Posted on 11/02/2007 4:06:04 PM PDT by Wuli
You’re in your house with your family.It’s late at night. You just had a baby three weeks earlier. Your husband hears some automobiles pull up and stop directly in front of your house. Cautiously he looks out the window. Armed police officers are getting out of their vehicles and headed to your door. Terrifying thoughts race through your mind. Why are they here? What have we done? Perhaps there is a mistake. Sure, that’s it, a mistake, we haven’t done anything wrong, they must have us confused with someone else. But the ranking officer produces a warrant for your newborn child. A warrant? How can this be?
Our baby is only three weeks old, what reason could you have for him?
Your cries are to no avail and your child is taken from your arms and driven away.
Where is this you might ask?
Germany in the late 30’s?
Iraq while Saddam was in power?
Russia after World War II?
Nope, not even close.
How about Omaha, Nebraska this month?
Omaha…Nebraska?
Yes, dear friends it seems that a child was born in Omaha in September and the parents did not wish to....
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalmavens.com ...
This is chilling............coming to a neighborhood near you
“The main point of this article is missed completely because you unnecessarily excerpted the article. What a shame.”
You can click on the link to the full article, can’t you? So what is missed, or how is that you knew what was “missed?. Apparently it was not missed by you, nor should it be missed by others.
I don’t get this at all. Rightly or Wrongly, the government has always had the power to require medical treatment in some cases. I remember a case when a little girl had some kind of cancer, and her parents didn’t believe in medical treatment. The government removed her from the family and treated her. That was 15 or so years ago. I am not sure that I agree with it, but it doesn’t have anything to do with socialized medicine. We don’t have socialized medicine and it is still happening.
ML/NJ
Hopefully we will not get such a system.
I'm thinking it was a hepatitis (a SDT?) vaccine.
They should be suing the state (from a safe location).
I didn’t see a link to an article in the blog.
One that I found.
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2007/10/26/news/nebraska/doc47214e6a400d4888452933.txt
UNFRIGGENBELIEVABLE! Thanks for posting. Thanks for the link.
Suit Says Baby’s Seizure Violated Rights’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919122/posts
Omaha court case widens from screening test to baby’s meals
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912817/posts
Wrong. "State law requires metabolic testing of all newborns. The tests, which involve pricking a baby's heel and drawing about five drops of blood, are used to screen for a variety of conditions, including cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912817/posts
Is it unreasonable for the government to require mandatory exercise classes? Is it unreasonable for the government to supply government approved foods?
Thanks!
sickle-cell? Is the baby black? (that’s a rhetorical question, I’ll go read the other threads/links to determine the baby’s race)
I still believe the “state” was way out of line, doing what they did...
I don't know - but folks who are classified as white can have it as well. (Usually either Mediterranean ancestry, or an ancestor who was able to pass.)
The state is charged with protecting the public health. In this case, they could have gone after the parents if they were endangering the child or the public health by not having the child tested. But invading their home, taking the child and testing the child against the parent's will is wrong.
What they did was not unlike what the Clinton Justice dept. did with Elian Gonzales...invaded a private residence to enforce a law.
When we have national health care, this could become commonplace.
Exactly. If conservatives on a conservative website aren’t concerned about this, this country is in a world of hurt...
That is the biggest reason why we need a strong GOP nominee in 08.
Are you trying to tell me Rudy is not conservative enough for you...? [smirk]
They also test for phenylketonuria, which causes irreversible mental retardation but can be prevented by dietary modifications. PKU only has an incidence of 1 in 10,000 - but just suppose the baby had an affected sibling? Then it would have a 1 in 4 chance of PKU.
Would the changed odds change the parents’ right to refuse testing for their baby?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.