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 ...
In other words: “Face it, your children are the property of the Almighty State.”
My wife and I were listening to this yesterday and are divided on this. I say the state was wrong, she as a mental health care provider says that there are some parents who cannot make safe decisions for their kids and the state should step in.
You want a Nanny state Libs? You got it.
I’m sorry but I would have to make arrangements for someone to be a father to my child...because I would kill someone... probably a prosecutor.
It looks to be a matter for the states.
“she as a mental health care provider says that there are some parents who cannot make safe decisions for their kids and the state should step in.”
And just who makes that decision, and what are the criteria? The possibility for abuse is enormous. “Oh that is an unsafe household, they have guns, go to church, disagree with homosexuality, are to outspoken against the government,..................”
Hey, you are preaching to the choir, we have several hot debates about mental health care as well, so we have opted to stay away from certain topics. I for the life of me cannot understand how she can be so conservative on most other things except this. BTW she is against social medicine of any kind.
Ever since Elian...
We received our adopted son because the State intervened after he was born to his birth-mother.
This woman had 5 children, not one of them in her custody, was addicted to crack and meth, no job, no address, and a petty criminal. We adopted one of her birth-daughters, and once she became pregnant again, the State got involved.
She gae birth to a boy who was addicted to coke, and left the hospital 2 days later without giving him a name or listing a birth father. The State called us, since we recently adopted his sister, and we received him as a foster child. We adopted him a few months ago.
So - should the Nanny State have not gotten involved in the first place?
That’s a very, very, very, very far cry from refusing to consent to a “mandatory” blood test inflicted by the government.
There’s a really clear difference between cases where intervention is needed and cases where it is not. If the parent has a history of actual harm to their child, the government may need to get involved. If the parents merely refuse some government mandated screening, fine.
I would hate to find in a few years that the government wants to do a mandatory “home risk screening” before letting parents take their kids home from the hospital. Our ten or so guns, subversive conservative literature, and computers set to FreeRepublic would doubtless be just too dangerous to expose children to.
If there was justice in the world all judges, LEO’s etc. involved in this case would lose their kids for five days as restitution.
I understand both your points, and agree with them, believe me.
I’m just saying that there are lines that separate when there’s a need to get involved and when there isn’t. But remember, in our case, the State had to get involved in this woman’s life at some point. The question is - where is that line drawn? Do you see what I mean? Yes, if there’s a history then there needs to be intervention, but every case’s history has to start with one incident.
>>Our ten or so guns, subversive conservative literature, and computers set to FreeRepublic would doubtless be just too dangerous to expose children to.<<
lol...sounds like our house too. I suppose by gov’t standards, we live in ‘Compounds’.
The state went way overboard on this one. Even if one agrees that the test was necessary, how long does it take to get a blood sample? They could have picked up the baby, taken him to get the blood test test and returned him to his parents. Instead the state kept a breastfed infant away from his mother for five days.
Well we definitely have a stockpile of ammo :)
I think the line is when there has been definite physical harm done to the child, the state can intervene. Drug addiction during pregnancy would qualify there. Or a mother who has abandoned or killed a previous child. That mother should be in jail, not reproducing, but...
Haven’t seen you around for a while! Congratulations on your new son! You didn’t name him Calvin did you? That’s the most dangerous boy’s name out there.
The same people who oppose this mandatory testing are probably the same ones who screamed for the government to rescue Teri Schiavo. Get your priorities straight, people!
Believe me, as a Christian homeschooling family, I was more than nervous to have Gov’t agents inside my home - especially those that work for Children’s Services. But, the end result was two additions to our family!
Thank you, we are blessed indeed. We named him Jacob (because “Baby Boy Onesyvieng” doesn’t really roll off the tongue easily), but I suppose we’ll later have to change it to Israel...lol
She’s wrong and you are right.
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.