Govt taking over role as parents: Calif may forbid spanking

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,413
290
San Diego, CA
The govt-uber-alles types aren't wasting any time starting their fibs. The article already uses "spanking" and "hitting" a child interchangeably, as though they were the same thing. As though parents were nailing their 3-year-old with a left cross and knocking him across the room. And this article even mentions "whipping", as though that had anything to do with spanking. They must be REALLY desperate to lie that badly.

Spanking is a swat on the butt with an open palm. Works on some kids, not on others, when very young to let them know the parent is boss, and usually never needs to be used again, and is completely legitimate. Only parents can decide what will work on their kid, and proceed appropriately. It would sure be nice if govt would stick to truthful definitions of "abuse, for a change.

When a kid too young to talk, learns to crawl and starts fiddling with an electrical outlet, are you going to "explain" to him that electricity can kill him? Or just gently pull him away every time, trusting yourself to be the savior until the one time your back is turned? Or do something that convinces him that fiddling with electrical sockets is a bad thing so that HE will avoid them?

But, government knows better than parents, once again. Interestingly, even most Californians oppose this bill. That doesn't faze the govt-uber-alles types, of course, they will impose it anyway. For the children.

------------------------------------------

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16487654.htm?source=rss

No-spank bill on way

by Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

The idea is encountering skepticism even before it's been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists -- many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective -- the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider ``nanny government.''

``Where do you stop?'' asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn't be spanked but has no desire to make it the law. ``At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.''

One San Jose mother of three said she believes spanking is a poor way to discipline children, but she also wondered whether a legislative ban makes sense. Should a mom who slaps her misbehaving kid in the supermarket, she asked, be liable for a crime?

``If my 6-year-old doesn't put his clothes in the hamper, I'm not going to whack him. He just won't get his clothes washed,'' said Peggy Hertzberg, 38, who teaches parenting classes at the YWCA. ``I think instead of banning spanking, parents need to learn different ways of disciplining and redirecting their children.''

Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979.

Nazario said there's no good rationale for hitting a child under 3, so the state should draw a ``bright line'' in the law making it clear.
 
The govt-uber-alles types aren't wasting any time starting their fibs. The article already uses "spanking" and "hitting" a child interchangeably, as though they were the same thing. As though parents were nailing their 3-year-old with a left cross and knocking him across the room. And this article even mentions "whipping", as though that had anything to do with spanking. They must be REALLY desperate to lie that badly.

Spanking is a swat on the butt with an open palm. Works on some kids, not on others, when very young to let them know the parent is boss, and usually never needs to be used again, and is completely legitimate. Only parents can decide what will work on their kid, and proceed appropriately. It would sure be nice if govt would stick to truthful definitions of "abuse, for a change.

When a kid too young to talk, learns to crawl and starts fiddling with an electrical outlet, are you going to "explain" to him that electricity can kill him? Or just gently pull him away every time, trusting yourself to be the savior until the one time your back is turned? Or do something that convinces him that fiddling with electrical sockets is a bad thing so that HE will avoid them?

But, government knows better than parents, once again. Interestingly, even most Californians oppose this bill. That doesn't faze the govt-uber-alles types, of course, they will impose it anyway. For the children.

------------------------------------------

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16487654.htm?source=rss

No-spank bill on way

by Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

The idea is encountering skepticism even before it's been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists -- many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective -- the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider ``nanny government.''

``Where do you stop?'' asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn't be spanked but has no desire to make it the law. ``At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.''

One San Jose mother of three said she believes spanking is a poor way to discipline children, but she also wondered whether a legislative ban makes sense. Should a mom who slaps her misbehaving kid in the supermarket, she asked, be liable for a crime?

``If my 6-year-old doesn't put his clothes in the hamper, I'm not going to whack him. He just won't get his clothes washed,'' said Peggy Hertzberg, 38, who teaches parenting classes at the YWCA. ``I think instead of banning spanking, parents need to learn different ways of disciplining and redirecting their children.''

Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979.

Nazario said there's no good rationale for hitting a child under 3, so the state should draw a ``bright line'' in the law making it clear.

This is the same state that will fine you, the parent, for catching your child smoking. They force the responsibility on you while taking away all your authority and means of enforcement.
 
Obviously, the State of California has resolved all their bigger issues and so can focus on things like this. How fortunate for them!
 
Im surprised those in San Fransisco arent up in arms. I mean what are they going to do if they cant spank each other anymore:p
 
The govt-uber-alles types aren't wasting any time starting their fibs. The article already uses "spanking" and "hitting" a child interchangeably, as though they were the same thing. .....
It looks like the CA guv'mint needs a spank.

Seriously, I've got two kids and spanking worked wonders as an attitude adjustment. I even developed a little routine to maximize the emotional impact while providing the least amount of physical force. Several parents I know have "borrowed" my method with great results every time.

If I cared about CA, which I clearly don't, I'd go to the Leg. chambers and give whoever's in charge a good whoopin'. Maybe it would adjust their attitude.
 
I cant imagine there isnt a substantive due process violation with this law.. Of course, i rather dislike substantive due process as a theory. But if they are serious about upholding this i cant imagine it wouldnt be violated by this law.
 
Well, IF the bill passes, which I seriously doubt, I'll wait till the first case comes before the court.

THAT should prove to be interesting.:eusa_whistle:

IIRC, Minnesota did this years ago, and so far it hasn't been overturned. I could be wrong on the state, but I do recall this being an issue at one point in time in the past.
 

Forum List

Back
Top