It Takes A Village To Neutralize Parental Authority

Well, I'm not especially surprised that it's Massachusetts:

Parents who spank their kids - even in their own homes - would be slapped by the long arm of the law under an Arlington nurse’s proposal to make Massachusetts the first state in the nation to outlaw corporal punishment.

Kathleen Wolf’s proposed legislation will be debated at a State House hearing tomorrow morning.

If signed into law, parents would be prohibited from forcefully laying a hand on any child under age 18 unless it was to wrest them from danger, lest they be charged with abuse or neglect.

Rep. Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat, submitted the 61-year-old Wolf’s petition at her request, but is not taking a position for or against corporal punishment.

“He does recognize and understand the concern many would have on legislating parental rights,” said Sean Fitzgerald, Kaufman’s chief of staff, “but the problem is the boundary is often overstepped. The right to hit should never be the right to hurt.”

True, but there's also a maxim to the effect that hard cases make bad laws. Preventing genuine child-abusers (i.e, the "hurters") from running amok is fine, even admirable. But letting the State interfere with Mom and Dad's judgment about how best to take Little Johnny down a peg or two when he needs it, well, that's a whole different order of bureaucratic nannyism.

Here's the proposed text:

An Act prohibiting corporal punishment of children. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1: Chapter 119 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after Section 51 B, a new Section 51 B 1/2 , as follows:

Section 51 B ½. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN IS PROHIBITED

Corporal Punishment of children violates their rights to safe, secure and respectful care.

This section is intended to actively support nonviolent parenting.

The provisions of this section are intended to eliminate the use of corporal punishment to discipline children, because of the emotional harm and risks of bodily harm associated with corporal punishment of children.

The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using incidental or minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control, or other discipline which does not constitute corporal punishment.

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following words shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings: -

“Child”, any person under eighteen years of age.

“Corporal punishment”, the willful infliction of physical pain or injurious or humiliating treatment.

(b) It shall be unlawful in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for any adult to inflict corporal punishment upon a child.

(c) The infliction of corporal punishment on a child may be a basis for a finding of abuse and neglect.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using such reasonable force as is necessary to protect himself and others from imminent, serious, physical harm, including assault by a child, to divest a child of a dangerous instrument, to prevent injury to property, or to remove a child from a life-threatening or injurious situation.

Looks awful broad to me. I'm not sure whether Rep. Kaufman really gives that much of a damn about "the concerns many would have on legislating parental rights."