I read about this earlier in the week and I have smoe mixed feelings on it. Evidently, a 7 week old baby was taken from her parents so that it could be tested by the state for rare diseases/conditions. The family claims their due process rights were violated, though I guess I see their religious rights being somewhat trampled upon as well. However, Nebraska is one of four states that does not allow for religious exemptions, in regards to new born screening for disease/conditions.

Questions for debate:

1.)Does it violate the rights of citizens, if certain states do not allow for religious/personal exemptions in regards to testing? Why or why not?

2.)Was the family's due process and/or religious rights violated? Why or why not?

3.)Where should the line be drawn in regards to private family convictions and the needs of the state to ensure health and well-being of children?

I understand your mixed feeling about this Nebraska, and I understand the argument as to why- but I feel this is one of those areas where the slippery slope is being skiied down at breakneck speed.

No, thier due process was trampled, the goverment is overstepping its bounds, and the state of nebraska should be punished accordingly. the state should have to pay massive restitution, and barred from doing it again.

I would be okay with it, had there been an investigation into neglect or whatever- but this idea that the state has the right to decide BEFORE there is any indication of negligence, AND the fact that the disease is "rare"- so the state needs to provide a real probable cause as to siezing an infant- like, both parents have the disease, they were informed about it, went to court, allowed the civil rights of the parents to be protected etc- but this is WAY too authoritarian for a free society, and I am hoping there is enough outrage at this to change the law.


this is way over the top nanny state-big brother for a free country to allow.

As additional background information here is a link with information on what kinds of conditions these tests look for. I won't go through all of the afflictions listed, but let's look at one of them. Hypothyroidism might be a good place to start. From the linked article......



I can not for the life of me understand why ANY parent wouldn't want to have their newborn child (even if it's their 9th kid) checked for this affliction. Refusing the test constitutes child neglect in my opinion. So, let's move on to the questions for debate (good topic by the way, Nebraska).......


1.)Does it violate the rights of citizens, if certain states do not allow for religious/personal exemptions in regards to testing? Why or why not?

No, it doesn't because newborn babies are citizens too. Their rights are paramount when it comes to their health and well-being. If the parents deny them those rights, it is entirely appropriate and necessary for the state to step in and protect the rights of the child.



2.)Was the family's due process and/or religious rights violated? Why or why not?

No, from the link cited by Nebraska.......



By the book. No violation of due process rights there at all.

3.)Where should the line be drawn in regards to private family convictions and the needs of the state to ensure health and well-being of children?

The health and welfare of the child should be the primary consideration. In this particular case, the tests pose no health risks whatsoever. I don't have a problem with the state mandating such tests.


Aquilla

1.)Does it violate the rights of citizens, if certain states do not allow for religious/personal exemptions in regards to testing? Why or why not?

I don't see how a state's decision not to offer special exemptions can be seen as violating anybody's rights. The most one can say is that it is not offering them special rights over and beyond those granted to everyone else.

2.)Was the family's due process and/or religious rights violated? Why or why not?

I think that Aquilla has done a fine job pointing out why due process was not violated. If anything, the state bent over backward to make sure that all the proper procedures were followed. I might add this interesting little fact, from the linked article.



So the Anayas knew that the law was against them, and forced the state to go through all the same hoops anyway.

The more interesting question may be whether religious rights have been violated. Let's be realistic here; you do not have absolute freedom of religion. In general, your freedom of religion ends where it causes harm to others. In this particular case, it may not be obvious that the Anayas exposed their child to the risk of harm, since (thank goodness) the child is apparently free from the disorders for which it was tested. A more extreme case can be seen in those few very devout Christian Scientists who would rather let their children die than offer them medical treatment. The Anayas are not so fanatical, but they are exposing their child to unnecessary risks.


3.)Where should the line be drawn in regards to private family convictions and the needs of the state to ensure health and well-being of children?

When the burden placed on the parents is minimal, as in this case, and the risk to the child is high enough to justify it.

(By the way, is it just me, or does it always seem that people who have a very large number of children also have rather extreme religious convictions?)

1.)Does it violate the rights of citizens, if certain states do not allow for religious/personal exemptions in regards to testing? Why or why not?

The only circumstances I can conceive of where the state carrying out medical procedures without consent (testing like this is a medical procedure) is not only forgiveable but entirely appropriate...


...are situations exactly like this one. The rights of the child trump the "religious freedom" of the parents in all circumstances, in my book. Indeed, I don't even consider the right to proselytise to a capitive and trusting audience is religious freedom - it certainly doesn't extend to the child the right to believe whatever they want.

So, I don't think parents should be entitled to brainwash their children into any belief system, but realistically the only way to enforce something like that would be to prevent religious institutions from admitting entry to anyone under the age of 18. Sure, some kids under 18 drink and gamble, but bars and casinos have to eject any minors they find on the premises. I'd like to see churches and mosques subjected to the same rules.

2.)Was the family's due process and/or religious rights violated? Why or why not?

No and no in both cases, for the reasons eloquently laid out by others above.

3.)Where should the line be drawn in regards to private family convictions and the needs of the state to ensure health and well-being of children?

The line should be drawn to prevent "family convictions" (for which read parental prejudices) being inculcated into children being remotely condoned by the state or by anybody else*. If churches' arguments are so compelling, let them appeal to consenting adults only.

*As far as possible, without any intrusion into the home by any branch of government. So, the only way to go, as I've already mentioned, would be to prohibit the presence of minors in any religious institution or group.

I realise this is a controversial view, and I don't expect many (non-European) members will agree with a word I've said. But that's what I think.

The clear trend is the other way and in that regard, your view is the majority view as 46 states do have exemptions.

