism" while discussing a measure before the Aurora City Council that would regulate smoking in cars. Dobbs asserted that "nannyism" was among the "reasons for opposition," but he did not cite any specific opponents who have labeled the measure "nannyism."

The News article by Alan Gathright focused on House Bill 1080, which would provide for the state licensing or registration of art therapists:

Should the state be allowed to say who can, and who cannot, hang out an "art therapist" shingle?

The issue recently came up for a House vote, and it has some Republican lawmakers worried.

With Democrats now in charge, many Republicans are bracing for a flood of "nanny" bills -- regulatory measures they complain do little more than let government meddle in people's affairs.

[...]

"I'm not sure if they've introduced more of these bills, but we're seeing more pass," [House Republican leader Rep. Mike] May [R-Parker] said. Republican leaders have started tracking such legislation and plan to raise objections at midsession if the numbers are spiking, he added.

Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, said critics shouldn't hit the panic button. She sees the same old bills resurfacing, ones that often won bipartisan passage only to get spiked by Owens.

And, for the record, Republicans have introduced measures to regulate private investigators, morticians and interior designers.

As the bills move forward, she said, the question looms "where Gov. [Bill] Ritter is going to come down in terms of regulation of new industry."

The article listed "[a] sample of regulatory bills introduced this session," but did not note that four out of seven of the bills have primary sponsors who were Republicans:

• HB 1083 [sponsored by Rep. Debbie Stafford (R-Aurora) and Sen. Josh Penry (R-Mesa)] would require private investigators to be licensed by the state.

• HB 1126 [sponsored by Rep. Anne McGihon (D-Denver) and Sen. Steve Johnson (R-Larimer)] would change the Physical Therapist Act so that a physical therapist can work on animals as well as human beings.
• HB 1131 [sponsored by Rep. John Kefalas (D-Fort Collins) and Sen. Bob Bacon (D-Larimer)] would set minimum training and competency standards for hemodialysis technicians.
• HB 1192 [sponsored by Rep. Jeanne Labuda (D-Sheridan)] would require naturopathic doctors to be licensed.
• HB 1231 [sponsored by Stafford] would require mortuary science practitioners to be licensed, including 2,000 hours of experience.
• SB 24 [sponsored by Sen. Suzanne Williams (D-Aurora) and Rep. Jim Riesberg (D-Greeley)] would give the state authority to license and regulate athletic trainers.
• SB 84 [sponsored by Sen. Minority Leader Andy McElhany (R-Colorado Springs), Sen. President Joan Fitz-Gerald (D-Denver), Rep. Cheri Jahn (D-Wheat Ridge), and Rep. Tom Massey (R-Poncha Springs)] requires the state board of licensure for architects and engineers to maintain a database of registered interior designers.

From the February 23 broadcast of KRMA Rocky Mountain PBS' Colorado State of Mind:

DOBBS: There are moves out there right now to crack down on smoking more than we already have. On the national level, there's an advocacy group for the American Medical Association that wants Hollywood to put an "R" rating -- meaning no kids allowed without a grown-up -- on virtually any movie that shows people smoking. And that's because they say up to 400,000 kids each year -- that's about the number of Americans who die from smoking each year -- take up smoking because of what they see on the silver screen. Then locally, there's a move in Aurora to crack down on people who smoke around kids -- more specifically, who smoke in a car when small kids are in the car with them. It's before Aurora City Council and championed by Councilman Fitzgerald, who's with us right now. It would make smoking in a car with kids illegal, and it would make you pay 50 bucks if you're caught. Now the reasons are obvious: the potential danger of secondhand smoke and the potential message that kids might construe, which would be, well, if it's OK for a grown-up, it's -- it, it's OK for me. Bob Fitzgerald, in fact, is quoted saying, "Children have no ability to have an adult put out a cigarette in a confined space, and they should be protected." But the reasons for opposition to the measure are obvious, too. First among them: nannyism. Even an Aurora city councilwoman who's a professional activist for the medically underserved says, "I love the public discussion, but I can't see adding one more thing for police to enforce." So, whether it's nannyism or protecting people's health, does it trump a smoker's individual rights? Or do individual rights trump all?

—E.B.