Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/12/2002 4:21:25 PM PDT by ladysusan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: ladysusan
It has been done before, last time it was a boy, also very healthy.
Guess they have better start building orphanages, as we will see more and more of this lunacy.
2 posted on 09/12/2002 4:31:42 PM PDT by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ladysusan
What if the kid lights up?
3 posted on 09/12/2002 4:41:01 PM PDT by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SheLion
This'll make you want to reach for one.
4 posted on 09/12/2002 4:44:38 PM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ladysusan; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Gabz; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; ...
Instead, he cites in detail dozens of studies on the negative health effects of secondhand smoke, and concludes it is the court's obligation to act in the best interests of the child to limit exposure to smoke.

BOGUS!  This judge is either not up on the truth and is just another anti that sits on a bench, looking down on people and exercising his CONTROL over people.  For instance, does he know about the Federal Court throwing out the EPA's 1993 study on Second Hand Smoke?

Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke

And I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

Oak Ridge Labs & Second Hand Smoke

John Banzhaf III, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Action on Smoking and Health, said courts in at least 15 states have ruled that secondhand smoke can be a factor in a custody proceeding. He said many divorce proceedings now include agreements not to smoke around the children.

One of the well funded anti-smoker in the U.S. It wouldn't PAY for me to have kids today. I am thankful my girl is GROWN.  Funny how SHE made it in a two smoker house, eh?

Protecting children from secondhand smoke "is not that far out a concept."

How about protecting the kids from SUNSHINE, a class A Carcinogen, just like smoking. How about protecting them from exhaust fumes from passing trucks.  How about just putting the teens in a BUBBLE and protect them from EVERYTHING.  Hey, Judge. Yes. Put them in a damn bubble!  "It's for their own good you know!"  NOT!

5 posted on 09/12/2002 5:00:03 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ladysusan; SheLion
"Sooner or later we're going to recognize that we're not doing these kids any good by smoking," Blair said. "

This schizophrenia drives me crazy. Acquiesce to the demonization of smoking, and then fret about where else it will lead.

Once you've accepted that you're "not doing these kids any good by smoking" (implying that you're doing them harm) is a valid premise, you're cooked. The barn door's open.

But she added, "We certainly do a lot of other things that are unhealthy around our kids. No more potato chips in the house?

We have a winner! DUH!

8 posted on 09/12/2002 5:38:34 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ladysusan
Skoal!!!!!!
9 posted on 09/12/2002 5:48:29 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ladysusan
"The judge has absolute discretion to make decisions that are in the child's best interest," Lawson said. Protecting children from secondhand smoke "is not that far out a concept."

It is a far out concept. This is ludicrous.

12 posted on 09/12/2002 6:46:53 PM PDT by altair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ladysusan
Hey, the kid is eight, a couple of more years and the lure of the forbidden will grab her and she'll be sneaking butts behind the parants backs.

Wonder if they'll get a court order to protect themselves against her?

13 posted on 09/13/2002 2:45:26 AM PDT by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ladysusan
A judge has ordered estranged parents not to smoke around their 8-year-old daughter in a ruling family law experts say is the only known example of a court raising the issue of secondhand smoke without being asked.

Don't you just love an activist judge? Maybe he should throw in a no fast-food rule, a violent video games injunction, and maybe even mandate bed time stories.

Of course, this will only get worse. In our law school class yesterday, one of the lovely liberal ladies actually said that if the judge in a particular case were female, it wouldn't matter that the elements of the claim were not met, she would have to find for the plaintiff. What amazed me was that the professor didn't even challenge the idea. (Apparently, "every idea is equally valid", as another student said.) We're in for a looooong fight in the judiciary, folks.

16 posted on 09/13/2002 7:00:12 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ladysusan
Hey Judgey Wudgey!

How about stopping the feds and the state from collecting state and federal taxes from the parents so the child can have a better life.
After all....... ((It's for the Children)))
17 posted on 09/13/2002 10:11:04 AM PDT by Mr Fowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: alloysteel; Illbay
Yeah. Tell me about the Inquisition....
20 posted on 09/14/2002 12:35:19 PM PDT by LaBelleDameSansMerci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson