Since we're arguing math here, let's do some with respect to this specific case. Let's calculate the rewards vs. the risks and run the numbers. From the risk standpoint, there is a 1 in something chance of having a treatable affliction (if is diagnosed early). Nobody here has offered any proof at all that there is any risk whatsoever from this simple test. That is a 0 in something risk. If you do the test and it turns out the child does have this rare disease and can be treated for it, that's a big reward - 1 child's life. If you do the test and it turns out the child is fine, great. Nothing lost there at all. Do the math. Now, let's move on to your hypothetical......





When CR asked me where do we "draw the line", my response was that we draw it at "reasonable". That means that we evaluate where that line is based on reasoned consideration of the situation at hand on a case by case basis. We have reasoned arguments that weigh the rights of one party against the rights of another. We have to consider each situation on it's own based on the knowledge available to determine what is the most reasonable course of action to take. Your hypothetical doesn't offer much in the way of information and that's fine, I understand the point you're making, but a considered and reasonable debate over the idea of forcing children to eat pork at an early age would require much more information than you have provided. Were I writing laws for something like this, I would demand rigorous review by scientists. doctors, theologians before I would even consider intruding on the religious rights of a parent. I would ask for specifics of what exactly it is about pork that significantly reduces the risk of this rare disorder. Is there some sort of a compound in pork that does this? What is it's mechanism? Could it be isolated from the pork itself and instead be given as a vitamin type supplement that would not infringe on someone's religious beliefs? These are all questions that should go into the mix for a "reasonable" debate on where to draw that elusive line for your hypothetical.

In this specific debate though concerning the blood test, it seems to me the evidence is crystal clear and we can draw the line. ZERO risk, potentially HUGE reward. Sure sounds reasonable to me.


Aquilla

The problem is Aquilla- YOUR definition of reasonable means that it is okay to throw out the religious beliefs of NM- it is NOT reasonable to over-ride the will of the parents of something that has a greater than 1 in 10000 chance of something bad happening.

Reasonable would mean that there is a REASONABLE chance of something bad happening- there is no reasonable chance here- once again, it would be far more "reasonable" to remove every single pool and gun from every single parent in the US, considering there is nearly 100% chance of eliminating thousands of deaths per year- over 22 thousand deaths from guns alone in the US-

Now- I am not trying to say that I want to these things to happen by any means- it is that if we are talking child safety, and the need for goverment intrusion, and the curtailing of parental rights- you need to have a reasonable explanation of IMMINENT harm- there has to be a REASONABLE risk to the kid- there has been no such thing shown here, correct?

Aquilla- I dont' understand not testing the kids myself, I really don't. As long as there is no proven harm to the test- I will take them all- I am more limited by my insurance companies' willingness to pay rather than my willingness to have my kids tested.

But the real issue here is the rights of the federal goverment vs rights of a parent to raise and treat thier kid as they see fit- and the bar needs to be set very, very high for the federal goverment's intrusion.

I am very suprised at you of all poeple though Aquilla- we are talking about a major goverment interference here with the parents wishes- for a very, very long shot at some kind of harm to the child.

I am isolating this specific part of your post because it cuts right to the issue that I'm arguing here. First you speak of the "rights" of the federal government (although we're really talking about a state government, but that's fine, it's "the state") and I don't consider this case to be one of the "rights" of the state. I consider it to be a responsibility of the state to protect its citizens rights. Secondly, you refer to the rights of the parent, religious or otherwise and there's no doubt those rights exist. But, one thing you leave out is the consideration of the rights of the child. Children are not property and they have rights too. When a parent fails to protect those rights, it becomes the responsibility of the state to step in. I believe that to be the case here.

Aquilla

So you have travelled into very dangerous territory- you said "I consider it to be a responsibility of the state to protect its citizens rights. Secondly, you refer to the rights of the parent, religious or otherwise and there's no doubt those rights exist. But, one thing you leave out is the consideration of the rights of the child. Children are not property and they have rights too. When a parent fails to protect those rights, it becomes the responsibility of the state to step in. I believe that to be the case here. "

One of the most dangerous health wise a parent can do is smoke- in the house or out.

There is no religion that I know of that hold chain smoking to be a sacrement.

So why are smokers even allowed to have a child? How about kids that are allowed to become obese- is it the job of the state to remove obese children from thier parents custody? By your logic- the state is REQUIRED to step in and remove the child. I don't think I need to post how much more dangerous is a smoking parent is than the more than 1 in 10000 chance of a kid turning up with one of these diseases/defects?

And even still, those diseases aren't preventable, possibly just treatable- in the case of things like guns, smoking, pools, you can actually be 100% sure that no child is harmed by thier being denied any access to children.

You are being very inconsistant here Aquilla- if the state does not step in for the for more injurious issues, what right do they have to discard the parents religious beliefs, "step in" and take away the kids, for a very, very long shot illness>

Reasonable would be something that is going to happen with some "reasonable" certainty.

1 in 10,000 is NOT reasonable certainty!

IF there is not a reasonable certainty- it is simply NOT reasonable to terminate the parents rights, even temporarily

Don't get me wrong Aquilla- I have a pretty hard time understanding the logic for NOT testing- however, this is big brother at it's worst, and needs to be slapped down with great predjudice, to the point that judges and cops fear for thier own futures when they pull this crap.

I think the focus of this thread lies mostly in the wrong area.

A citizen of a state believed that a law was wrong and investigated the law and used a tactic for fighting it. I believe this qualifies as civil disobedience.

I the facts as presented in this thread are accurate, regardless of the rightness or lack of it in the actions of this concerned citizen, the remedy for the situation seems to be wholly unacceptable.

Lacking a clear and present danger to the child, how is the act of seizure of the child by the state and holding that child for six days an acceptable way to order a simple blood test.

Why could not this concerned citizen have had her day in court and fight this procedure through civil discourse before a judge?

It seems, if the facts as presented are accurate, that the state flew right past go and went to an overly extreme remedy. To me this is the problem. Challenging a law mandating tests and being prepared to defend one's self for it in court sounds pretty darn apple pie American to me.

I understand the math, Aquilla. Minimal risk, huge potential reward. I spend one dollar on a lottery ticket and I may discover that I've won $50 million dollars. Minimal risk, huge potential reward. There, that math is done. Of course, the concept has nothing at all to do with this issue, because we are talking about choosing to stand on one's religious belief for their child... huge risk, minimal potential reward when the statistics are taken into consideration.



I believe the rigorous review comes in the form of the study I mentioned. So, for the sake of the hypothetical, lets say that - when I say that the study concludes that eating pork at an early age significantly reduces the chance of developing this particular rare disorder, that is what is meant. No synthetic substitute. It is an as yet unknown combination of properties in pork and one must consume the pork in order to receive the benefit. Being that eating this pork would significantly reduce the chance of getting this particular rare disorder... your zero risk, huge potential reward theory kicks in, right? Could the State mandate that every child should be brought in to a hospital and given an order of pork in order to receive this benefit? I mean, the State must protect children right? Could it force Jewish or Muslim parents to feed their children pork?

ZERO RISK?!!! I obviously place a much higher value on blood than you do. Just because there are more people who abstain from pork than abstain from blood, does not make one belief more worthy of protection.

Blood loss is not an irrelevant factor. Neither is the risk of infection. What about the $150 cost to the parents or the insurance company? Do not forget bruises, scars and the poor screaming baby who has been deliberately injured. It disturbs the child's sense of peace and security. I could go on and on.

A reader from the Sioux City Journal wrote on Oct 26, 2007 11:33 PM:
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2...37a000e9cf2.txt
" No family should have to go through such a traumatic event. Let's hope this is resolved quickly so other families don't have to go through this. My oldest child, by the way, still has a scar on her foot from the heel stick. It is a mark slightly larger than a pencil eraser, round and red, and she is 11 years old. When one pediatrician looked at her foot a year or two ago, they asked what the mark was. I told them, and they ADAMANTLY denied that it was a result from the prick. I explained that I KNOW my child. I have bathed and changed my child since birth. I watched as the scar never healed, I asked doctors who didn't have an answer, and I watched over the years as the mark never faded or went away. Had I known the facts like Mrs. Anaya had, I would probably never have allowed such a painful and invasive procedure that has left a lasting mark."

Another story given to me.
“My name is (removed) and on July 22, 2006 I gave birth to my baby boy at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Hospital personnel insisted that we stay until my baby was 24 hours old, so that they could draw blood to screen for various diseases. We did not want it done, but they said it was the law. We asked her to explain what she was going to do. She explained that she had a card with dots that must be filled with blood. She said that 5 dots needed 2 drops on each and then the 6th larger dot must be completely filled with blood. She slit his heel with a scalpel and she repeatedly squeezed and squeezed his heel trying to get enough blood out to fill the card. He screamed during the blood draw and for over half an hour afterwards he would not calm down. His incision took two weeks to heal. The hospital personnel told me that it would not hurt my baby, instead it was very traumatic for my baby and for me.”

The test is not just 5 drops of blood. The smallest test is filling 5 circles on a filter paper with blood. The infant’s heel is cut with a variety of methods. I’ve heard of scalpels and straight razors, although now most places have a kinder device that provides the heel prick. Then the baby’s heel is squeezed repeatedly over each circle until the circle is filled with blood. It may take 2-5 squeezes per circle. Of course, the baby screams through it all. Bruising is quite common.

This is not ZERO!

Our forefathers took huge risks with the safety of their children because religious freedom was so important to them. The world is full of so many more dangerous things than these rare diseases. I am not trying to remove mandated screening, I am merely advocating an exemption for people who have a sincere objection to the blood test.

Well, there it is. The parents of this kid believe that the child's enternal soul will be in jeopardy. That sounds like a pretty big risk.

I think it's junk, you may think it's junk. Everyone else on our planet might think it's junk.

The parents believe it.

So do we have religious freedom or not?

My girlfriends family is partially Jehovah's Witnesses. She has had aunts that chose death over a blood transfusion. If it's that serious to these people, then I say let them raise their kids how they want. It's not hurting me or my family.

If an adult chooses death over medical treatment that is one thing. Would you extend that to a parent choosing death over treatment because it's not hurting you or your family WilliePete?

It seems to me that the basic debate here comes down to where do we as a society draw the line when it comes to the freedom to practice religious beliefs. Or, is there even a line? Is religious freedom a carte blanche for any kind of behavior?

I've researched the pork example and aside for some potential meat quality issues at the time, the basis for that belief that it is unclean comes from the Old Testament Leviticus 11 where God tells Moses and Aaron what to tell people they can eat and what they can't. Commandment from God. That's the religious belief on the part of some and I respect that. And hey, they don't want to eat pork, that's fine by me unless there's a really compelling reason for them to do so. Entspeak's hypothetical wasn't compelling enough for me at least to draw that line.

But, should there even be a line? Let's look at another commandment from God that's in the Bible. Genesis 22 to be exact. That's the story where God commanded Abraham (a really important guy in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths) to kill his only son Issac as a sacrifice. Abraham prepares to do that and is stopped at the last moment from carrying it through by an angel. Anybody see a line there? Somewhere?

Ok, my point is that there is a line that can be, and should be drawn between acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior, even if that behavior involves religious beliefs. And, that line needs to be drawn on a case by case basis by reasonable people having a reasonable debate over the specific issue at hand. That's the process.


Aquilla

I was thinking the same thing.

The course of this thread itself places significant perspective on the topic questions. Nebraskamom's baby was taken from her for six days, in an action that I think most of us would agree was egregious and overdone. This happened on the ninth delivery in the state, after eight subsequent deliveries and no action other than a note to have her baby tested. After the ninth delivery, police showed up at her home and took her baby to test him after she had been contacted. How often does anyone think this would happen? Reasonably? Probably less than once every decade. Few families have more than eight children, and those that do would likely, typically test their children under state guideline. This situation is the rarest of rare.

300 million people in this nation and I’m not sure there is an exact precedent for a case like this. Yet we are concerned, and arguing fervently, about due process. I admit that (though I disagree in part) I am also concerned with due process. Why? Because, it matters, however rarely it might be employed. Even though such an instance is less than .001 percent likely to happen.

A genetic defect from the aforementioned screening process happens to roughly not one person per decade (as is the case here) but 5000 or so children per year. 50,000 per decade. That is why I stand by my (slightly amended above) opinion on this matter.

I believe that freedom of religion demands that the answer be yes. It's either completely free, or it's not free at all. While I see what you mean regarding life and death choices being made by an adult versus a dependent infant, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the child will, at least early in life, follow their parent's religious practices. Parents are responsible for their children, and that includes the consequences of poor decisions.

And these genetic defects are not all treatable. PKU is going to be discovered one way or the other. The only defect that is worth mentioning, is the hypothyroidism which is treatable with hormones upon detection.

There are certainly problems and I am wondering about the stastics cited here because there are (according to one source) at least 12 false positives for every real positive and another source says it is as high as 50 to 1 false positives to real defects. Source.



Studies have cited the stressful nature of these false positives. I don't think I need to expound on how the forced testing in this case was overly stressful on everyone involved.

In this case, the trauma was caused by the separation which apparently stemmed from the government's belief that the breast feeding of the infant might be detrimental. Since the incidence of PKU is 1 in 15,000 births and PKU is genetic AND recessive (i.e. both parents must either be carriers and/or affected by PKU) the treatment and seperation in this case was simply over the top.

The more general question is whether or not the government should allow a parent to decide to take a risk with thier child where the risk to doing nothing is 1 in 4 or 5 thousand.

The 3,000 children cited is also misleading because it includes all screened diseases included sickle cell and others. I have not seen a breakdown of how many babies are detected via screening for each disorder and I could not find one.

Ok, that's the literalist interpretation, but are we talking about small-l laws or big-L Laws? So provided that the assumptions they make with regard to the religion of people under their influence (citizens or otherwise) are essentially random, then government is not establishing a small-l law (that of precedent). If they always make the same assumption - say, that everyone is a practising Rosicrucian - then Government ends up treating a lot of people (in my example, nearly everyone) in ways that they would probably prefer not to be treated. No change has been made to the statute book, because no big-L Law has been passed saying that the State would always assume Rosicrucianism even in the face of contradictory evidence, but injustices are happening across the board all the same.

Would this be okay with you? (I am assuming that you are not yourself a Rosicrucian. If you are, substitute some other religion you don't personally subscribe to.)



Not all citizens are people - businesses have some of the rights and protections of citizens (they are entitled to proceed without state interference unless there is probable cause for an investigation, but they can't vote)

And not all people are citizens - minors, foreign nationals, convicted felons etc. do not qualify for the full list of rights available to Citizens (voting, for instance) but are still protected from Government by the Constitution.



I have no idea. Neither do you. Neither does the Government. Crucially, neither does NebrasakMom. So why make any assumptions as the religious beliefs of an infant? Why indeed take religion into account at all in public health policy? Like I've already said a number of times, I strongly disagree with way this law has been enforced, but it is the law and it did have to be enforced somehow (NM mentioned a fine, and that's perfectly good.) In a free society anyone has the right to protest against a law that they find unjust, and sometimes that portest might extend to a sober and considered to disobey the law, as happened here. While the methods chosen to enforce the law in this case were way too heavy handed, and in themselves viloated a whole fistul of other codes that any decent society would uphold, nobody who breaks the laws that do exist should expect any special exemptions because of their faith.

Someone who witholds their kids from a lawfully mandated infant screening program because they are a bad parent is no more or less entitled to get away with breaking that law than someone who witholds their kids from it through a soberly considered matter of personal conscience, as NebraskaMom has done. (Though maybe the fine should be bigger for the out-and-out scoundrels.)

It's like complaining that you got caught speeding and given a ticket because there are unpunished murderers out there - someone else apparently getting away with breaking one law does not justify you breaking another.

Of course, the real analogy for this example would be complaining that you'd been coshed over the head, your car trashed and your family kidnapped for doing 35 mph in a 30 zone would be perfectly acceptable, providing that you limited yourself to complaining about the brutality and excessive force and shrugging your shoulders and saying "it's a fair cop, guv" (sorry for the Brit idiom - I don't know if there's an American equivalent) to being caught breaking the law in the first place. As far as I can tell from this thread - this is more or less what [b]NebraskaMom[b] has said. But it isn't necessarily what the debate questions, or the rest of the thread, has concentrated on.



Here here.

