Unlike other controversial policies, support for the Sunshine Protection Act in the Senate is not partisan. It passed the House 308-117, and co-sponsors in the Senate range from Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. President Donald Trump posted on social media that “this is an easy one” and is pushing for passage. Opposition in the Senate includes Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Thus, we have a cleaving issue. Just 56% of Americans agree with making daylight saving time permanent, without a party cue.

Over 50 years ago, the United States flirted with permanent daylight saving time when it passed the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act. In 1973, public approval for the change was at 79%, much higher than the current support level. Within three months, that approval dropped to 42% as people realized waking up in the morning in total darkness was a terrible idea and Congress repealed the law.

I love this kind of American political history, where bad ideas have to be lived through in each generation to prove again how bad they are. And let me assure you, permanent daylight saving time is a bad idea. In Utah, our sunrise would be at 8:52 a.m. Every parent of a teenager who is trying to get that child to school will revolt, maybe faster than in three months, when this change is made. Every human who goes to work before 9 a.m. will not see the sun at all because by the time it rises, they will be in their offices. And one thing we all know is that humans need the sun — never underestimate the power of the sun for the pursuit of happiness.

I find it fascinating when the government decides it knows better than nature what is good for people. Standard time is the system where noon actually aligns with the sun’s highest point in the sky, keeping human routines closer to the sun’s natural movement. When it rises, we wake up, and when it sets, we go to sleep. When humans align with what nature intended, they live a better life. When we sleep in time with the sun, our sleep is better because evening light is reduced. Better sleep lowers the rates of seasonal depression and fatigue. Not messing with the sun matters.

Never mind that having more daylight in the morning when everyone is driving around at the same time as children are walking to school is a good idea. Dark mornings are a disaster of epic proportions waiting to happen. If we move in this direction, then it only makes sense for schools to begin at 10 a.m. to prevent the problems. Where is the corresponding “Keep Children Safe” bill?

My husband is wrong on this one, and we have argued about it off and on since we started dating back in the 1900s. His argument is that the wonderful thing about daylight saving time is that there is evening daylight after work for sports. He was a student athlete and being able to play soccer or lacrosse after school featured prominently in his happiness. An economic argument in favor of permanent daylight saving time is that less daylight in the evening results in people not participating in after-work activities as much. Places like golf courses see a reduction in foot traffic. There are legitimate economic benefits to having the sun out later.

The Sunshine Protection Act sacrifices health and safety for evening leisure. That is the wrong choice. The name of this bill is also bad because the sun does not need the government to protect it, it’s up there doing its daily thing regardless. And as the great Taylor Swift said, “I think we’ve seen this film before.” Public opinion dropped dramatically on this issue in 1973 because sacrificing health and safety for evening leisure proved to be a colossal mistake, almost immediately. We should rise with the sun and set with the sun, as nature intended.

Leah Murray is a Brady Presidential Distinguished Professor of Political Science and the director of the Olene S. Walker Institute of Politics & Public Service at Weber State University. This commentary is provided through a partnership with Weber State. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent the institutional values or positions of the university.