A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Feb. 2, on U.S. Supreme Court ruling on law enforcement use of GPS tracking from a suspect’s vehicle:
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that law enforcement agencies need a valid warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s vehicle, with a minority opinion citing a right to privacy for their decision.
Unless you’re in California or Texas, though, that specific right to privacy isn’t extended to the private use of GPS tracking.
A recent article in the New York Times pointed out that only those two states prohibit the use of GPS tracking without permission, with exceptions for law enforcement and vehicle owners. The exception for law enforcement, of course, makes sense, provided the tracking is done under a valid warrant. The exception for vehicle owners allows parents to monitor teens who are using their cars or companies to track their fleets.
Elsewhere, the use of GPS tracking is largely unregulated, though some misuses likely would fall under existing laws.
Right to privacy is deeply ingrained in this country, but it’s become increasingly difficult to feel secure in that right considering technology such as GPS trackers and GPS-equipped cellphones. And the legal system has had a difficult time keeping up with the explosive growth and use of such technology.
Tracking teens in mom’s car is one thing, as is tracking older folks with dementia. Companies also have generally established reasons and rights to track company-owned vehicles. But should one person legally be able to track another’s every move with a GPS tracker? (Think “stalker” here.) Should a husband or wife be able to track a spouse suspected of infidelity or one trying to escape an abusive relationship? Lots of gray areas to consider.
As the private use of trackers increases—and experts say it’s increasing quickly—state legislatures likely will come under pressure to regulate their use, and courts will be asked to rule on misuse of the devices. However it turns out, one thing is clear: Sophisticated technology available to the general public will continue to put pressure on expectations of privacy.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Feb. 4, on fallout from Komen Foundation’s decision to cease funding grants to Planned Parenthood:
At a time when people routinely mistrust institutions, Susan G. Komen Foundation’s pink-ribboned fight against breast cancer has been a notable exception.
Everyone loves the ribbon, which you can find on football fields, yogurt containers and the sides of giant airliners. Komen has done wonders in bringing the issue of breast cancer treatment to the forefront of medical concerns and in getting millions to take part in its Race for the Cure.
Why would anyone possibly risk all that good will?
That’s the question still being asked of Nancy Brinker, Komen’s chief executive, who jeopardized Komen’s standing by denying grants to Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screening programs. The move clearly placed Komen in the middle of the abortion controversy.
Brinker finally apologized Feb. 3, issuing a statement saying, “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”
In defunding Planned Parenthood of nearly $700,000 in grants, Brinker had clearly thrown in with those social conservatives who have helped make Planned Parenthood a shorthand for abortion provider. Planned Parenthood offers a wide array of medical services to underserved women, including abortions.
According to a story in the Denver Post, 84 percent of Planned Parenthood patients in the Denver area are uninsured and 62 percent live at or below the poverty line.
For days, Brinker had tried to say that the decision was not political, but with each changing rationale, she further damaged her organization’s credibility. In the end, she had no choice but to back down
Breast cancer treatment is one of a number of so-called women’s issues that bring out activists from both sides of the cultural divide. The pro-choice activists—many of them who volunteer or work for Komen—were quickly out in force. Once again, we saw the immediacy of social media, as Twitter and Facebook made it obvious that Komen would lose donors.
There were also the conventional routes of protest, including the resignation of at least two Komen executives and a strong letter from 26 Democratic senators.
But now in backing down, Komen has angered many in the anti-abortion movement, most of whom had probably never even considered that Komen was funding Planned Parenthood. Focus on the Family called the reversal “mystifying;” others called it a betrayal.
And pro-choice activists are noting how the apology specifically did not praise Planned Parenthood for its work and did not, in fact, promise to fund its programs in the future.
And so Komen, facing a public relations disaster, finds itself in the exact wrong place for a charity, with its motives questioned from all sides.
The challenge now is not just to ensure there will continue to be a race for a breast cancer cure, but to find a way forward so that everyone will be running toward the same goal.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Sentinel, Feb. 2, on state oil shale bill needing revising:
Colorado’s 3rd District congressman, Scott Tipton, worked hard to successfully amend oil shale legislation sponsored by his Colorado colleague, Rep. Doug Lamborn.