With that being said, shouldn't matters of public health and well-being trump privately held silly notions regarding health or science? If I refuse to feed my child or mistreat him, I can be charged with neglect. If I don't believe in transfusions or have other delusional notions such as that, why should I not be charged with neglect or abuse?

Let's be clear and honest for a moment-

1) There is NO provable eminent danger to the child. She had something like 8 kids before this- and no genetic defects- correct? No family history of these illnesses? There was NO eminent danger- remember, these are also RARE diseases. Rare is the key word- meaning- it is not happening often.

2) this is a clear example of "nanny state-ism"- there is no clear, compelling evidence that this child is endangered in any way- with no history of these illnesses, the state needs to have a compelling interest for the health needs of the infant- of course- the child was negative when tested- this right here should put Nebraska in EXTREME jeoprody for thier heavy handed tactics.

Nebraska- you know my feelings for the right wingers in this country and religion in general- I have nothing but disrespect and contempt for 99% of both types.

But this is the kind of thing that is so profoundly anti-freedom. There needs to be due process- not just a crazy law tha claims due process just by saying that if they don't want testing- they will get it no matter what.

I am all for it- for NON-rare diseases, or for a family with a history of something like- oh, Huntington's Corea- a rare disease, but definately genetic.

Hey- there is also a very clear "slippery slope" issue here- why wait for genetic testing AFTER the baby is born? Why not test for diseases that CLEARLY are a danger to public health- diabetes. If you have diabetes, we should sterilize them, correct? I mean- that would prevent all kinds of issues- where the infant CLEARLY has no say over whether it is concieved in the first place?

I am all for it- if the disease is NOT rare, family history- or some other clear and convincing danger to the children- there is CLEARLY no danger to those kids, and the state has become too powerful in this arena.

What was the chance that the kid would have this disease or genetic disorder? Say, oh, one in ten thousand? Probably closer to one in a million?

Are we going to let the goverment intervene in say, how you take your kid to school in your car- mandate what kind of car, which route to take, and when to take it- because the odds are far worse for that car accident than this "struck by lightening" rare disease issue.

The odds of getting this disease or genetic disorder should be less than 1:100 before the state is able to step in- CERTAINLY NOT for 1:10000 or more!

Questions for debate:

1.)Does it violate the rights of citizens, if certain states do not allow for religious/personal exemptions in regards to testing? Why or why not?

46 states have some form of exemption for newborn screening so obviously most people think screening tests should be optional. Does your blood belong to you or to the state? Shouldn't the state have to prove a compelling interest to deprive you of your blood?

“Last year, out of 26,819 babies tested, 537 tested positive for one of the dozens of diseases, and 43 of those results were confirmed, according to the state's Newborn Screening Program” AP article
This is the worse case scenario. 0.16%. The false positive rate is huge. That means 494 babies probably started unnecessary treatments. There are heartbreaking stories on the internet of mothers who were told to “stop breastfeeding” because of a positive screening only to be told later after their milk had dried up. Whoops! It was a false positive. All the diseases here are non contagious and non preventable. Screening simply allows for treatment to begin earlier. Not compelling enough to remove custody from the home and take a baby's blood by force.


2.)Was the family's due process and/or religious rights violated? Why or why not?

Our first encounter with Nebraska’s newborn screening program was over 14 years ago. A couple weeks after a peaceful homebirth, we received a certified letter telling us to take our new baby to a laboratory for blood screening. We checked into the law and found no enforcement provision. We discussed the matter with others who had refused the screening and were told that we would be ignored or perhaps fined for non-compliance. However, we recognized that we may need to prove that we were not simply being neglectful. So we researched the Bible for Scriptures that related to the issue, prepared a statement, and had it notarized. Nothing happened then. We had more homebirths. We were ignored five times in a row. After most births we received two certified letters about the law. One time we received 3 notices.

Then after the birth of our 8th child, 6th born in Nebraska we received a subpoena to District Court when she was 2 months old. Apparently that had been added to the enforcement provision of the statute. We found a lawyer and fought it. That lawyer fought it based on the First Amendment free exercise of religion. The case was only heard by the local district court judge who understood nothing about the case and the Nebraska Supreme Court. The Nebraska Supreme Court moved the case from the appeals court and although we appealed the US Supreme Court did not hear the case.

With our 9th child, Justus, 2 years ago I drove across the Iowa border in active labor to avoid the situation. In Iowa. a waiver is included with the birth registration packet.

For the past 2 legislative sessions, State Senator Synowiecki has proposed exemption legislation. The 2nd time we had high hopes. We had more people testifying in favor of the bill than against, signed testimonies of the trauma the screening had caused other parents, and a petition signed by over 100 people. There were only a couple of testimonies from the state against the bill. However, it was killed in the health and human services committee and so never made it to the floor for a vote.

Due to various reasons, Joel ended up being born in Nebraska. Believe me, if I had any idea this would have happened, I would have made more of an effort to have him in Iowa.

Joel was born on September 2. We immediately found a lawyer. On September 19th we received a certified letter telling us about the screening law and giving us until September 21st to test. Then, we received a phone call from Newborn Screening asking if we would test. We replied “no”. She asked if I knew what would happen next. I replied “yes” understanding that we would be subpoenaed into district court as stated in the statute.

In the meantime, we hoped to be ignored, but discussed new legal arguments with our lawyer. Weeks went by without hearing anything. We decided that they must have chosen to return to ignoring us.

