There are legislators that just seem to have to prove their worth by showing their constituents that they are doing something. Problem is, sometimes that something isn’t too bright.
Like the case where NH legislator, Rep. Nancy Johnson (D) introduced a bill that would regulate the speed of remote control (RC) boats. Why? Because a neighbor complained that a kid operating an RC boat hit her boat, ran it up the lawn on her lakeside home and went for her dogs.
Yup, howitzer and flea time, folks. Thankfully, the bill was quietly (laughingly) removed from consideration.
Well, here’s yet another one, trying the same thing ("government knows better than you")….but with more serious implications. This is from Townhall (Jennifer Roback Morse),
A childless legislator here in California (where else?) has proposed a legislative ban on spanking. Sally Lieber, Democrat (naturally) from Mountain View, which is in Northern California (why am I not surprised?) believes this is a proper function of state government.
According to the San Jose Mercury News, “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.”
In my eyes, this is yet another attack on the family? Why? It is once again another attempt to deflate the ability of parents to….parent! What Ms. Lieber is implying is that all parents that spank are criminals – and with her bill, actually would be!
This is akin to the Democrats here in NH that are gunning to remove the recently passed Parental Notification Law here in NH. What does that do? Simple – girls (remember, these are children, they have not passed the age of majority) cannot get an aspirin at school. They have to have parental permission to get their ears peirced. Yet, it seems, that the Dems want to allow a "counselor" the ability to escort a girl to get an abortion – it’s for her health! there may be incest! there may be abuse by family or friends! – and therefore an abortion is not something that parents should be involved in!
This is a case of those in government insisting that the exceptions making the rule. That government knows better than parents.
Yet, I learned by reading the article for the first time that I had felt, and said, for years:
The people of California are understandably outraged at this outrageous assault on parental authority. But there is an even better reason to be outraged: banning spanking is not good for kids. Child rearing experts generally do not agree with a ban on spanking. The "two-swat spank" has been extensively studied. Two swats on a covered bottom do not constitute child abuse, and in fact, can be an important adjunct to reasoning in disciplining a child. The Murky News (as the locals call it: actually, it isn’t a bad paper, as MSM outlets go) interviewed one of the leading scholars of corporal punishment, Dr. Robert Larzelere.
“Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30 years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it’s used sparingly and doesn’t escalate to abuse. “If it’s used in a limited way,” the Oklahoma State University professor said, “it can be more effective than almost any other type of punishment.” He added that children 18 months old or younger shouldn’t be spanked at all, because they can’t understand why it’s happening. As for Lieber’s proposal, the professor said: “I think this proposal is not just a step too far, it’s a leap too far. At least from a scientific perspective there really isn’t any research to support the idea that this would make things better for children.”
Now, I do NOT wish to turn this into another type of "chickenhawk" style argument. But suffice it to say that having actual experience helps and can add another view. I had two boys. Two strong willed boys. Non-compliant boys. Difficult? Are you getting the picture….
Talking, simply reasoning with them? No. Most of the time, no. Time-outs? Sometimes, but less and less as they got older (no big surprise here). Take things or privileges away to get their attention? Better as they got older (especially keys to the car!).
But when they were younger, yes, I spanked them. Did it always work? No, certainly not, and I think that many parents would agree. My limit was three; no more, for if more was needed, I was already wasting my time.
The essence of Sally Lieber’s proposal is that otherwise competent parents will be presumed abusive if they swat their children. The parents can be put in prison for a year. The kids will be put into the already overcrowded and ineffective foster care system. The parents of difficult children will be the most likely to run afoul of these rules. Being in foster care is certainly a more traumatic experience than being swatted on the bottom.
All because some adults pretend they can’t tell the difference between a swat and child abuse.
Perhaps the voters will give Assemblywoman Lieber a time-out until she calms down.
Ms. Morse has it exactly right – every parent gets stressed from time to time, but that is NEVER an excuse to abuse one’s children. And a limited, measured swat on the behind does get a child’s attention, which is the whole point of the matter.
Does it mean one has free license to swat someone else’s kids? Given the recent story of the parents of the three year old that refused to get the kid to behave, holding up a place because she was such a brat she refused to come out from underneath the seat, get into hers, and buckle up.
But once again, someone believes that they know better than the masses, and wants to make it stick. This is about controlling other peoples lives and circumstances.
Day by day, we see our freedom’s eroded – not by leaps and bounds, but rather speck by speck. It is like the frog in the cold water, ignoring the rising temperature until it is too late. Ms. Lieber certainly seems to have her hand on the stove controls, helping to twist the knob ever so slowly.
Or maybe not so slow….she is also the progenitor of this meddling:
SACRAMENTO – When authorities approved a vaccine last summer that prevents most cervical cancers, experts cheered it as a breakthrough in fighting a disease that kills 3,700 U.S. women each year.
Let see, let me be callous…this is 0.001234% of the population. Yet, anything that shows aid in controlling cancer is a great thing!
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that parents get the vaccine – which guards against certain strains of human papilloma virus that can cause cervical cancer – ideally when they’re 11 and 12.
For a sexually transmitted disease, how would a parent start explaining this? Maybe I’m a prude (remember – a Dad of boys!) but still….
But the proposal by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, would mandate vaccination and is causing a stir because HPV is transmitted only through sexual contact.
"This is the first time we have a chance to prevent a virulent form of cancer," Lieber said. "What we’re trying to do is prevent disease, not mandate morality."
Once again, she believes that she and government know better what to do for a child better than her parents.
What is more of an offense of hubris is the "not mandate morality" bit – that IS the point. To say otherwise is pure nonsense – pure sophistry. By trying to dismiss this as an item for morality, she just makes it obvious what her morality entails – government knows better, sex is not important or even within the purview of morality. That in and of itself is blatant disregard for a diverse outlook on life, a casual dismissal of dearly held beliefs….and morals….and how life is structured around those beliefs.
Find Skip
Add Skip
Email Skip
Leave a Comment