From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Political Wives...
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:14:31 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug23.233612.12627@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug22.195658.2945@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>>>
>>>I agree with you that we must resort to the courtroom when child abuse is
>>>in question. I did not read in Hilary's statement, however, any mention of
>>>child abuse. Rather, she listed a litany of parent-child conflicts such as
>>>schooling, cosmetic surgery, employment, or others which "will significantly
>>>affect the child's future" as better resolved in court. This I disagree with.
>
>>You did not read anything in Hillary's statement about child abuse? The entire
>>legal document in which she made the arguments you are referring to is part of
>>a court case where a child who had been abused by his parents sought to have
>>his custody decided in court (he didn't want to go back to his parents, who
>>at the time had every legal right to demand him back).
>
>>To suggest that Hillary's legal arguments should be interpreted as advocating
>>children's right to sue their parents over minor disputes is just parroted
>>propaganda. The point is just this: there are certain things parents shouldn't
>>be able to force their children to do or put up with.
>
>Like cosmetic surgery? Like an after school job? ! I fear for the
>future of any child whose parents would let him work at the expense of his
>education or have cosmetic surgery in the name of self-esteem.
>All too often the parental right to say "no" to their children is seen
>as child abuse.
>
>I admire attempts to fight child abuse. I don't think it's propaganda to say
>that Hilary is (or has gone) way overboard. I'm not "suggesting" that she said
>cosmetic surgery or employment were decisions that children should make, I'm
>merely repeating what she herself wrote. If she would stick to just real life
>child abuse rather than parental restriction, I'd have respect for her.

The thing is, she was sticking to child abuse. That's what the case was about.
I'd have to look at a more complete context for her statements about cosmetic
surgery and employment before making any statements about why she brought
them up in a case where the issue was child abuse. But my guess is that she
would have agreed then and would agree now that children should not be able
to sue their parents in the situations you describe, and that you have merely
been led to believe that she would by snippets of a legal argument taken way,
way, way out of context. That's what I mean by parroted propaganda.

I'll venture a guess: Hillary was probably listing unwanted (by the child)
cosmetic surgery and unwanted employment. Keep in mind that at the time the
whole idea of the child having any right to challenge parental decisions was
alien to the court system; Hillary was also very likely just listing off
a series of major parental decisions that perhaps children ought to have the
right to not go along with. Either way, I think she deserves the right to
answer for herself.

Keep in mind also that lawyers frequently argue positions they find personally
repulsive, even positions mutually contradictory within a single case. I'm not
saying that's what Hillary was doing, just that the legal pleadings a lawyer
enters on behalf of a client are an awfully strange place to go looking for
that lawyer's personal position statements. I think it speaks volumes about
the integrity of the Bush/Quayle campaign that they would resort to such
tactics to discredit a candidate's wife, and a great deal about the integrity
of Hillary Clinton that they couldn't come up with anything more scandalous.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.cascade