Megyn Kelly [*sigh*] on Faith-Killing Parents

We recently posted about the Pennsylvania creationist parents, Herbert and Catherine Schaible, who prayed instead of calling the doctor, and watched as their son died of pneumonia (see Creationist Faith-Killing Parents to be Sentenced). After they were convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a judge let them off with probation.

It is our delight to link to this video of what we saw on Fox News yesterday. Megyn Kelly — she is gorgeous! — agrees with your humble Curmudgeon that the sentence was a travesty. It’s good to know that not everyone on Fox is a creationist lunatic.

Here it is: Parents Refuse Medicine to Sick Child. It’s only a few minutes long.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Megyn Kelly [*sigh*] on Faith-Killing Parents

  1. All three women were all bringing up great points.

    I do love how Megyn said “f-und-a-mentalist”

    you could hear the IQ in her voice

  2. satchmodog says: “you could hear the IQ in her voice”

    She’s sometimes a guest on the Bill O’Reilly show, and when he starts ranting like a loon I’ve seen her tell him: “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

  3. The sad thing is that it makes considerable sense under creationist assumptions. Go to the Designer for help when a problem arises (which raises the question of why the Designer created bacteria which cause pneumonia in the first place, but that’s one of the inscrutable God things, apparently), rather than to “atheistic, materialistic” science.

    It’s one reason I don’t like seeing such a light punishment. I can see why they really don’t want to deprive the remaining children of their parents (alternately imprisoning father and mother might help there, some), certainly, but it’s allowing too much to idiotic beliefs, especially ones that make some “sense” according to the anti-science beliefs of so many Americans.

  4. She is indeed, a very attractive woman. However, pretty is as pretty does, and nobody who works for Rupert Murdoch, gets much respect for me. I’m just surprised that Fox didn’t blame this death on leftist Nazis.

    Even a broken clock…

  5. Ellie says: “She is indeed, a very attractive woman. However …”

    Never mind your “however.” Megyn is just fine. I’ve never seen her say anything stupid.

  6. My “however” had nothing to do with her intelligence, and my comment does not say that it did. I have no way to judge her intellectual capacity, and I certainly did not call her “stupid.” I said what I said, and meant it. Neither Murdoch nor his employees do anything to earn my respect and simply because I agree with her on this one issue doesn’t make her any more correct on the whole, than that broken clock.

  7. Megyn is just fine. I’ve never seen her say anything stupid.

    Really? She recently claimed that people on Fox News don’t Nazi references. Jon Stewart killed her for that one.

  8. Benjamin Franklin

    Perhaps if this discussion had not been on Fox, the Supreme Court decision re: Reynolds v. United States (1878), that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment, would have been brought up.

    I would imagine that Fox doesn’t care to bring up this case for two reasons. First, in the majority opinion, Jefferson’s Danbury Baptist letter was specifically referenced to clearly show that the Founding Fathers did, indeed desire to erect a wall of eternal separation of church and state, a fact which most, if not all commentators on Fox News, would prefer not mentioning.

    And second, the decision wrote;
    “Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

    To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

    I don’t think that Fox commentators, including Palin, Huckabee, Hanity, O’Reilly and Beck, to name a few, and, I would also believe, Roger Ailes, endorse that position.

    Personally, I feel that as much, if not more culpability lies with those who run the church (including Mrs. Scheible’s father) and indoctrinate their flock with nonsense. Unfortunately, it seems, we continue to let them get away with murder because it would be difficult to successfully prosecute them.

  9. cnocspeireag

    Why doesn’t anyone comment on the judge who is obviously incapable of doing the job?
    How would the sentence have seemed if the parents had had a different hobby, like getting totally drunk or injecting heroin, and had allowed their child to die?

  10. Benjamin Franklin says:

    Perhaps if this discussion had not been on Fox, the Supreme Court decision re: Reynolds v. United States (1878), that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment, would have been brought up.

    Did the prosecutor argue that at the sentencing hearing? If so, then you’re right, and Fox should have been aware of it. If not, then it’s the prosecutor’s fault. I don’t know that the Fox people are supposed to run to the law library to look that stuff up every time they comment on a case.

  11. ACK.

    Blah blah blah



    got it.

    Now can we be freaking rational and focus on our common enemy?


  12. Satch, you promise not to do the Rightest=good and progressive=bad and you’ve got a deal.

  13. Aw come on MrC….if you are throwing down a gauntlet at least make it a challenge.

    You have NEVER seen Kelly say anything stupid?

    Gun shows are antique fairs –
    Fox News never uses Nazi comparisons –
    Historical Revisionism of the 14th Ammendment –
    New Black Panthers lies –
    and on and on and on.

    She, like all her Faux News colleagues, is a propogandist and a liar for bucks. It smarts that she is smart tho…making what she does worse.

    She is hot tho….

  14. I agree with Kelly of course, and especially like how she emphasized that the parents were “fundamentalists.” My fear, though, is that someone will always pull the “freedom of religion” loophole, as the one commentator did. And as all anti-evolution activists do when rational people object to their strategies to mislead students.

    What we need, if we don’t have it already, is a clear “shouting fire in a crowded theater” criterion for freedom of religion, as we have for freedom of speech. Certainly, allowing your child to die is not the same as the “breathtaking inanity” that anti-evolution activists demanded at Dover, but both are well into “shouting fire in a crowded theater” territory.

  15. I refuse to enter into the “leftist propaganda is right and rightist propaganda is wrong” or vice-versa discussion here. All news media is about making money, and so long as we have even a semi-free press in a sort of free economy, that will be the case. Further, there is a difference between reporting and commentary, and I see a lot of commentary and very little reporting on most of the broadcast media. Evidently, that’s the way the consumers want it, since they continue to watch or listen. Even within the print media I have noticed a blurring of the line between reporting and commenting over the past 2o years, and even in the “Gray Lady” this has become more prevalent. It is a problem that government cannot solve by definition, because if government begins to dictate what is published or publicized and how, then once again we are dealing with propaganda and not reporting. Let the buyer beware!

    In my eyes, the important issue in this case is what is the parents’ responsibility with regard to the child’s rights? Although a child is young and cannot make decisions for himself, from birth he still has the same natural rights as an adult: life, liberty and property. The parents do not own the child, but by bringing the child into the world and raising the child, they do have the obligation to protect the rights of the child until that child is an adult and can do the job himself. Certainly children die in childhood regardless of everything a parent might do: accidents happen, people contract diseases that we cannot cure. But this was no accident, and pneumonia is not ordinarily a killer of children anymore . (Although it is becoming so again due to the evolutionary arms race between resistant bacteria and antibiotics) I think the sentence was a travesty, and I don’t think freedom of religion covers neglect. States can and do put into place minimum standards for what constitutes care and what constitutes neglect. And neither is this a case where there is an appearance of a conflict between the rights of the child and that of the parents–this was wholly about the child, who had no voice and no choice in the matter. I suppose from the perspective of the cold equations, these parents just won the Darwin Award with respect to this child, but as human beings we are rightly horrified by their callous disregard for the suffering and death of the child. Dying of pneumonia is neither quick nor painless.

    That these parents are nuts in the colloquial sense of the word does not excuse them. They are sorry excuses for human beings and need to suffer more legal consequences than they have.