Posted on 10/31/2007 1:09:33 PM PDT by 3Lean
By ANNA JO BRATTON
Associated Press Writer
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A Nebraska couple sued state health officials Thursday, arguing their rights were violated when their newborn baby was seized by sheriff's deputies so a mandatory blood test could be performed.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
It's right next to the clause that says the state must prevent bad parenting.
I told her that but it didn’t work :)
Nah, God can change his name if He feels like it. There’s less paperwork involved that way. Jacob’s a great name! I think it’s wonderful that your little girl has a little brother who is her brother in so many ways. God has truly blessed you.
I am Satellite Communications engineer...I have no right to dictate which satellite TV provider people should use.
We adopted from a mother who was two seconds away from getting the baby taken away by the state much in the same circumstances as you. There are times the state does indeed need to step in. Most of the adopted kids I know were rescued from deplorable "birth givers" (I won't say "parents" because they weren't).
I was also a CPS worker and saw horrible situations. One such was a common law couple who couldn't understand why their 6-8 children were handicapped and/or had died. It didn't take much investigation to find out they were half brother and sister. I sooo agree the state needed to step in on that one and stop them from having any more children.
Well said!
She tried to practice her fascism at home but my totalitarian dictatorship overrules her, some of the time, other we just spiral into anarchy.
She is a mental health professional. I understand. One of my former wives is also a mental health professional who claims to never be wrong.
I agree. When it comes to any government social program, my tagline applies.
I take my hat off to you for your strength of character. It must be hard to sleep sometimes after seeing children who've been neglected or abused.
Where does it guarantee the right to not be a lousy parent? Quality of parenting is not a Constitutional issue. That kind of thinking smacks of a nanny state mentality.
I don't think you are going to like the world you are creating.
It was really quite satisfying recently to see Ellen DeGeneris reduced to tears over having given up her authority to dispose of a pet. She no doubt supports every liberal idea regarding giving bureaucrats power over pets, never realizing that substituting the decisions of a bureaucrat over her own would result in less freedom for her and an outcome which she considered unjust.
Just what limits to government power regarding children's health do you see? Testing for a known condition is just the first step. Then does the government mandate treatment? Who pays? You and ME?
Assuming that there is some danger to a course of treatment, what say do the parents have in avoiding that danger despite government mandates?
How much reduction of life span justifies government intervention? Fifty years? Twenty? Two? What level of potential disability results in loss of parental authority?
You do realize, don't you, that technology will continue to make enormous amounts of predictive information available to parents and the government. Does this mean that parents lose all decision-making authority because the government can make a prediction?
I believe that if you are not willing to imprison a parent for neglect, then you have no business meddling in that parent's business. But I only say that because I value the freedom I have more than the desire to mandate specific outcomes for other people.
Ask her what happens when Hillary or someone else on the left gets to define exactly how are “parents who cannot make safe decisions for their kids”
Hand the government that kind of gun and *eventually* they will point it at you..
I have no problem with the mandatory blood screen. But the way it was handled boggles the mind. Taking a newborn away from the family for FIVE DAYS over a blood draw?
If the baby was born in a hospital, the blood should have been drawn before discharge. If born at home, the “state” should have arrived there with a court order, trooper, and nurse. The nurse could have taken the blood in a few minutes and the whole thing would have been over.
LOL! I needed that levity.
Should JWs be allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children?
I don't believe that the state should be requiring that these tests be performed, but it doesn't sound like they ignored due process.
I am willing to imprison any parent for neglect, and to remove parental rights.
A child with phenylketonuria will cost about $100,000 a year to keep and maintain if they are not properly diagnosed and treated. They might live for 20 years as a burden on the government. A child with the same disease diagnosed in early infancy can be properly treated for about $10,000 a year for 18 years, and then live a normal life for 50+ more, working and paying taxes.
No one has the right to sentence a child to a shortened life of bedridden retardation, when the problem can be completely avoided with proper treatment. The only way to diagnose these diseases early enough to treat is with neonatal screening.
It doesn't.
Nor does it give the government the right to anything not specifically outilined in the document. "Parenting" is among those items in which the government has no right to interfere.
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.