You are stuck in an earlier reality, arguing a point that’s been answered by the State courts.
Nevertheless, as I said on another thread, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2052757/posts?page=228
“there are points of decision where the individual’s right to life and liberty — even the right to life and liberty of the unborn or under-18 minor dependent — trumps the usual family limits that we place on government and our concerns about freedom to practice our religion without government intervention.”
When two rights conflict, go back to the basics: life, liberty, pusuit of happiness. And in that order. Threats to life always trump the second. Permanent threats to liberty are weighed against threats to life and temporary restraints on liberty. Pursuit of happiness can never be allowed to cause a threat to another’s life or liberty.
When two rights conflict, go back to the basics: life, liberty, pusuit of happiness. And in that order. Threats to life always trump the second. Permanent threats to liberty are weighed against threats to life and temporary restraints on liberty. Pursuit of happiness can never be allowed to cause a threat to another’s life or liberty.
Are you admitting that the State was wrong to go in and seize the women and children? That is what it sounds like. Do you agree with the Supreme Court or not?
Do you think the State had a right to seize and hold adult women?