You're in No Nonsense Territory





MailingListButton.jpg




Archives

  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • August 25th, 2006

    Schwarzenegger’s Miscreant Moms

    by Marc H. Rudov

    Will California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger further enable the disgraceful, irresponsible behavior of miscreant moms by extending their baby-throw-away plan to 30 days from its current three days? This is a HUGE dilemma facing the governor, now running for reelection. Mr. Schwarzenegger must decide whether to let California join 17 other states in granting this outrageous female right by signing AB 1873 into law (see article below).

    These self-surrender, or safe-haven, laws allow “parents” (read: mothers) to shed their unwanted newborns — akin to returning DVDs and library books — at designated hospitals, police stations, and fire stations, no questions asked. At one time, 47 states allowed these miscreant moms to dispose of their babies within 72 hours of giving birth, and then change their minds 14 days later. Now, “progressive”states are extending that dropoff period to 30 days.

    On both sides of the political spectrum, disingenuous lawmakers are heralding this bill as pro-life. What they really mean to say is this:

    “We are forbidden from criticizing females. To get reelected, we must condone almost everything women do. If they want to get abortions, fine. If they want to discard their newborns at fire stations, great. If they want to fraudulently become pregnant and stick men 18 years of child support, even better. The last thing we can do is demand that women deal with the consequences of their behaviors. In politically correct America, that is verboten.”

    US and state legislators have given women every conceivable way to opt out of parenthood (Roe v. Wade, safe-haven laws, and Plan-B pills); they have given men no such options. This violates the equal-protection clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment. If a woman becomes pregnant, even in the case of failed birth control, all fetus/child decisions henceforth are hers. This is juris contemptus in action!

    Today’s coddled girls grow up hearing: “Responsibility is old-fashioned. There is a law to shield you from everything and everyone, including yourself.” Second-class boys, however, quickly learn that they are expected to march in the “shovel brigade” behind the female parade.

    Will Governor Schwarzenegger do the right thing by vetoing this ludicrous bill and exhorting women not to get pregnant if they don’t want to be mothers? Or, in an era where “the right thing” is an obsolete concept, will Mr. Schwarzenegger endorse the behavior of miscreant moms to get himself reelected? We shall see.

    About the Author

    Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719), and 23 articles.

    Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.

    Copyright ©2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

    ====================================================================

    Bill extends time for parents to abandon babies

    By Edwin Garcia

    MediaNews Sacramento Bureau — 08.25.06

    SACRAMENTO - The 2-week-old baby bundled in a blanket was discovered, dead, in the trash can outside a Jack in the Box restaurant in Newark last winter.

    His mother or father could face murder charges if authorities ever find them — but if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger approves legislation sent to his desk Thursday, parents in similar, troubled situations could avoid prosecution beginning next year if they abandon their children at hospitals and designated fire stations within 30 days of birth.

    The legislation, AB 1873 by Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont, was inspired by the Newark case. It seeks to extend the current self-surrender law, which gives parents 72 hours to turn in their newborn children to emergency health providers — no questions asked — without being charged with a crime.

    At least 17 states have similar, 30-day laws.

    A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said the governor had not taken a position on the bill.

    As of last month, 153 newborns had been turned over since the current law took effect in 2001, according to state statistics. Through September 2004 — the most recent statistics available — 78 percent of the babies were surrendered alive. But other children continue to “fall through the cracks,” Torrico said, because parents either don’t know about the existing law, or need more than three days before deciding to give up their child.

    “At its core, the bill is about saving babies’ lives,” Torrico told the Assembly, “and making sure that these young mothers understand that they have options besides leaving their babies in a garbage can, as happened just a mile from my house in January and just two blocks away from a fire station.”

    He called his measure one of the most important bills of his political career, saying it has the potential to save many lives.

    Torrico initially proposed a one-year surrender period, similar to laws in Missouri and North Dakota, and asked for $5 million to help promote the law throughout California, but legislative committees struck down the provisions.

    The bill’s final version passed the Assembly on a 64-4 vote, though it was opposed by district attorneys who fret that abusive parents can harm their children and hide any signs of abuse for nearly a month.

    Torrico and supporters of the measure countered that under the proposed law, and the current law, parents who drop off babies at a safe-surrender site such as a hospital emergency room and are suspected of physically hurting the child can be prosecuted for child abuse, and face up to six years in prison.

    Some cities and counties opposed the measure out of concerns over costs of social workers and adoption consultants.

    And the state Department of Social Services, which promotes the existing law through bilingual posters and brochures, suggested Torrico’s legislation was unnecessary.

    “Unless it can be shown that babies older than 72 hours are being abandoned, and could be safer under the `Safely Surrendered Baby Law’ than under the voluntary relinquishment procedures, it is not necessary to change existing law,” the department stated in a letter opposing the measure.

    Most abandoned babies, whether dead or alive, were newly born, the letter stated.