In 2005, there were roughly 4.14 million children born. 5,000 or so children a year means you have a .12% chance of having one with one of these defects - based on your numbers. The odds neither decrease or increase by taking this test. Though there is at least an 8% chance of a false positive. So, you are 66 times more likely to be told you have one of these rare disorders - when you don't - than you are likely to actually have the disorder. While this particular situation with 8 previous children may be rare, the precedent set would not apply solely to situations exactly like this one. The situation may be similar.

Ha, the duality of cognation to the logic of man, especially someone of the liberal mindset. On one polar end of cognation it is perfectly ok to allow a person( not the ill individual) to stop all "life" support and end the life of someone in a comma, that we all know is desperately ill and will cease to function without medical intervention, simply because he/she might happen to have the legal power of attorney of said ill individual (Terri Schiavo). Well on the other end of polar cognation, we now find it perfectly acceptable to "force" treatment upon a child, that is not in a life threatening situation with the exception as determined by some legal "judge", without the first year of medical schooling listed in front of his/her name. All at the expense of the rights to the "legal" guardians of said child, without the due process of proof, only "opinion".

This would not be the only cognation to thought and reason that would make my "mind" explode in contradiction. Another would be that of "declaring" corporal punishment as extreme and unusual in the "chastisement" of a child. Yet upon and until the time that same child's head breaches the birth canal, it is not assumed to be cruel and unusual punishment to take a set of tongs and a vacuum tube to crush and then suck the brains out of the child, all in the name of "personal" rights. Wow, even thinking about it makes my head hurt. Were is the justification to logic such as this? Is liberalism a disease? Sometimes I wonder. RD

If a law restricts the free exercise of religion, it restricts the free exercise of religion, even if doing so is not the intended purpose of the law... even if it does so at random. In respecting the right to free exercise, the State should assume that a parent will raise a child in their own faith. Unless doing so results in neglect or other harm to the child, the State should not interfere.



Well, having a belief system would require self-awareness, wouldn't it? When does a child become self-aware? It's at about 4-6 weeks. Joel was born on September 2, the State required that the child be tested by September 21. That's not 4-6 weeks is it? Before then a child doesn't believe it has hands, a mouth, doesn't even believe in its own existence let alone the existence of God or some other supreme being?



If a law is unconstitutional, it is not a valid law. They are asking for a religious exemption to the test requirement in the law (thereby making the law constitutional and, therefore, valid), not a religious exemption that allows them to break the law.

Oh it is a terrible, terrible disease. Like flesh-eating disease, only it worms through your soul until there's nothing left (no pun intended) except the memory of being human. I would be careful about calling yourself a Democrat. It could subconsciously affect on you.

Anyway, reading through this thread I can't agree with those in favor of supporting a mandatory, and likely unnecessary test, although assuming a newborn holds the same religious beliefs as their parents, let alone a pacifier, is rank nonsense. You may as well say the state knows Nebraska Baby is a <insert political party> because Nebraska mom belongs to <insert political party>. If dad is a practicing Jew and mom is Catholic, does the state throw a dice or what? Grant nondenominational Christian to children of agnostic parents?

I can't support any universal health care plan that requires people to submit to routine checkups because prevention is rational from a cost-benefit standpoint. I can't support a drop of blood in this case. There was no exigent circumstance, not even a medical hunch to go on. Forcible compliance doesn't need either.

This is from the Nebraska state constitution.

All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship
Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consci-
ences. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or
support any place of worship against his consent, and no
preference shall be given by law to any religious society,
nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be
permitted.

I believe the blood screening law is unconstitutional. That is why we were planning to contest it in district court. It is also why we are screaming violation of due process. The head of the Newborn Screening Department and the Deputy County Attorney conspired to deprive us of our day in court where we could present legal arguments contesting the constitutionality of this law. Instead of the hearing in district court as stated in the statute, they went to a juvenile court judge and swore that Joel was in imminent danger so that they could take custody and force the test. However, the judge that signed the custody order never included a court order to do the test. Our lawyer pointed that out to County Attorney when they took custody. According to regulations, social workers are not to do any medical procedures on a child in custody unless it is recommended by a licensed physician or specifically ordered by the court. They never took Joel to a doctor and the court never actually ordered the test. They operated completely outside the law here.

The centrality of my position is that I simply don't understand how a law that merely fails to make an assumption that infant children share the religious beliefs of their parents violates the religious beliefs of the parents.