Then, on the morning of October 11th just after I had gotten Joel up from his morning nap, my doorbell rang. When I answered the door, an armed sheriff’s deputy came barging into my house yelling that he had a court order for Joel Anaya. I was screaming that I had not given him permission to enter my home. He said that he had a court order. I said that I wanted to call my lawyer. He said, “There’s no time.” There were 2 other deputies with guns and clubs guarding my doorways. He heard my children downstairs and ran downstairs where all my young children were. He snatched Joel out of my son’s arms and headed for the door. Joel was fussing and I knew he hadn’t eaten in 3 hours. I begged to be allowed to nurse him. The deputy told me, “There is no time. He will be cared for by professionals.” He ran out the door with my baby leaving me begging to nurse my baby and yelling for my son to call the lawyer. It was a cold day and the CPS people were not there yet to hand the baby over to, so the weather forced him back inside. I was crying and pleading to nurse.

My husband came home from the store just then. The sheriff deputies blocked him from entering our home. The way our rights were trampled by the sheriff deputies and the Department of Health still astounds me. I relive the scene again and again.

The order was an "ex parte" order meaning we were given no notice. The affadivit to obtain custody swore that Joel was in "imminent" danger. The definition of imminent is "very likely to occur soon". How is less than 0.16% chance very likely? It also claimed that the state had made "every effort to prevent removal from the home." No one had ever hinted to us that the state could take custody.

BTW, the deputies arrived at my home in an unmarked vehicle with guns and clubs. They did not allow me to actually read more than a few sentences of the court order and told me there was no time to call my lawyer. I had no means of verifying their story. They could have been real kidnappers (not just legal kidnappers).

There is a pdf file of the complaint filed by our lawyer on his blog. http://www.nebraskainjurylawreport.c...tional-rights/

3.)Where should the line be drawn in regards to private family convictions and the needs of the state to ensure health and well-being of children?

The 8th District Court of Appeals just ruled on this recently in an Idaho case. In my opinion a very sensible ruling. It stated basically that if any reasonable adult could refuse a medical procedure then a parent may refuse it on behalf of his/her child. This ruling came about after the state took custody of an infant when the mother refused a spinal tap on behalf of her feverish baby when the doctor said there was a 5% chance of meningitis. The court ruled in favor of the mother reasoning that adults have opted to wait for a spinal tap in similar statistical circumstances.

Joel’s personal statistical chance of having a disease was significantly less than the average of 0.16%. He had 9 healthy fully biological siblings and all but one of the diseases screening for are genetic. He was nearly six weeks old and was given a physical that morning. Joel never had any feeding problems. He was at the 50th percentile for both height and weight. My husband is only 5’5” so we aren’t expecting overly large babies here. At our hearing with our daughter Rosa at 2 months, the state’s expert witness admitted that half of the diseases screened for could be eliminated for a baby who had no symptoms at that age.

It is times like this I wish we had the death penalty for these kinds of abuses by state authorities. I am no fan of any religion, and tend to think believers of religions as damaged or duped. But that doesnt' mean I want them to have any less rights than any other poeple in this nation. The fact that they were allowed to barge into your house over a .16% chance of a disease is just criminal. That child had a higher chance of dying in a car accident on the way to be tested.

Well it is kind of fun to have the subject of the story weighing in on the topic.


1.)Does it violate the rights of citizens, if certain states do not allow for religious/personal exemptions in regards to testing? Why or why not?

I worry about forcing compulsory testing on people. I can't think of an example for adults. I haven't had to submit to turning over any of my body material and I would consider it a violation if I were forced to. I don't see why I have to submit for my children.

2.)Was the family's due process and/or religious rights violated? Why or why not?

I don't know what religious right here. I have more grave concerns about allowing parents to willfully endanger there children for religious reasons (snake handlers e.g.) But it sure seems like an invasion of my privacy until I am convinced otherwise.

3.)Where should the line be drawn in regards to private family convictions and the needs of the state to ensure health and well-being of children?

The same line where it gets drawn for adults. Parents should be able to speak for their children otherwise. If a behavior is deemed dangerous and requires an age of consent, children should not be allowed to participate until they reach that age.


I hope to watch this thread for some more information. I am not certain my starting position will be the same as it will be at the end of this thread.

I think we can all agree on what "immenent danger" means- and this is CLEARLY not endangerment. The odds of this rare stuff happening is just too small to warrant goverment intrusion. here is an issue of nanny-statism and overstepping authority that should unite liberals, liberatarians, religious right and conservatives under one banner of WTF.

I mean seriously, these deputies and officials should be charged with kidnapping and child endangerment and sent to jail- there is just no other way to make sure this doesn't happen again.

An interesting link on this to check out is the Nebraska DHHS newborn screening page. After looking up the items that are screened for, I can see why such enforcement can seem over the top. Biotinidase deficiency, galactosemia, and hemoglobinopathy are very rare. I am more along the lines of CR's opinion in this regard. In this instance, I am all for opting out. When it comes to vaccines, then I beg to differ. My children are not at risk if someone else allows their child to have brain damage or speech problems due to galactosemia. If people don't vaccinate their child, that puts other children in the general public at risk. Such cases have been documented over, and over again. In that instance, the greater public good and public health outweighs whatever private beliefs folks might have.

I agree. Everyone should be concerned about this. It flies in the face of what this country was founded on. My child was endangered by the state. However, everyone involved is protected. We are suing, but it is just for an injunction to prevent this from happening again. My entire family has been traumatized needlessly, my husband, oldest son, and I lost a week of work, I got in a car accident on the way to one of my visits, etc.

Please do not doubt that this was a serious breech of due process. We are still investigating what is possible to do in regards to the county attorney's office and the department of newborn screening. I am working on two, possibly three, different pieces of legislation that I will be trying to take before the Nebraska unicameral's health and human services committee. However, I will need a lot of support. That committee hates me. Watch my lawyer's blog for details.

I am certainly sympathetic to your case. I think parents should probably be able to opt out of these screenings for rare disorders. However, there needs to be some sort of nuanced position here. I have a couple of points that would need to be considered.