    Assembly member Tim Leslie, R-Roseville, who supports the current law but argued against the measure, wondered if new parents who can’t handle changing diapers will abandon their children. “It’s an act that devalues humanity and devalues our children for up to 30 days,” Leslie said. “You just can’t give your child away.”

    Assembly member Bonnie Garcia, R-El Centro, defended the measure, which she called a “pro-life” bill. “For those of you that are never going to have the experience of a baby moving and kicking inside of you, I don’t think you’ll ever understand this,” said Garcia, the mother of an 18-year-old.

    Garcia, who has worked as a community leader, said she’s known of teenagers who got pregnant and faced difficult decisions: “The only choices they saw out of it was either to hide the pregnancy, or find a way to destroy that child.”

    Proponents of the bill also argued that women who give birth by caesarean section are almost always in the hospital at least three days after the child is born.

    At a news conference before the measure was passed, Torrico, a father of two small children, expressed disappointment that his latest version of the bill was stripped of $5 million to promote the law in a multilingual public-awareness campaign.

    Many mothers, he said, still don’t even know about the existing, three-day surrender law.

    Just last week, an 18-year-old Livermore woman — who told police she was raped by a relative, and hid her pregnancy from her family — gave birth in a bathtub and allegedly suffocated the baby with a plastic bag.

    Later that day, police found the tiny body in a trash can at the side of her house. The mother, Carmen Gil, is being charged with murder.

    Contact Edwin Garcia at egarcia@mercurynews.com or (916) 441-4651.


    7 Responses to “Schwarzenegger’s Miscreant Moms”

    1. Roger Knight Says:

      Last winter the Hawaii Supreme Court found that for a father in response to a paternity case to claim Equal Protection of Laws when women have the right to abortion raised a frivolous issue and sanctioned the lawyers who brought it. Further details are at:
      http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/hawaiienemies.htm

    2. jaustin9698 Says:

      Does the father get the option to have the child? If not then does the father still have to pay child support for the child?

    3. Marc Rudov Says:

      I believe that the father has the legal right to the child ONLY after the mother’s options for reclaiming it COMPLETELY expire. If neither the mother or father claims the child, a government agency will put it up for adoption or place it in an orphanage. If the mother does reclaim the child at the last minute, the father, of course, must pay child support. Either way, he is completely at the mercy of her decision. The whole barbaric situation is yet another example of how society gives women a pass for dodging their responsibilities. Remember: The woman is the nurturing one, right?

    4. wls Says:

      Marc Rudov said,

      > I believe that the father has the legal right
      > to the child ONLY after the mother?s options
      > for reclaiming it COMPLETELY expire.

      NO, although he won’t necessarily get immediate
      custody, and the process of establishing paternity
      usually takes longer than the mothers’ grace
      period. Even if the mother attempts to reclaim
      the child, he can assert a claim to parentage and
      custody, just as he can if she never surrenders it.

      There’s nothing in the safe-surrender law that
      absolves _either_ parent of the obligation to
      pay child support—only criminal responsibility
      and only for the surrender itself—although there
      doesn’t seem to be a policy of pursuing parents
      who surrender, for that purpose.

    5. Marc Rudov Says:

      Surrender means surrender. Once you surrender that baby, and the 30 days expire, it isn’t yours anymore. Not only will the state not prosecute you for a criminal act, but all of your previous rights and obligations to that child cease.

      It seems to me that, in reality, the father cannot be the surrendering parent. Imagine what would happend to him if he would try to do such a thing without the mother’s involvement: he’d be a dead man.

      A father would have to make his claim to the child (including a DNA test) after the mother surrenders it but BEFORE the 30-day expiration. If he fails to do so, he loses.

      This, folks, is what happens when you ask the government to intervene in and run your life: IT WILL INTERVENE IN AND RUN YOUR LIFE.

    6. wls Says:

      Marc Rudov said,

      > your previous rights and obligations to that
      > child cease.

      That’s only if the parents subsequently do nothing.
      It’s the normal course of things when a child
      becomes a dependent of the state, and is not part
      of safe-surrender, per se.

      The 72 hours under current law, or 30 days if
      Schwarzenegger signs the bill, is ONLY the
      period during which the act of surrender will not
      have criminal consequences.

      Parents who surrender can in principle still
      petition to have their child returned to them,
      right up to the point their parental rights are
      terminated—which takes considerably
      longer—although the fact that they surrendered
      it would surely count strongly against them in
      practice, when their fitness to parent is
      considered.

    7. Robert Stevens Says:

      Folks it’s time for a history lesson, every society that treats its children this way does not last long! And the more we pet women on the head for socially,legally and morally irresponcible behavior, the more we slide toward that dreaded downfall of our society.
      We need to teach women that equality is both a right and a priviledge. That is has both rights and responsibilities atached. That equality has built in limitations and those ” limitations” are not based on political correctness. It is based ulitmately on Gods law. And God will not stand for anyone treating his children this way.
      My God, folks… children are a BLESSING, not a curse.
      And one more thing, the state does not own my child to be able tell me what I can or can not do with them, as long as I take reasonable good care of them.

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.