Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Despite opposition from parents and family groups, California has moved a step closer to passing an anti-spanking bill that would ban certain types of discipline.
The state bill was passed through the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Tuesday, one of many steps for the bill to become a law.
If enforced, it would prohibit spanking with the "use of an implement," including "a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom or a shoe," Assemblywoman Sally Lieber told the committee.
Parents could face up to a year in jail if found in violation of the law
Lieber introduced the bill last year but it was shut down. She has since resubmitted after adding some revisions.
Critics say the bill would put loving parents behind bars.
"If this law passes, good parents could be handcuffed, charged, have their children taken away, be labeled a criminal and even be convicted," said Randy Thomasson with the Campaign for Children and Families.
He showed up at the committee's hearing with handcuffs in hands, along with a group of mothers who believe in spanking.
"(The bill) tramples the cherished right of parents to raise their own children and removes children from good parents who occasionally spank their children to correct misbehavior," he added.
Teenager Abigail Berke is against the bill. She says she was spanked as child with a wooden spoon when she needed disciplining.
"I think spanking is right. I was spanked as a child and I am very grateful that I was, because I have grown up the right way, respecting others and being mindful of what I do," she told FOX's KTXL.
Abigail's mother Sarah also spoke out against the bill, which is slated AB 2943.
"As someone dead-set against the evil of child abuse, I also have a strong faith that calls on me to correct misbehavior and rebellion when it occurs," she said. "Yet my faith and moral beliefs that teach me to 'train up a child in the way he should go' would make me a suspected child abuser under AB 2943."
Thomasson says the bill will also order parents to attend "nonviolent parental education" classes.
The anti-spanking bill heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee next, where Lieber's first proposal was denied.
If it clears on all levels, the bill could become a law by late summer.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/358743.aspx
If enforced, it would prohibit spanking with the "use of an implement," including "a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom or a shoe," Assemblywoman Sally Lieber told the committee.
Read the Amended Bill, and tell me if you think the law goes over the line.
It says that in child abuse prosecutions, the court or jury may consider any of several listed circumstances. It also provides that proof of those circumstances "is not sufficient, by itself, to prove guilt, and its weight and significance, if any, is for the [court or jury] to decide." In other words, the conduct must rise to the level of child abuse to be illegal.
The listed circumstances are:
*The use of an implement, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe.
*Throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child.
*Striking a child with a closed fist.
*Striking a child under the age of three on the face or head.
*Vigorous shaking of a child under the age of three.
*Interference with a child's breathing.
I knew conservatives liked to torture people. I just thought they would draw the line at American children.
I don't think it's a reflection on conservatives. I think it's a reflection on SE.
There's nothing wrong with hitting a kid on the butt with your hand. You don't need an object to hit him/her with.
Actually, from a physiological standpoint, you stand a greater chance of injuring a child using your hand than you do a belt.
An accidental palm to the kidney or spin can cripple or kill a small child. The impact of a belt, unless you use something like a weightlifting power belt, does not focus power like that.
Then there's the psychological impact of teaching the kid to fear YOU, not the belt. Ever see kids cow the second their father or mother raises a hand?
Trust me, I've had both treatments. When I was a kid, if I went through a day without a spanking they were checking my temperature to see if I was okay.
" In other words, the conduct must rise to the level of child abuse to be illegal.
If this is the bottom line, then the law isn't needed...child abuse is already against the law......
That's very astute, and may be accurate.
It seems like the intent was to clarify the evidence that would be admissible in child abuse prosecutions, rather than change the definition of abuse. If there were rulings in certain cases that excluded evidence of listed conduct, or clouded the issue of admissibility, or limited the manner in which a trial judge gave instructions to the jury, the law would be necessary to correct them or bring uniformity if different judges had different opinions. Or maybe the sponsor thought clarity was lacking, and wound up muddying the waters instead.
I hear what you're saying. But I don't know if I agree. I was never hit as a kid. But my dad did make a show of taking off his belt and chasing me with it. lol.. I'm pretty sure his not catching me was intentional. But no one, no one messed with my dad. They still don't.
With respect to my own son, I smack him on the butt... I've also caught him by the hair when he's tried to escape. I don't mind him fearing me a little bit. I keep thinking of Chris Rock talking about his crazy mother tossing her shoe at his head.
You are absolutely right. I was kidding, but with purpose.I don't think it's a reflection on conservatives. I think it's a reflection on SE.
Or perhaps it is another example of the Liberal Nanny State opinion.
I'm not talking "fear a little," nor am I talking reasonable people. My father certainly was not. He was going to make a man out of me if it killed me.
It also depends on the child. My oldest daughter got maybe two spankings the entire time she was growing up. My youngest collected a couple a day like I did.
I could shame my oldest. My youngest didn't give a rat's ass if she disappointed me or anyone else. Damned brat.
However, it was my grandfather that made my father quit hitting me with his hand because he'd hit me hard enough to knock me down when I was a toddler. He (my grandfather) was right about just about everything else I can think of, so I see no reason why he would be wrong on this.
Years of martial arts training taught me that he was right actually. I had one of those thin paddles that come with a rubber band and ball for corporal punishment around my house, and if anything, I probably spanked too light. I have a tendency to destroy shit if I don't attention.
Perhaps you could clarify which of these you think should be permitted:
*The use of an implement, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe.
*Throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child.
*Striking a child with a closed fist.
*Striking a child under the age of three on the face or head.
*Vigorous shaking of a child under the age of three.
*Interference with a child's breathing.
He asked whether the statute "is another example of the Liberal Nanny State opinion." That sounds like he thinks the law goes too far.I dont think he wants any of them permitted. That being said some of those are going to be hard to enforce. In the privacy of ones own home how can anyone determine if a parent spanked a child with an open palm or used a broom to swat the kids butt? Some of those quoted scenarios dont leave marks.
He asked whether the statute "is another example of the Liberal Nanny State opinion." That sounds like he thinks the law goes too far.
Questions of proof do not invalidate a law, or disprove it's wisdom. Sometimes it's tough or impossible to prove murder. But normally there is proof before an investigation begins, including statements by the child, and observations by family members, teachers, child care workers, neighbors, and doctors.
You do not mind much when the State intrudes into the lives of its citizens, . . . .
If you're abusing your kids, someone needs to step in.
I don't mind when needed to protect children from abuse. I've seen photos of dead kids in abuse cases. Dead little girls, dead little boys.
Something like that stays with you; I can't be indifferent.
Calm down. I never advocated violating anyone's rights. We need to intervene when kids are being hurt, but that does not imply seizing children on mere suspicion, or acting without due process, or whatever it is you're trying to say.*****RGS goes off the deep end*****
That's very astute, and may be accurate.
It seems like the intent was to clarify the evidence that would be admissible in child abuse prosecutions, rather than change the definition of abuse. If there were rulings in certain cases that excluded evidence of listed conduct, or clouded the issue of admissibility, or limited the manner in which a trial judge gave instructions to the jury, the law would be necessary to correct them or bring uniformity if different judges had different opinions. Or maybe the sponsor thought clarity was lacking, and wound up muddying the waters instead.