The first involves the ambiguity of "reasonable" when it comes to adults refusing. Take the Jehovah's Witness example. They refuse blood transfusions. Is that reasonable? Is it reasonable to deny a child a blood transfusion? The law should perhaps be more specific than just saying "reasonable," a term that is quite vague - and that vagueness could be used to the advantage of both the state and the parent, depending.

My second point involves the consequences. It may be reasonable (hehe there's that word again) to say that if a parent opts out of the screening, then they also should be opting out of any state sponsored or subsidized health care costs for that disorder, should it develop down the road. Now, understand, I don't personally take this position per se, because I don't think health care costs should be a factor when treating someone who is in need of care. But I can see why these screenings might originally be made mandatory. If the health care system can save money by being preventive (as we know that preventive care does save money), then it stands to reason that the state, wanting to avoid the huge cost of treating an illness later, when for less it could be prevented or mitigated now, might say that these screenings should be mandatory.

Certainly a conservative, arguing the principle of 'personal responsibility,' would have to say that, if you take the risk of not getting your child screened, then you should alone be financially responsible for related health care down the road. Indeed, it would be smart for an insurance company, in our current system, to refuse coverage for an unscreened child - or to at least specify that unscreened-for disorders would not be covered.

So it seems to me that either way, people get screwed. You force compliance to screenings, and deal with the inevitable fallout - as in your case, NebraskaMom, or you allow people to opt out, with the potential risk of either refusing to subsidize treatment later, or eating the cost of that treatment. Surey from the point of view of the tax payers in the state, it would be easy to sell them on the idea of 'why should my tax dollars be spent helping you now, when earlier you refused preventive measures?'

Have you been on the receiving end of injustice? Surely, and my heart goes out to you. I'm just pointing out that the solutions aren't easy. In fact these issues are extremely complex, and raise fundamental questions about the social contract.

Hi NebraskaMom

I am pleased to see you here on and hope you'll be the first in a long line of people directly involved in the news stories we debate here to come along and contribute to those debates - I trust you'll find a more civil, reasonable and productive place to do so than the press (or, I fear, the courts).

I hope you took my deliberately provocative previous post with a pinch of salt. Sometimes I present the logical extreme of my thinking as my position in order to get deabte going (and often it doesn't work, as here - oh well!).

It is clear to me that you have been ill-treated by the authorities.

However, something like quarkhead, I have one question that goes to the root of the whole thing?

What is the nature of your objection to having blood samples taken from your child to screen them for diseases? Is it straightforward religious principle, or do you fear there is some government conspriacy to build a monitoring database of genetic material for some nefarious purpose, or both, or something else altogether?

I can see that, once you have made your decision not to give a sample, their attempts to force you to do so have indeed violated your rights. But what I'm having trouble with is why you made that decision in the first place (for all ten of your children). Can you elnighten me?

(Edited to correct the number of children involved from eight to ten).

This concern is why we said it was fine in our last legislative attempt (LB250) to add language to the bill to that clearly stated that the government would not cover the cost of any possible future treatment. It still didn't make it out of committee.

However, I have searched the Internet high and low and have not been able to find one case where someone refused state-mandated screening and his child later had a disease. (I find some where they are complaining about not being screened for non-mandatory diseases or before it was mandatory) Remember 46 states have had exemptions for years. Thousands of people have refused screening. (Many have written to me.) I found a website that tracks the costs and statistics of diseases that people refuse vaccination on. That site also discusses newborn screening extensively, yet there is not one recorded instance of a child having a disease that refused state mandated screening.

Julian, religious reasons aside, picture this, you are peaceful in the security of your home with your healthy, happy baby of several weeks. Then, a certified letter from the state comes saying in essence, "Take your baby to a laboratory and let us cut him, and squeeze blood out of his foot and make him scream." My philosophy of parenting is to respond immediately to my baby's needs so that it is not necessary to cry. People frequently comment to me that my babies almost never cry.

The state had better have a very compelling case to do that to my child. The case that they presented was not sufficiently compelling to me.

Think about this.

The ACLU, definitely a left-aligned organization, filed an amicus brief on our behalf with our last case and represented another family in Nebraska on this same issue. This issue should find support among left-wing, right wing, moderates, libertarians, etc.

The state should not be able to seized custody of babies on such flimsy grounds.

The ACLU lawyer brought a long list of things to the last legislative hearing that were statistically more dangerous than metabolic diseases, yet are legally allowed. Things like playing competitive football are statistically more dangerous, yet we don't make football illegal.

If you don't put your child in a car seat, what happens? You receive a fine.
If you don't put a bike helmet on your child, what happens? You receive a fine.
If you don't take your child to a lab for a genetic blood test, what happens? Armed men barge into your house, grab your baby, and take him into state custody for 6 days.

This should anger everyone-no matter what your politics.

I could be mistaken, but from what I read, it's religious based.

I quite agree that the state should not be able to seize control of your child on these grounds.

As your examples suggest, they should have fined you if they did anything at all. That they did not is certainly grounds for complaint and you have my suppport in your cause - to that extent only, though.

Because I honestly don't buy your "baby crying" argument - are you going to prevent your baby having anti-TB BCG injections in their teens in case that makes them cry? Prevent them ever having dental treatment in case the local anaesthetic injection makes them cry? When one of them dislocates their shoulder in a tree-climbing accident (say), are you going to let them continue in their state of dislocaiton because the (painful) process of putting the upper arm bone back into the shoulder socket might make them cry?

If those are your only grounds I have to say I think your case is exceptionally weak.

And if your underlying objection is religious, I draw your attention to the thrust (if not the detail) of my earlier argument - IMO, your religious freedom allows you to exclude your self from any medical treatment you so choose.

