Where the Nanny State is Headed

In the Enlightened Netherlands: “Unfit” Moms Forced to Use Contraception

Via Marquette feminist blog Word Warrior, a proposal in the Netherlands to force women judged unfit mothers to use contraception.

Women in the Netherlands deemed “unfit mothers” may soon be forced to take contraception, if a draft bill currently before the Dutch parliament is passed. The bill “targets women who have been the subject of judicial intervention due to their bad parenting,” says its author, a member of the Netherlands’ socialist Labour Party.

Under the proposed legislation, a woman judged unfit who refuses to take contraception and becomes pregnant would have her child taken away at birth. The infant then would be placed in a foster home.

While it’s certain that such a measure could potentially prevent convicted child abusers from conceiving and abusing more children, many questions have been raised about the draft bill’s potential impact on human rights in the Netherlands.

Disabled mothers already face a worldwide uphill battle for the right to bear children. Earlier this year, “K.E.J.,” a woman with developmental disabilities, was taken to court by her own aunt, who wanted K.E.J. to be sterilized against her will. K.E.J. won her court battle. But would a woman with similar disabilities be judged unfit under the proposed Dutch system? What about a woman who could not care for a child due to a mental illness like post-partum depression, but who has entered a treatment program and wants to try again?

Interesting that we are on the same side of this issue as the feminists at “The Word Warrior.”

Our comment to them: once one decides the Nanny State is just fine, don’t expect it to merely take away freedoms that you happen to dislike. It will soon enough take away freedoms you consider essential.

California: Big Brother Will Control Your Thermostat

Via Dad29, the American Thinker documents another giant step toward 1984.

(And just because it didn’t happen by 1984 doesn’t mean it isn’t going to.)

A new revision to Title 24 is in the works for 2008[2] and it includes a number of improvements and enhancements that are largely good sense items and should be non-controversial. . . .

What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a “programmable communicating thermostat” or PCT. Every new home and every change to existing homes’ central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision. Each PCT will be fitted with a “non-removable” FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose. During “price events” those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes. During “emergency events” the new setpoints can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them.

In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control. Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations. All this is for the common good, of course.

“But surely,” somebody who likes the nanny state might say, “sometimes there are power emergencies that require people to conserve?”

In the first place, problems with the power supply in California are mostly the result of misguided government regulation, and especially the unwillingness of environmentalists to allow adequate energy supplies.

We all know the acronym NIMBY, meaning “not in my back yard.” If it’s prisons, or landfills or a nuclear plant, everybody wants it put it somewhere else.

We know a fellow who says that in California, the rule is BANANA, meaning “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.”

So we have the usual downward spiral: government regulates something, and messes up the market. And this becomes an excuse for even more regulation. We see this with things like rent control, which gives landlords an incentive to let their apartments run down. How does government respond? With stricter regulation.

But even given real scarcity, the proper policy is to increase prices, and let people decide whether energy means so much to them that they are willing to pay the higher price. A lot won’t be willing to, and the demand will decrease. And the higher price will encourage more production, making scarcity rare.

Thus increasing prices when energy is in short supply is a good idea, but that can be done without the Big Brother apparatus.

Of course, there are loopholes.

EXCEPTION 1 to Section 112(c): Gravity gas wall heaters, gravity floor heaters, gravity room heaters, non-central electric heaters, fireplaces or decorative gas appliances, wood stoves, room air conditioners, and room air-conditioner heat pumps need not comply with this requirement.

So just as people who want a large vehicle to drive can get around Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards by buying an SUV, people who want to be warmer need only buy a heater.

But the problem is that these ways of evading the energy Nazis tend to be rather expensive. Which is part of the reason we see poor people driving old junker cars, and affluent people driving SUVs.

But the real problem comes when the infrastructure of control is put in place, and public attitudes have come to accept that government can regulate peoples lives in minute detail.

At that point, the Nazis have won.

Mainstream Media: Inconsistent About the Nanny State

From CyberAlert.

Two women on the “NBC Today Show” decried the Nanny State and played the feminist card when the New York City government tried to dictate to mothers that they have to breast feed.

On Thursday’s Today show, NBC’s Meredith Vieira and Dr. Nancy Snyderman became born-again libertarians in their opposition to New York City’s ban on bottle feeding babies. Vieira called the measure, banning the use of baby formula in all public hospitals because of the health advantages of breast-feeding, “drastic” and Snyderman urged, “not so fast.” The ban even inspired Today to coin a new series segment called “Nanny State.” However, back in 2006, when New York City infringed on another right -- the right to eat fatty foods, Snyderman struck a different tone, as she gravely warned about the dangers of trans fats.

First up, Vieira opened the bottle feeding ban segment on the August 2 Today: “And now we’re gonna move on to something we call ‘Nanny State.’ First there was smoking and then trans fats and now baby formula? New York City health officials recently took what many see as a drastic step. Dr. Nancy Snyderman is NBC’s chief medical editor. Good morning, Nancy. What is going on?”

