As part of his job of looking out for the folks, it's apparent that Bill O'Reilly feels that he can appoint himself judge and jury of pregnant women who, if they don't follow O'Reilly's 1950's standards of behavior, MUST BE PUNISHED. While O'Reilly is neither a medical clinician nor a lawyer, he feels that he is qualified to bloviate about a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision which ruled that illegal drug use by a pregnant woman does not constitute child abuse. The case involved a woman who, because she tested positive for cocaine on the day that she gave birth to a baby who had traces of cocaine in his system, was found guilty of abuse and neglect. That finding was later overturned by the NJ Supreme Court and Bill O'Reilly, who is fuming about it, says it's crazy. And we all know that when it comes to women's bodies, Bill knows best! We know cuz he says so - and if you don't get it "there's something the matter with you," bitches!

Last week Bill reported on the court decision. He immediately misrepresented the case when he said that the court overruled the NJ child protective services which "tried to take the baby away." Fact Check - the child and the sibling were removed for six months. O'Reilly said it was "disturbing" because the woman "committed an illegal act." Fact Check - the woman denied using the drug (said it had spilled on her) and there was NO criminal finding of drug use. O'Reilly didn't mention that there was no finding that the home environment of the baby (and his sibling) was unsafe. Bill didn't mention that the baby was otherwise healthy.

Wendy Walsh, PhD (therapist) agreed with Bill and despite the finding that there is no evidence of neglect or abuse, speculated that this could happen in the future "around a drug infested environment."  Bill, who doesn't seem to know that this happened in 2007, asked why the NJ Supreme Court isn't punishing the mother. Walsh cited state law which states that fetuses are not protected by child abuse laws.

Bill's other guest, Bonny Forrest, PhD (therapist and lawyer) agreed with the court. Dr. O'Reilly shouted that cocaine goes directly into the baby's system and that he would get "MD"s to back him up. While Forrest was trying to cite her expertise in this matter, Judge Bill yelled that "if this isn't neglect, nothing is and there is no protection for American babies, none." When she cited prevention and intervention, Dr. Bill shouted "stop with the theory because you've got a baby who had cocaine put into the baby's system, that's a crime." He shouted, several times, "We're not a humane society." He ranted "since Roe v Wade...45 million babies, potential babies...have been destroyed and now, that mentality that they're not worth anything, 45 million, they're garbage and that's transferred onto real babies."

As Forrest tried to find agreement with Bill, he screamed "we treat babies like garbage." When she asked if this child should be in foster care, social worker Bill said that he would remove this child (who is now six years old) and drug test the woman until she was clean because a baby shouldn't be with a drug addicted woman. Bill still doesn't get that the child(and sibling) was removed and later returned because protective services was satisfied that she wasn't a danger to the children. Bill doesn't get that the woman is not, according to any legal findings, a drug addict and that "protective services presented no evidence against the mother relating to her behavior during the nearly seven months after the child’s birth and while the family was supervised."

When Forrest asked Bill to accompany her in a visit a foster family, he patronizingly shouted "what do you think I was born yesterday, don't give me any of that, I know 10 times as much about this as you, I've seen it, I've been there. He accused her of being nuts and shouted about a crack addicted mother (not true) has no legal right to ingest cocaine into that baby's system. Period. And if you don't get that, there's something the matter with you."

If attorney (not) O'Reilly had read the *court decision he would have seen that the court can establish a finding of neglect on a newborn if, for instance, a newborn has withdrawal symptoms and, among other things, there is "evidence of respiratory distress cardiovascular or central nervous system complications, low gestational age at birth, low birth weight..." but "not every instance of drug use by a parent during pregnancy, standing alone, will substantiate a finding of abuse and neglect in light of the specific language of the statute." But America's daddy, who hates spending on social programs, scoffs at the idea of prevention and intervention. And, of course, spending on Planned Parenthood which provides access to contraception and abortion for women who, for whatever reason, don't want to continue a pregnancy.

Funny, for the last few years, Bill has been relatively calm. This was vintage stuff. I expected him to yell "cut her mic." Welcome back, Bill. We missed ya!

Oh, and about the "been there." Bill has never worked as a social worker a day in his life. Liar.

*The court decision web page has been removed. The current link references it.