Even then you must accept that the rest of society might need to be protected from you. For example, if you were ever to become a typhoid carrier and refuse treatment, putting other people's lives at risk to protect your own religious sensibilities, I think it would be reasonable to put you into some form of quarantine, with or without your consent.

And as far as your children are concerned, no matter how small the risks, I don't believe you should be entitled to assume that they share your religious convictions until they come of age. And, as a separate matter, even if that does in fact apply in law and you are indeed sole arbiter of anything to do with your children in and of themselves (I suspect the majority view, even among the non-religious), I certainly don't think you should be permitted to allow your children to become havens for disease - the typhoid carrier example again.

Oh, and I don't know if you realise - possibly not, if you've never experienced it yourself - but most blood samples these days are taken by hypodermic needle, rather than a three-stage, cut, squeeze and bleed process. Even in babies.

Julian- do you not recognize that none of your arguments actually are germane to this subject- as far as the state's and the child's interest lie- simply because the probable harm is so small- it is riskier to society to have a mom that smokes in the house of a child than the risk to these children of having this EXTREMELY rare positive result that may be a result here- there are too many other things that are far more dangerous to children and society than the very, very small chance that this child may test positive for the rare defects and illnesses that the state has compelled them to take.

If your argument is valid- then, we need to start immediately start removing children from parents who drink or smoke, even socially- because the odds of harm to the child, permanently- are so much higher than the possible harm to the child in this case.

You need only to research m y posts to see my GREAT disdain for ANYTHING religious or spiritual in nature- but, I also have to recognize, as a consistent believer in freedom and liberty for all, that the states and the child's rights for this testing is far outwieghed by the mother's religious conviction, because of the minimal chance of harm to the child and society vs the great intrusiveness of the "nanny state" goverment.

Seriously- we should be jailing the goverment officials in this case, and make a historical example of them.

Approximately 4000 new babies are diagnosed with at least one of these diseases every year. That is roughly 16 per day, or twice the number of children between the ages of 0 and 18 who are killed by guns every day. A number you have historically seemed to consider very significant indeed in past debates.

Basically everyone with children reading this now permitted the laboratory to perform this test in the interest of ensuring that they weren't one of the several thousands who are diagnosed with these genetic problems every year. And I agree with Jules that there is a difference between waving one's own rights to future medical care due to a refusal to test, and waiving the child's rights. A parent doesn't have the power to waive a child's rights to medical care unless there is a very compelling case. A spinal tap to test for an illness that was very unlikely isn't a compelling enough reason to demand state intrusion. And it should be noted that in that case, the baby receives antibiotics either way. In this case, we are speaking of a little heel prick that would indicate if the child had been struck with a preventable defect. The state has an interest in persuing the matter because if the baby had been struck by one of these diseases and it went untreated, he would incur those effects for life...a life of paralysis and mental retardation. A lifetime that could very well surpass the parents'. Who would care for him during that time?

When I had my children the hospital they would not discharge my babies until I presented them with my newborn's carseats and proved that I knew how to use them. This was the case even if I just lived next door to the hospital and told them that I would never take them in a car until they turned 10 years old and didn't need them. I suppose I could have run through the streets screaming about hospital abduction, but at the end of the day I still needed those seats. Frankly, I believe that the hospital (via state policy) is right to demand the parent have a seat in the interest of safety, not the parent who insists that it is his/her constitutional right to not place his/her babies in carseats because the things make them cry.

Mrs P- that being said- i have never advocated for the goverment to come in and sieze the children and remove the guns of a gun owner in a house- I will have MY babies tested, I will not have guns in MY house- but I will NEVER advocate for jack booted thugs to come in and take poeple babies at gunpoint so they can search the house and take the kids- a very, very big difference in actions.

I will never advocate taking children from the houses of smokers (one of the leading causes of asthma among children) or start breaking down doors of parents who have alcohol in thier house.

I will not advocate removing children for their parents collection of lawn darts and broken glass either.

There has to be a more compelling reason than a .16% chance for any of these conditions before the state has a compelling reason to act-

Now- I may make snide remarks about parenting skills, thier religion or whatever- but that is a bit less intrusive than jack booted thugs kicking open doors early in the morning, snatching babies out of thier mothers arms so they can make a point?

Vaccinations, however, I do draw the line at- like others here, this is a case where the refusal can hurt more than just that family.

but testing for RARE diseases? Not on a bet- there needs to be more danger of eminent harm.

The child was not permanently "abducted" or taken from the parents, he was taken to receive a blood test. THEN HE WAS RETURNED. Absolutely no comparison with your hypothetical examples. Something that could have been avoided had several court orders not been ignored and the child been given the blood test in the first place. They even have the option of taking this test at home and sending it out. Either there is a law or there isn't one. Either parents are obligated to take the test or they aren't. I think that an incidence of 4000 children per year who are struck with an avoidable yet catastrophic condition if left untreated, that cannot be determined until it is too late, is a high enough incidence to warrant a mandatory blood test.

Facts Mrs P-

They DID abduct the child- temporary is still abduction- AND they did it at gunpoint- do you dispute that? There is nothing hypothetical about jack booted thugs stealing the baby from a home, even though it was 'temporary"- I dont' care if it was 5 minutes- it was straight up kidnapping.

I stand by the FACT that the odds you are talking about DO NOT warrant goverment intrusion EVER.

Like I said- you pointed out some facts of other children being harmed- should we have mandatory removal of guns from a parents home, with armed forces moving in to enforce this ban, because of the risk of the child being killed with a firearm in the house is higher than those without?

The facts are very clear- they snatched a baby out of the arms of the mother at gunpoint for a trivial cause.