It might violate the religious beliefs of the children, if anyone could ask them, but since this particular law only applies to infants (and not to older children who might be able to say what faith they think they believe in, or adults who might know what they think they believe ) I fail to see how it - the blood screening law, I mean - breaches the Nebraska constitution or anything else.

Once again, though, I absolutely agree that the authorities violated your rights and those of your family in the way they chose to enforce this law. I'm no Nebraksan consitutional expert but I dare say they breached more of your rights in the enforcement of the law than the law itself does.

At root it goes even deeper than that - by focusing the definitions of rights on what governments are not allowed to do the various state and federal constitutions in the USA have nothing to say on what other people or bodies (such as corporations) can or cannot do. The state can't legally beat you up or imprison you or tell you which church to worship at (or to worship at all in the first place), but your parents can, it seems. Now, up to a point, that's fair enough, but I worry that the line of argument that says that private parental rights (as opposed to the rights of the child) can and should trump legitimate public health issues or the basic rights of children themselves.

If you don't think this particular screening test is a legitimate public health issue, challenge it on those grounds.

Except, of course, your private religious beliefs are not limited to objections against public health screening programmes that are of questionable public health or treatment value, but to any drawing of blood or sampling of tissues for any purpose. Or do I miss my guess?

This is not really about your children's rights at all - it's about YOUR rights. Who defends your children if YOU violate their rights to freedom of conscience? Under the US Constitution and, it seems, that of Nebraska, nobody does.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that parents have a strong right to guide how they raise their children. I would argue that this extends to religious belief as well. The government does not have the power to insert itself into the religious decisions of its citizens unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, the compelling reason does not exist.



Once again, in terms of religious beliefs, a 3 week old doesn't have them. A three week old doesn't even know that it exists, let alone anything else. But, being that a parent may have very strong beliefs, and the parent has the right to raise their children as they see fit (with some obvious limits), Nebraska is violating the religious beliefs of the family... the parents and the child (who is being raised under the natural expectation of eventually sharing those beliefs). It's like anything else, until a child is old enough to make those decisions for himself, a parent should be making those decisions. They have the right to make those decisions based on their religious belief.

What constitutes a legitimate public health issue? The problem here is if the state only has to prove a rational basis for making something a law that potential violates one of our basic rights whether it is free exercise of religion, right to self-determination, the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, the right to privacy, etc., then Pandora's box has been opened. I am afraid we shall never be able to close it again. The standard can not be rational basis, it must be compelling reason or eventually we will find all of our rights are lost.

If we are talking strictly about public health benefits, then there is a host of other screenings, treatments or vaccinations, that the state could rationally mandate for its citizens.

For example, last year Nebraska made it the law that all students enrolling in school for the first time must have not only a physical, but also a very in depth eye exam. We are not talking a simple vision test here. We are talking about screening for rare diseases of the eye which requires specialized equipment. After the law was enacted, however, apparently family physician rose up in protest because they did not have the necessary equipment to perform the exams and it was too expensive for families to have to get both a physical and see an eye specialist.

Another Nebraska screening law regards Newborn hearing screening.

Section 71-4742
Hearing screening test; newborn; standard of care.

(1) Each birthing facility shall include a hearing screening test as part of its standard of care for newborns and shall establish a mechanism for compliance review. A hearing screening test shall be conducted on no fewer than ninety-five percent of the newborns born in this state.

(2) If the number of newborns receiving a hearing screening test does not equal or exceed ninety-five percent of the total number of newborns born in this state on or before December 1, 2003, or falls below ninety-five percent at any time thereafter, the Department of Health and Human Services Regulation and Licensure shall immediately adopt and promulgate rules and regulations implementing a hearing screening program. The hearing screening program shall provide for a hearing screening test that every newborn born in this state shall undergo and shall provide that the hearing screening test be completed during birth admission or, if that is not possible, no later than three months after birth. Notwithstanding this section, it is the goal of this state to achieve a one-hundred-percent screening rate.

There is talk of giving this law the same teeth as the blood draw one. However, no one can argue that hearing is a life or death matter.

