Nanny State Law In CA Spanking Ban Nixed

[Diamond Cross]

SACRAMENTO, Calif -- A Democratic lawmaker on Thursday abandoned her heavily ridiculed campaign to make spanking a crime, acknowledging that the bill which had become fodder for late-night comedians would get whacked even in California's sometimes whimsical Legislature.


Instead, San Francisco Bay-area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber introduced a more narrow bill she said would help district attorneys more easily prosecute parents who cross the line from punishment into physical abuse. Lieber's new bill, however, still might not hit the mark with her colleagues.


She is seeking to classify a laundry list of physical acts against young children, including hitting with a belt, switch or stick, as unjustifiable and grounds for prosecution, probation, or a parental time-out -- a class on nonviolent parenting.

Whether her bill passes or not, spanking a child on the buttocks -- even to the point of injury -- will remain legal in California, Lieber said.


"Clearly, I take exception with that part of the law, but the votes are simply not there" to change it, Lieber said, facing a bank of eight television cameras and the largest media spotlight the soft-spoken
Democrat has ever encountered.


Until last month, the liberal Mountain View lawmaker was perhaps best known for authoring the state's minimum-wage increase.


Then Lieber, who has no children, attracted nationwide criticism after she pledged to introduce an anti-spanking bill to protect children and curb violence. Her idea was even the subject of a "Saturday Night Live" parody.

Conservative and family-values groups lashed out at her proposal, charging that criminalizing spanking epitomized overbearing "nanny" government.


Lieber at first delayed introducing her spanking ban plan before finally dropping it Thursday. Lieber said the negative attention did not affect her decision to abandon the bill, which state Democratic leaders also had warned could distract from their more important legislation on global warming and other efforts.


"We welcome the attention -- positive or negative -- because we want to get people talking about it," Lieber said, noting that several California newspapers that ran editorials blasting her idea also published articles on nonviolent parenting.


If Lieber is lucky, her new bill could become known as the anti-"baby-shaking" bill. The measure would for the first time allow prosecutors to charge baby-shaking as a misdemeanor or felony, even before there is serious injury.


Current law only allows prosecution when baby-shaking causes serious brain damage or death.


Some legal experts questioned whether the bill would add much to what is already on the books in California. But Thomas Nazario, a University of

San Francisco law professor who has advocated for greater child protection, said Lieber's bill would begin to establish a specific line between what's appropriate discipline from a parent and what is not.


If passed, it would classify most physical harm to children as unjustified, reversing the current principle under which judges and juries are asked to decide whether physical abuse that begins as discipline is justified.


The list of unjustified punishments to children would include: throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting; striking with a closed fist, striking a child under the age of 3 on the face or head; vigorous shaking of a child under the age of 3; interference with a child's breathing, or threatening a child with a deadly weapon.


"The bill strikes a balance between parental prerogative ... and protecting the most vulnerable children," Nazario said.


Whether the bill will become law remains to be seen. The bill must first survive committee hearings and then win a majority vote in both the Assembly and Senate before going to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for approval.


Some Republicans immediately blasted Lieber's new bill as no better than her first try.


Schwarzenegger has not indicated whether he would back the bill. Last month he hinted that he might be receptive to a spanking bill, but said he has concerns about enforcement.


The governor said he and his wife, Maria Shriver, do not spank their four children and use alternative methods for discipline.


Schwarzenegger said, for example, that they find it more effective to threaten to take away their children's play time. "They hate that much more than getting spanked," he told reporters.


Link:

Spanking Ban Whacked From Nonviolent Parenting Bill - News

As for me:

One has to keep in mind there is a fine line between child abuse and discipline, and that all children responds differently, that is not one punishment works the same way for the same two children.

Take for example, children like Bart Simspon. You may laugh, but there are children out there that are a lot like him. SPanking a child like him won't correct his behavior, theyh'll just find ways of being smarter at hiding it.

The thing is, while I am personally against shaking and slapping on the face, I am not against spanking, I believe that a parent should be left to their own devices in how to discipline their child. Protecting children is a noble ideal, but how far does it go before it starts stepping on parents reights? Why should parents have children stay with them if they have no parenting rights and everything''s overseen by a overzealous government trying to be everyone's parent?

I am reminded of the case of Elian Gonzalez, the child who was shaken by his nanny so hard that he died. That is why I am personally against shaking a child.

How far should we go to protect children abainst abusive parents and how do we determine what exactly is abuse?

[Kytro]

The concept that laws are needed to define every nuance of human interaction is just

[RMNIXON]

Thanks for the National Embarrassment Lieber!

[motivez]

Good, what a ridiculous law to begin with..

Whether or not I agree or disagree with spanking doesn't mean I should have the right to tell parents how they can discipline their kids as long as there's no abuse involved.

[IminWonderland]

All I know is that if she wanted to ban me from spanking, then she should move in with me, and just take over compeltely and absolve me from any responsibility of the outcome of my children.

It would nice to be a guilty free parent for a change.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by motivez

Good, what a ridiculous law to begin with..

Whether or not I agree or disagree with spanking doesn't mean I should have the right to tell parents how they can discipline their kids as long as there's no abuse involved.

i think we can all agree that there is a difference between spanking and abusing your child

[Diamond Cross]

Well, no. Obviously people can't agree. The proposed law was that spanking in any form is child abuse.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Good, what a ridiculous law to begin with..

Whether or not I agree or disagree with spanking doesn't mean I should have the right to tell parents how they can discipline their kids as long as there's no abuse involved.

But I think thats the point, these extremist are saying "spanking is abuse"

Can spanking be abuse? Absolutely, but is it categorically abuse? Shit no.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Can spanking be abuse? Absolutely, but is it categorically abuse? Shit no.

Devil's advocate here, but who's to judge what crosses the line?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Devil's advocate here, but who's to judge what crosses the line?

I think if you're leaving bruises on your kid thats crossing the line.

[Diamond Cross]

This is when something should be done by the individual case. Each child responds differently to different disciplines. One key factor is how many times is the child b eing spanked and is it really something the child did or is it the parent trying to be over controlling?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by hsmith

i think we can all agree that there is a difference between spanking and abusing your child

Perhaps "we" can, but not everybody. And the will impose their views with the force of law is still hard at work. And do take note that this woman is not a parent.