This statement is interesting since just a post ago you advocated mandatory vaccines. Do you know what the odds of getting diptheria or polio or a host of other diseases that the public now receives mandatory vaccination for in the US? MUCH MUCH lower than the odds of having a baby with PKU.



Yes, you've repeated this many times and as I said above this hypothetical hyperbole holds no baring or comparison to this case whatsoever.

Vaccinations clearly effect all the population- diseases can vector out of control very quickly- huge difference between a vaccine for a contagious disease and testing for some rare congenital defect that this family clearly has no history of.

The example has EVERYTHING to do with this case Mrs P- it is about lack of due process "there wasn't time for her to call a lawyer" according the the Mom's account- it was just TOO BIG an emergency apparently (yeah, whatever)

In fact, even with a vaccine, I am not sure of a vaccine that needs to be given post-haste that warrants this kind of intrusion either- perhaps after a lenghty due process appeal, the mom should have a court order to take the kid down within "X" amount of days, with some sort of fine and perhaps a graduated set of punishments if it does not occur- but time is certainly not of the essence here, to the point of sending jack booted thugs with guns drawn to a house with no threat of EMINENT harm.

The reason my example is spot on is because of the usual claims of the nanny state types - taking guns out of a home clearly is safer for the child- no doubt about it- no guns in the house, the kids are far, far safer than those without guns, there is no reputable study that disputes this- just like testing for these defects definately allows earlier treatment ( but here is the kicker- it DOES NOT PREVENT harm- it simply allows earlier treatment- taking the guns literally will prevent gun deaths)- so there is NEVER an eminent harm to the child by not taking these tests- it is just nany-state types exercising gestapo tactics to get thier way over something that is nearly meaningless.

I dont' advocate kicking parents doors open, STICKING A GUN IN THIER FACE AND RIPPING THE BABY OUT OF THE MOTHERS ARMS-and taking children from thier parents for ANY reason (even if it is temporary) than EMINENT harm.

If she were beating or mistreating the baby- different story- but that is not what happened here is it?

Your hypothetical is absolutely, 100 percent irrelevant because it is currently legal to own a gun in the house. Even if to were illegal, the gun in such a case coud be, and likely would be upon discovery, confiscated. This would definitely be the case in a similar scenario with parent/gunowner actively ignoring court orders to get rid of their discovered guns. Or per your other example, smoking inside one's home is also currently legal. The first step towards making your hypothetical relevant in any way would require that it become illegal. Then we could talk about how such a measure could be enforced. In this case, the parents were legally obligated to have their newborn tested. This test is required because the legislators and/or voters have decided that the risks of health consequences to the child outweigh the gains of parental "freedom" to avoid the test whatever their personal reasons. Thus, a violation of this law is considered a danger to the child. Don't like the law? Try to change it, but in the meantime don't expect to violate it without consequence.

And I have to ask....What 'kicker' are you talking about exactly? Early treatment DOES PREVENT HARM. The harm done to a baby isn't the disorder itself, but via the diet he/she receives. A baby with one of these conditions is receiving the equivalent of poison if he receives regular formula or breastmilk. So if a child has this disorder the harm is very imminent indeed. I know someone whose child had one of these disorders, and went into a coma from the breastfeeding. There were no signs, other than the baby 'seemed to sleep a lot". Good luck diagnosing that one on a newborn without a blood test. Just as black Americans have a predisposition towards higher rates of sickle cell, white (especially Pennsyvania Dutch) Americans have a tendency towards higher rates for some of these genetic metabolic defects. My friend's child is still slightly developmentally delayed but the damage was limited to his diet pre-diagnosis...very early on, thankfully.

What we are talking about is a nanny state run amok with power, with no demontration of eminent harm to the child- that is the real issue. Being a law doesn't make it right- in fact, most of the laws in our country make no sense or an completely wrong- just as it is wrong, no matter what the "law" says- to take away a kid at gunpoint for some very small chance that the kid may have some rare defect-

the treatment is worse than the cure, period. There is no compelling state interests that over-ride the parents rights here. If the harm were eminent- I would agree with you- but it is CLEARLY not eminent.

The Nazis had the law on thier side too- so did segregationists and slave holders- none of that made what they did right or moral, and the law doesn't make taking kids out of homes at gunpoints for no good reason right either.

I couldn't give a rat's fanny what the law says- the police and social workers involved should not be able to hide behind the "just following orders" defense any more than the nazi judges could in Nuremburg.

Hiding behind the "legislators/voters" is no excuse for this behavior, whatsoever. If the LEOs had any ethics whatsoever, they would have refused to do this- just as nazi camp guards were okay with the laws they enforced.

Everyone likes to get thier hackles all raised when someone points out the Nazi analogy- but it is very apt here- because, in this case, the state has become the "parent" more than the parent has- the state is the "father of all"- similar to what you have pointed out in Castro- the state's nanny-state rules supercede the parents rights to raise thier children as they see fit.

This is nanny-statism and state power run amok- NOT a coherent public policy on health issues. There are way too many far more dangerous to kids issues to deal with LONG before we start using law enforcement thugs to steal kids from thier mothers over tests for rare diseases.

The key word here is "rare" and "eminent"- if it is "rare" there is no threat of "eminent harm".

I'm having a problem this time with the quotes and don't have time to mess with it.

Julian, yes, the underlying reasons are religious, but I was attempting to find common ground. '

Mrs. Pigpen, your number 4,000 must come by counting all fifty states and since every state has different tests-some screen for nearly 50 diseases-and 46 states do have exemptions-you can not fairly use that number. In the state of Nebraska, there are currently 8 diseases in the mandatory screening.

“Last year, out of 26,819 babies tested, 537 tested positive for one of the dozens of diseases, and 43 of those results were confirmed, according to the state's Newborn Screening Program” AP article

At the hearing, they actually admitted only 41 were confirmed, so I do not know why the article still says 43. So worse case scenario is then 0.15%. Of course, since my husband is from El Salvador and I am of German/English descent and we are talking genetic diseases, Joel's personal statistics are significantly lower. He has 9, healthy, highly intelligent older siblings. He was 6 weeks old and given a physical the morning of the hearing and found to be the picture of health. As I stated before, that state's expert witness conceded mootness on the majority of the diseases under similar circumstances with our daughter Rosa.

Quote from Mrs. Pigpen" The child was not permanently "abducted" or taken from the parents, he was taken to receive a blood test. THEN HE WAS RETURNED. Absolutely no comparison with your hypothetical examples. Something that could have been avoided had several court orders not been ignored and the child been given the blood test in the first place. They even have the option of taking this test at home and sending it out. Either there is a law or there isn't one. Either parents are obligated to take the test or they aren't. I think that an incidence of 4000 children per year who are struck with an avoidable yet catastrophic condition if left untreated, that cannot be determined until it is too late, is a high enough incidence to warrant a mandatory blood test." END QUOTE


I will try not to lose my temper here.

Abducted is abducted and you do not know your child will be returned until he is. It was 6 days! He was not returned until the results came back. Try to have a little feeling for what it would be like to lose custody of an infant who you know depends on you as his only source of nourishment. The judge attempted to restrict my ability to nurse and instructed the social workers to feed him formula which placed my child in very real danger-not some hypothetical one. In fact, if he had had one of the diseases, her actions could have severely damaged or killed him. One disease requires frequent feedings, one is triggered by stress, and one is triggered by an ingredient in most formulas. Although the judge specifically told the social workers I was not to be allowed night feedings, the poor foster mother had to bend that in desperation. What would you do in the middle of the night with a crying baby who refuses to take formula?

Really now. How can anyone pretend this was in Joel's best interests?

The ONLY thing we received before the sheriffs deputies arrived with guns and took custody was 1 certified form letter informing us about the law. It was basically the same letter we had received 2 or 3 copies of with the other 6 born in Nebraska. There NEVER was a written court order to test Joel. The judge merely verbally ordered the social workers to get it done right away after the hearing.

We were NEVER told take your child to do this test or the state might take custody.

We were expecting a subpoena into district court as stated in the statute. We had a lawyer ready and new arguments based upon the Nebraska state constitution and the rights of conscience.

In order for the state to take custody of a child, it says that there must be sworn evidence that the child is in imminent danger and that all reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal from the home.

So to return to the issue of due process. It should be clearly apparent that the state did not meet these two requirements in this case.

Also, FYI, the test most certainly is still the cut, squeeze, bleed procedure for infants. I saw it and I have plenty of testimony from other mothers within the past year. Bruising and scarring are common.

Let's go over the facts again Mrs P- there is no hyperbole here

1) Jack booted thugs put guns in a Mom's face and abducted her baby FOR 6 DAYS- this is NOT a short amount of time- you and I both have kids Mrs P- how would you feel to have your kids abducted for 6 days when there is CLEARLY no harm coming to the child?

2) She never saw a court order- it was a verbal order from the judge- there are all kinds of due process issues being denied here. She never even saw a court order for gods sake!

3)Um, they are testing for something that could make feeding the baby forumla dangerous- so what did they do- forced the kid to take formula- and this is okay how?

One thing I would like someone to clarify- where are each of you coming up with your numbers- Mrs P threw out a number of 4000 per year- while NM has shown 43 cases TOTAL .

who is right on this one? If NM is right, I think hangin' is too good for the LEO and judge involved.

My statistic came from the CDC, and yes it is for all fifty states.
I remembered it as 4,000 but I guess I underestimated by a thousand. That statistic is also roughly line with the .16 percent figure you gave earlier. Four million children are born each year in the United States, and .16 percent of that number is 6500.

I have to ask, do you think that 4000, 5000, 6500 children in the US are worth sacrificing every year to ensure parents have the right to not have a drop of blood taken from their baby's heel? This is a serious question....where would you draw the line here? You seem to maintain that the risks are so very very low no one should have to do this procedure, as though it is as rare as having a second head. That isn't the case. And the only way to diagnose them before irreparable damage is done is to have a blood test in the first few days of a newborn's life. The inconvenience/wishes of the parent in this type of case do not supercede the interests to the infant because the potential harm is too great. The harm done to that infant will be lasting, and the lifetime of that child will likely exceed the life of the parent. That is the bottom line here.

Your personal situation, as far as what you went through, does sound horrifying to me as a mother. But I do not, and will not, see eye to eye with you on the issue of mandatory newborn bloodtesting. That's about all I'll say on this subject. Per your case, you probably have a very good one for due process violation since you didn't receive a subpoena (I hadn't reread your post and the last time I thought you said you received numerous court orders, but that was in prior years). On a personal note, you seem like a nice person and are obviously a very caring mother. They could, and probably should, make some legal exceptions for parents with four+ already healthy children and no history of disorder.

Edited to add:

It's a special type of formula, CR. Babies with metabolic disorders need a special, expensive type of formula that isn't available in most stores.

NM, when you go through with this case, you should know these test results should take less than a minute (if memory serves...it has been a while since I worked in a medical lab). They should have had those results within seconds. I don't know why they would keep your baby for six days. It isn't typically a send-out test.

1.)Does it violate the rights of citizens, if certain states do not allow for religious/personal exemptions in regards to testing? Why or why not?

I believe the state is overstepping its authority on this issue. Screening should be made available as a public health service, but it should not be mandatory.

