How's That?
Posted on 02/14/2002 7:04:52 AM PST by ArGee
This segment is from Morning Edition Thursday, February 14, 2002
Sect Couple
NPR's Tovia Smith reports on the case of a Massachusetts couple who are members of a religious sect that doesn't believe in medical care. They are in jail because a court wants proof their religious beliefs did not cause the death of an infant they say was lost in a miscarriage. The case has become a popular topic among some constitutional scholars, because of the issues it raises in the area of religious freedom and a woman's right to privacy. (4:31)
Apparently, the couple in question is part of a religious organization that doesn't believe in medical intervention for health problems. They have had at least one child die of suffocation immediately after birth when a simple medical procedure could have saved the child's life. But the procedure would have been against their religion.
Well, a judge didn't think it was right that the child be denied basic medical care because of the parent's religious beliefs so when she was 8 months pregnant with another child he had her incarcerated so he could ensure a doctor would be available during her next labor. The report didn't make this clear, but I think that child was delivered alive and is OK today.
This story had to do with a miscarriage. It seems she got pregnant again, but isn't pregnant now. The judge wants to know what happened to the baby. She says she miscarried, but the judge wants more detail. She's claiming her right to privacy.
Friends, this story has it all. Can we decide some religions are valid and others aren't given the requirement that the Fed can not make any laws considering the establishment of religion or its free expression. What about the right of the child (in this case fetus, in the previous case child) to receive medical care when the parents don't want it to? And, for goodness sake, why would it have been A-OK for this woman to have had an abortion, but the judge wants to grill her to make sure she didn't miscarry because she didn't receive proper prenatal care? Can anyone explain the logic of this one to me?
In fact, the report quoted a legal scholar as saying something like, "I'm very pro Roe v Wade, but I think this is carrying her right to privacy too far. Can she really say, unless you catch me in the act of killing my born baby it's a privacy issue?"
Let's not even bring up partial birth abortion.
My mind is still boggled. Pray for the nation.
Does anyone have a graphic to depict a mind being boggled?
Note that I've created a SASU ping list to replace BRAAD. I'll use both for a little while, then retire BRAAD.
Shalom.
How's That?
A second child--one of a relative--was starved to death by other members of the sect. Both babies were buried in Acadia National Park, I do believe. Members of this sect were jailed for a substantial length of time until they told the authorities where the babies were buried. It wasn't until they got lawyers (they had been refusing counsel) that they told the authorities where they put the children.
Four of their children are in foster care. The woman was visibly pregnant, but now she's claiming she miscarried, but nothing else. I'd like to know what happened to this baby.
Friends, this story has it all. Can we decide some religions are valid and others aren't given the requirement that the Fed can not make any laws considering the establishment of religion or its free expression.
No the Feds Constitutionally cannot make any laws that conflict the establishment of religion. But the States can. The extermination order given by Governor Boggs against the Mormons was not overturned by President Polk for that very reason.
What about the right of the child (in this case fetus, in the previous case child) to receive medical care when the parents don't want it to?
It all depends on two things. Who is the legal guardian of our children, the state or parents? If parents, how much liberty do we trust them with?
And, for goodness sake, why would it have been A-OK for this woman to have had an abortion, but the judge wants to grill her to make sure she didn't miscarry because she didn't receive proper prenatal care? Can anyone explain the logic of this one to me?
Simple. The state knows far better how to raise children. It is more a discipline of control, done of course for the chillldren.
Currently, we trust them with a lot. They can kill the child, for the child's own good of course, as long as the child hasn't left the womb yet.
Oh, wait, that's the problem here. No she can't.
But Roe v Wade is the law of the land. Yes she can.
I suspect that the best answer today's culture warriors can give is, she can kill her child as long as she's not killing it because of a religious belief against modern medicine. If that's her motivation then the state must step in and save the child.
Oops! The mind is being boggled again. See post #3.
Shalom.
Hmmm, that doesn't seem like a religious prohibition against advanced medicine, unless the child was on a feeding tube. In which case, what's the problem? The poor folks who have to pay the medical bills have the right to remove a feeding tube so that a patient starves to death. It was just recently decided (but I can't remember the case). In fact, someone else was offering to become the patient's guardian so the husband wouldn't have to pay to keep her alive, but the husband had the tube removed anyway.
Can I presume this baby wasn't starved to death in connection with any medical issues?
Both babies were buried in Acadia National Park, I do believe.
Aha-HA! There's something to get them on. Environmental pollution. I can see where the state would step in on that. Killing your kids isn't a big deal. Starving relatives who can't feed themselves isn't a big deal. But messing up the grass in a national park - that's a big deal. Maybe that's the whole key.
Shalom.
From what I remember, the leader of the sect decreed the child was evil (or something akin to that), and had to go on a purification diet. The baby was taken off its normal diet (it may have been a toddler--I'm thinking in the range of a year to 18 months) and put on water and perhaps almond milk.
So, you're saying this is another example where the state doesn't care if you let your kid starve to death?
The irony of the whole story is just sickening. Of course, everyond knows that treating your children this way is wrong. But we're tied up in knots because we've given up our right to use language such as right and wrong. In the current political climate, I just can't understand why this woman isn't left to kill her kids or let them live as she chooses.
Then again, I'm not sure how the current political climate condemns Andrea Yates either. It's either OK to kill your kids, or it's not.
Shalom.
But that was the problem. This sect didn't believe in modern medicine, so they couldn't hire a doctor. Do you suppose they could get their religious leader licensed to kill?
Hi. I'm Pastor Bond, James Bond, 007, licensed to kill.
Shalom.
Amendment 14: "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Amazing !
Thereby nulifying or otherwise distroying the "Republican" form of government we once had that ensured that the people actually had control of their own lives.
Thereby nullifying or otherwise destroying the "Republican" form of government we once had that ensured that the people actually had control of their own lives.
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.