The state is only getting away with this because infants can not protest and most new parents are too intimidated to do so. However, this is run away state control of health care. The state is treating the physician and the parents with equal contempt here. Laws like this say we can not trust parents and physician to do what is best for children so we will make the decisions for you. So if the state takes custody of my nursing infant because I refuse to get his hearing screened, will any one protest the law?

As far as children's rights are concerned, my 2 year old is intelligent enough to tell you, "no" if you ask him if he wants you to cut his foot. No child would choose to be screened. States should be held to higher standards when making health care the law.

Some excellent posts have been made up to this point, it has been a treat to read and re-read them and consider the contrasting points. You guys have made a classic and in-depth thread, which is what is all about. I'm still very mixed on this issue. From what I have read, it appears that these rare diseased are genetic, and are in no way, contagious. With that consideration in mind, the "public health" argument appears to fall on its face. On the other hand, there is a tax issue here and old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of medicine comes into play. The state does operate a 400 bed facility for people with developmental disabilities, but should people play roulette every time and the state potentially paying the bills should therapy or institutionalization is needed? I can see the compelling interest of the state to begin early treatment and possible medication.

Nebraskamom:


This may very well be the case, but children aren't capable of understanding the importance of why something is being done. Would you honestly consider their viewpoint in not being vaccinated or in not receiving a CAT scan becaue it looks "scary" to them? Wouldn't your age, experience, and knowledge of what procedures are for outweigh what a two year old sees as a "bad" poke or a machine that seems to consume the person?

N29

No, I do not believe my 2 yr old is capable of making such important decisions. Neither is the state. Why can't a family physician issue a waiver for a particular child?

I have never attempted to abolish the law. I acknowledge that most people will chose to screen their children. In all of our discussion and research here, there has never been any evidence presented of horrible medical outcomes in the 46 states that have had exemptions for years. As far as costs are concerned, the state has already spent thousands of dollars prosecuting my family on this issue and the real lawsuit hasn't even made it to court. What a waste of tax payer money!

As CR brought up before when the state makes universal health care mandates for non life and death situations the result is 100% loss of freedoms. If the public will allow the state to get away with seizing custody on such flimsy grounds now, what will the future hold?

This tax issue provides a compelling interest? I don't think so. As NebraskaMom has already stated, if there is a religious exception put in place, the law should also recognize the responsibility taken by these parents should they choose not to screen their children - the parents would not have access to assistance should their child end up with one of these rare disorders. Nobody is asking to have their cake and eat it, too.

Here is the state's response to our lawsuit.

Health department asks judge to dismiss newborn screening lawsuit

http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.as...p;nav=menu550_2

Well, we didn't exactly expect them to admit guilt. The director of newborn screening swore an affidavit for temporary custody, so it is not as if she did not plan for them to take custody. It was very deliberate. My understanding is that the county attorney is protected from lawsuits; otherwise, the county attorney's office would have been included in the suit. We believe that the newborn screening department conspired together with the county attorney to deprive us of our right to a hearing.

This has definitely been an interesting case to watch. My view on this continues to evolve as the facts come out. I've tried to look at it through the state's eyes, but even that gets confusing as to who is truly "concerned" about the well-being of children. It is the state, not you, which has overseen the deaths of 21 children in foster care custody since 1988. It is the state, not you, which has been found to be responsible for many instances of abuse and neglect. It is also the state, and not you, which has long and documented history of billing mistakes. If you did any of these things, the media and your neighbors would never hear the end of it. Yet, who takes custody from the state when the state screws up? You have raised all your children well. Your account and the lack of negative stories in the media about you personally bears out that fact. I'm not certain why your child had to be taken for twelve days, other than the fact that some bureaucrat has a chip on their shoulder. I have yet to hear a rational opinion as to how this entire act was justified. Looks like CR had this one pegged right from the get-go.

My previous link is not too good. Here is another one. I haven't seen it in the Omaha paper.

http://www.columbustelegram.com/articles/2...e/d8tqm1og0.txt

N29 Thanks for the support. I am not a perfect parent, but I am extremely proud of all of my children. I think they are absolutely wonderful. I know that the state can not possibly care for them as well as I can.

That is why I will fight this terrible injustice. In our zeal to protect children, we must not be blind to the facts.

1. The state is not a good parent as N29 demonstrates with his statistics.
2. People must not be deprived of due process. Loss of constitutional rights would change our entire country.