Dr. Nancy Snyderman: “Well, hi Meredith. This is one that I think is going to cause a lot of conversation today because it’s always been a divisive topic among parents, whether to give the breast or bottle. But in New York it may be the government that’s stepping in to make the choice for new mothers. It’s one of the touchiest turf battles in parenting, bottle versus breast. And it’s gaining new steam.”

Then Vieira and Snyderman, offended at the infringement of a woman’s right to breast feed, concluded the segment, quite exasperated:

Snyderman: “Yeah, you know breast feeding sounds so easy but for any of us who’ve done it, it’s a little bit tougher than people give it credit for. And I really resent the fact that there are men telling women what to do and that it’s the government and it’s going way beyond just health. This is gonna be controversial but I think it makes a lot of us go, uhh, just take a breath. Maybe not so fast.”

Vieira: “Yeah, take a step back. . .”

Snyderman: “Yeah.”

Good that they oppose the Nanny State, right?

Unfortunately, Snyderman wasn’t singing the same tune in 2005.

However, back in 2006, when it came to regulating the restaurant industry in New York, Snyderman was singing a different tune. NBC’s chief medical correspondent seemed to endorse the trans fat ban, as seen in the following excerpts from her October 30, 2006 Today report.

[On screen graphic: “Health Alert, Trans Fats: The New Tobacco?”]

Snyderman: “Hey Matt when it comes to your health and you and I talk about this a lot, it’s very important to remember that what you eat is what you are. And if you eat foods that are high in trans fat well you better pay attention because the harm they do is very real. Want a donut, a French fry, potato chips? They are all popular American foods but they may not be for long. Trans fat, a critical ingredient in all of them has suddenly become public health target number one. California attorney Steven Joseph launched the crusade in 2003 filing the Oreo lawsuit, which resulted in Kraft Foods eliminating trans fats from Oreos and reducing it in 650 other products. Since then Tiburon, California became America’s first trans fat-free city and now New York, Chicago and Boston are proposing to do the same. ”

[Woman #1: “We need to have things taken off our plate because a lot of times we, we don’t have the discipline to do that.”]

[Woman #2: “Look around there are a lot of obese people.”]

Snyderman: “Why is trans fats suddenly up there with tobacco and alcohol on the list of threats to public health? Because these man made fats, which give foods a longer shelf life, are proving deadly.”

It seems that whether the liberal yuppies like the Nanny State depends on their imposing their lifestyle choices on other people.

When somebody tries to impose something that they don’t like, it’s a different matter.

Nanny State: Left & Right

From Modern Commentaries: an account of government nannyism both from conservatives and liberals.

Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas, is a “conservative Republican.”

He’s pro-life, and a “staunch opponent of . . . gay marriage,” which is wonderful, but he’s also drunk from the Nanny-state Kool-Aid.

After being diagnosed with diabetes, Huckabee lost 110 pounds and became a “champion of healthy lifestyles.” That’s all well and good, but Huckabee decided that because he lost 110 pounds - of his own free will and doing - he decided it would be a good idea to keep track of the BMI and obesity rates of students in all Arkansas public schools on fitness report cards.

First, the BMI is an unrelistic indicator of obesity. It doesn’t take into consideration build, bone structure, or muscle mass . . . thereby making it possible for a fit person to register overweight or obese on the BMI.

Second, there’s the issue of privacy. A child’s weight should be an issue between the parents and the physician. Not the schools. Not the government.

But of course, the most aggressive and extreme nannyism comes from the leftists.

Do they make Valentine’s Day string cheese?

I suppose you could type up slogans like “Don’t string me along” and tape them to the packages.

This, sadly, is what Valentine’s Day has become in schools where the federal wellness policy is being interpreted with revolutionary zeal.

Kids recently brought home a list of what foods will be allowed, and which are henceforth banned, from upcoming Valentine’s Day celebrations at Sunset Ridge Elementary School in the Middleton- Cross Plains School District.

The allowed list includes yogurt, pretzels, animal crackers, string cheese and air-popped popcorn with no butter or oil.

The banned list includes such Valentine’s Day favorites as cookies, candy, brownies, bars, cupcakes, Oreos and sweetened fruit juice.

And what about those pastel conversation hearts from NECCO that have been part of American Valentine’s Days since the Civil War? As one of the hearts might proclaim: “No way.”

Blogger Amy notes the absurd level of hypocrisy of the leftist nannies.

But the left, while eager and enthusiastic to ban Valentine’s Day treats, would have no problem teaching Madistan kindergarteners about same-sex marriage or alternative lifestyles. They go apopleptic whenever abortion restrictions are on the table, and demand that birth control and abortion be government-funded.

Sex, with anyone at any time and for any reason, is perfectly acceptable. In spite of the fact that it also spreads disease (some of them fatal, and without cure), and allows the gravest evil of all to cover up for a night of irresponsibility: abortion.

So being promiscuous is okay. But having a chocolate on February 14 is bad.

The simple fact is that nannyism is never based on objective policy considerations, although these may be a pretext.

It’s about imposing one’s cultural values on other people.