(May 10, 2005)  As expected, the editorial staff of The State continues to promote socialism in South Carolina. Their latest effort titled, "It's time to reject hollow objections, pass seat bill," appeared in their May 10th edition. In this piece, the writer throws around lots of big numbers to make his or her case that to not pass a primary enforcement seatbelt law in South Carolina would be a crime in and of itself.

These numbers would be quite impressive if they were based in reality, but reality is something that socialists cannot tolerate because there is no reality in utopia. The writer would like the reader to believe that primary enforcement of a seatbelt law would save 600 lives, but statistics from some other states that have already passed primary enforcement actually show an increase in traffic fatalities the year after passage. For example, Indiana passed primary enforcement in 1998. In that year 982 people died on Indiana roadways. In 1999, 1,020 people died. Why the self-proclaimed, unbiased State newspaper does not report this fact is suspicious to say the least.

Next, the writer implies that primary enforcement will magically eliminate 6200 emergency room visits, $35 million in annual hospital costs, $6.5 million paid directly by tax money, $18.5 million covered by insurance, and $150 million in lost productivity and other economic costs. These numbers are indeed impressive and staggering however they are misleading because The State is attempting to get you and me to believe that if wearing a seatbelt, none of the people who contributed to these statistics would have suffered any injury whatsoever! Imagine, just by wearing a seatbelt, none of the 6200 people who went to the emergency room would have - yeah right!

For people who value freedom and liberty, seatbelt laws are intrusive because seatbelts often times cause injury or death. Some people survive otherwise fatal traffic accidents only because they were thrown from their vehicle. Other people experience what the medical community now refers to seatbelt syndrome - but don't take my word for it. Do your own Internet search and you'll find plenty of medical research on the topic.

Here's some of my own research.

Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2002 Sep; 23(3): 214-22.
Lippencott, Williams, & Wilkins

The seromuscular tear and other intestinal lesions in the seatbelt syndrome: a clinical and pathologic study of 29 cases.

Slavin RE, Borzotta AP.

Department of Pathology, Legacy Emanuel Hospital and Health Center, Portland, OR 97227, USA.

The authors describe the clinical and pathologic findings in 29 patients with injuries from motor vehicle accidents. The seromuscular tear (SMT), the hallmark intestinal injury of the seatbelt syndrome, is an unambiguous lesion similar in all segments of bowel and is caused by a tear that separates the inner muscularis from the submucosa. It is characterized by (1) a wedge that strips the submucosa from the inner circular muscle; (2) a bending retraction of the torn muscularis toward the uninvolved bowel wall; (3) mucosal-submucosal fold effacement, causing the mucosa-submucosa bridge spanning the tear to become paper thin; and (4) the vulnerability of this bridge to ischemia that in 35% of the tears studied culminated in incipient or frank perforations and/or gangrene. Large SMTs, particularly the circumferential degloving type, are most prone to develop these complications. These findings militate against the idea that the SMT is a trivial lesion. The SMT occurred in 90% of patients in this report and accounted for 65% of all intestinal lesions. Seventy-three percent of the tears developed in the colon, and one third of all SMTs occurred in the sigmoid colon. Two thirds of all intestinal and mesenteric injuries clustered in three sites: the ileocecal region, the sigmoid colon, and the jejunum. Perforations were the principal lesion in the jejunum and SMTs at the other two locations. Ninety percent of patients experienced two or more intestinal lesions. This suggests the simultaneous action of different traumatic mechanisms on the bowel and its mesenteries in seat belted persons who are in motor vehicle accidents.

Wow! That's impressive too! What it means to you and me is that seatbelts do in fact sometimes cause injury, and sometimes those injuries result in death. It is an undeniable fact.

That being said, the only question that remains is whether lawmakers have any right whatsoever to require people to use any device that on some occasions may injure or kill them?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find my argument hollow as The State newspaper claims. It's as solid as the rock heads that have the audacity to suggest that the decision to wear a seatbelt should be made by lobbyists and politicians.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating $1 or more to the MUCKRAKER REPORT.
Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!

Comments