U.S. lawmakers will debate the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight saving time permanent—no more falling back or springing ahead. The Act name, emphasizing more sunshine, is a lesson in framing. If we keep daylight saving time year round, we’ll get more light in the evenings, but we’ll lose light in the mornings. An NBC writer jokes that it should be called the Rising in Darkness Act.

A Wall Street Journal article describes opposing arguments. One of the biggest downsides is that children will travel to school in the dark, which could lead to accidents. Others cite three previous tries to move to a permanent daylight saving time—all reversed.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) strongly opposes the Act. In a statement, the group supports a permanent time but writes that the better choice is standard time, with more light in the mornings. They cite research that standard time “aligns best with human circadian biology and provides distinct benefits for public health and safety” compared to daylight savings’ “increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events, mood disorders, and motor vehicle crashes.”

Both AASM statements, linked above, are good examples of concise communication and clear organization. I question the organization around “acute” and “chronic” impacts and would favor main point headings, but the argument is short and easy to read for laypeople—the primary audience.

Image source.