As a result of Tipton’s efforts, the bill—known as the PIONEERS Act—is better than it was. But some serious flaws remain, which need to be addressed as the bill moves forward.
The legislation requires the Interior Department to offer commercial leases for oil shale on federal lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming within four years.
Additionally, it would require the department to issue more research and development leases on federal lands.
Perhaps most critically, the PIONEERS Act codifies a 2008 resource management plan drafted during the Bush administration to promote commercial development of oil shale.
One of Tipton’s major contributions was to add an amendment that requires the Interior secretary, to “take into consideration the socioeconomic impacts, infrastructure requirements and fiscal stability for local communities within areas containing oil shale resources.”
That’s important. In fact, no large projects should proceed on public lands without due consideration of the impacts on local governments and communities. Unfortunately, adequate analysis of those impacts has sometimes been lacking in federal examinations of proposed projects or management changes.
Critics of the bill say Tipton’s amendment doesn’t have enough teeth to guarantee the sort of analysis and mitigation necessary if commercial oil shale development is to proceed.
Tipton also attempted to address another concern about the legislation—one that we raised several months ago: Lamborn’s bill would reduce initial royalties for any shale oil commercially produced on federal lands, allowing the rates to rise to normal federal royalty levels over time.
But those royalties provide needed revenue to local governments to help mitigate impacts of commercial oil shale development. And that money is often needed most at the beginning of development—to upgrade water and sewer systems, roads and schools to deal with anticipated population increases.
Also, if oil shale becomes commercially viable, the industry must pay its fair share through royalty payments, not receive what amounts to a taxpayer subsidy in reduced royalty costs.
Tipton got the reduced-royalty language removed from the bill. However, because the bill codifies the 2008 rules, and those rules included the reduced royalty payments—critics contend the bill would still allow reduced royalty payments in the initial years of commercial oil shale production. Tipton’s office disputes that.
We applaud Tipton for listening to the concerns of people in his district, and for trying to address those concerns with amendments to the bill. That’s not an easy task when Lamborn’s bill has the support of House Speaker John t.
However, the PIONEERS Act still needs work. We hope the House will clear up any confusion about royalty payments and adequately address impacts before approving the bill.
Editorial:
———
The Chieftain, Feb. 7, on privatizing state’s largest carrier of workers’ compensation policies:
We had urged caution in the mad dash to privatize Pinnacol Assurance, the state’s largest carrier of workers’ compensation policies and the insurer of last resort.
Pinnacol was charted by the state government, which provided it an early infusion of cash. Over the past year the company has been urging lawmakers and Gov. John Hickenlooper to allow it to privatize so that it can operate in other states.
But Feb. 2, the governor and the company said they would hold off, for this year at least, the attempt to pass legislation allowing the company to go private. Even the lure of money to the state treasury was not enough to assuage doubts about the deal.
Pinnacol had offered the state $340 million in ownership shares of the company and annual dividends of $13 million to be spent on economic development and education. The Legislature would have to approve the change, and then shareholders would have to vote overwhelmingly to seal the deal.
Pinnacol currently has a surplus of $590 million, according to its president and CEO, Ken Ross. It must be remembered that, while the state did front-load the insurer’s funding, most of Pinnacol’s cash has been provided primarily by employers. It’s their money, not the state’s.
Under its current status, Pinnacol must continue to be that insurer of last resort. Who knows what it would do if it were totally privatized?
Pinnacol also insures other employers, and it has an admirable track record in holding down premium costs. This is a case of, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Gov. Hickenlooper’s task force studying Pinnacol’s proposal gave it lukewarm marks. Former Congressman Ray Kogovsek of Pueblo was a member of the task force and favored the move.
But as Pinnacol Vice Chairman John Plotnick wrote to the governor, “Many of the company’s stakeholders have posed important questions about the impact of restructuring and we want to work with them to answer those questions before proceeding.”
Pinnacol was founded for good reason—providing workers’ comp insurance to companies that otherwise could not buy it in the private market—and nothing has changed about that.
Editorial:
