The General Assembly is a busy place this time of year, with thousands of bills flying back and forth between patrons and committees, being considered in the House or the Senate, and with some eventually landing on Gov. Bev Perdue’s desk, awaiting her signature or veto.

It can be astounding, however, to take a look at some of the bills set before the state legislature.

Two such examples are proposals submitted by 90th House Rep. Sarah Stevens, of Mount Airy.

First among those is a bill she introduced to make it illegal for a convicted sex offender to receive credentials to work as a Emergency Medical Services employee in the state.

The second is a proposal which would allow a man who has been forced to pay for child support to cease such payments if it is proven he is, in fact, not the father of the child in question.

Kudos to Rep. Stevens for seeing the need to offer these common-sense proposals for consideration by the General Assembly.

But we have to ask how in the world are we in the year 2011 with these laws not already on the books?

Convicted sex offenders must register with the local police or sheriff’s office where they reside. They must register their new address with law enforcement whenever they move. Severe restrictions are in place on them: No visits to parks or recreational facilities where children may be, no visits to gyms, workout facilities or any other place where kids might hang out, yet a convicted sex offender can, as of now, be an EMS?

That goes beyond reason. We would hope any local EMS board or director would have as routine policy to check the background of those applying for a job, and any convicted sex offender would be eliminated from consideration.

But this should have been written into law long, long ago.

We believe the same for incorrect paternity orders which force men to pay child support.

Do not misinterpret — we believe a man, and a woman, should be held liable to provide adequate and reasonable support for their children. There should be no question about this.

But, if a man contesting such an order can show, without doubt, he is not the father, such an order should be suspended immediately. We would hope judges would have the good sense to do this, but we have seen cases where, regrettably, that was not so.

Thus the need for this law. We just ask, in all those thousands of bills filed each year, shouldn’t these two have been taken care of years ago?