Issues like this always raise hyperbolic "what ifs" on both sides. Mrs. P's "sacrificing 5000 babies a year" is one such statement. CR's "jack booted thugs" is another.

However, the individual risk here is very, very low. Early treatment of prostate cancer is a similar, proven example of how early screening can save people. 30,000 men die every year from prostate cancer and it is almost entirely preventable. Yet we don't mandate screenings.

The argument "it's for the children" holds little water with me, a pure appeal to emotion. It is a parent's responsibility that their kids are healthy, well-adjusted and educated. It is not the state's prerogative to usurp that responsibility.

In this case, the two main targets for the screening are PKU and hypothyroidism. Both are genetic defects, with PKU being inherited. PKU has symptoms that will often be detected in newborns. Neonatal hypothyroidism generally lacks obvious symptoms and can not usually be diagnosed without a blood test. Low birth rate and prolonged jaundice are indicators, but certainly not enough to diagnose on.

The balancing priorities here are individual freedom versus early detection of rare genetic disorders. Sorry, but if an individual wants to roll the dice against 3,000:1 odds, I say let them. Taking away a child from their mother as an infant is not warranted because the parent chose to face this risk.

2.)Was the family's due process and/or religious rights violated? Why or why not?

From what was cited, I don't think the due process was violated. It seems the state went through a lot of effort to test this child to verify (as expected) that he was healthy. Hurray for spending thousands of dollars and tramping on the rights of a family in the quest to test everyone.

3.)Where should the line be drawn in regards to private family convictions and the needs of the state to ensure health and well-being of children?

The state should offer the service, but not make it mandatory. I think the vast majority of parents will choose to utilize a generally non-invasive test to screen their child. This isn't a public health issue in the sense of a communicable disease. It is more of a public health service that should be offered.

1) Does it violate the rights of citizens, if certain states do not allow for religious/personal exemptions in regards to testing? Why or why not?

No it does not violate the rights of the individual to not allow a religious or personal exemption. Or everyone should run out and fund "the Church of No Tax", or "The temple of kill everyone I dislike" or any one of the thousands of choices that if I make as an individual that would have a direct affect on the people round me and impinge on their rights. In this case the child is the one whose rights are most at risk. It is the job of the democratically elected bodies to decide how those rights are protected to the best of the states abilities without violating the rights of the individual significantly - it is a fine balancing act and that is why the system of checks and balances were put in place and precisely what the judicial branch of government is there for.

2) Was the family's due process and/or religious rights violated? Why or why not?

It appears that the due legal process for the raising of the court order required in the state has been followed. The direct accounts in this forum does suggest that the sherriffs department did not act in an appropriate manner and that should be of significant concern. With respect to Nebraskamom then I would like to see the equivilant accounts from the officers present, but as she has described it they did exceed their powers and authority.

3) Where should the line be drawn in regards to private family convictions and the needs of the state to ensure health and well-being of children?

While the parents opinions are important so are those of medical experts. And all those should be represented in the state bodies that create laws like that. I think the state's responsibility to the welfare of the child does, however, come before the resposnibioity to the choice of the parents.

A lot of statistics were thrown around. 0.16% especially. Let's make that clear. That is one 16 children in 10,000. That is 1.6 child in 1000 or 1 in 625. That is quite a high risk. Certainly I would want a check done on my child at that risk. Hell, 1 in 10,000 does not seem too little a risk for a toe prick blood test.

This topic is one that I've thought about quite a bit, having, in the past, dated a Christian Scientist for a few years. The way that I feel about it is this:

These are screening tests. Nobody has any proof that this child had any thing wrong with it. To argue that this child was in "imminent danger" is absurd. It's like saying that, as I walk down the street, I'm in "imminent danger" of being hit by a bus or struck by lightning.

If there were a definite public health threat that necessitated the screening for a particular disease or illness, I would say that the need to ensure the public welfare trumps the right to religious freedom.

It seems to me that this is a routine screening. The religious belief of the parents should be assumed as the religious belief of the child.

Why? No, really - why? Why should the state - which is Constitutionally bound to remove itself from any particular religion - assume anything about anybody's religion?





This is at the heart of this debate, for my money. NebraskaMom clearly believes as you do, to the point where she disobeyed local rules in defence of that principle.

However - the right to freedom of religion is a right granted to "people", not to "citizens" and for the State to assume that the child will share the beliefs of the parent is - surely - to deny the right to freedom of religion of the child.

Since the Constitution only concerns itself with how Government should treat people, it is of no Constitutional concern that parents (everywhere, and all the time) inculcate their religious views into their children, nor is it any concern of government what those views are (provided they do not, in and of themselves, violate the law).

Given that - in this case - very few religious denominations/sects/belief systems view the giving of a blood sample as something that is not acceptable, and the majority do. Given that, as soon as children are old enough to approach their family doctors on their own they are protected by medical confidentiality from sharing matter that they might not wish to share with their parents e.g. contraceptive advice, etc.

Given those things, I think it a reasonable assumption on the part of the state to expect that the child would choose to give a blood sample in the absence of parental influence.

As a hypothetical contrast, it would be a reasonable assumption that any individual - child or not - would involuntarily donate a kidney, despite the real medical need for kidney donors for transplantation.

I make this distinction because wider society frowns on involuntary removal of major organs, and assumes that any given person would not wish to undergo such a procedure without informed consent. But society does not generally frown on donation of small blood samples (or even donation of pints of blood for transfusions) and assumes that people would be happy to give a sample if there is even a small benefit. That's why religious groups that refuse such procedures - up to and including refusing any treatment that would require a transfusion, are viewed as (no offence intended NebraskaMom, but let's not mince words) cranks, at best - because their views are SO unusual.

So, if government cannot assume religious beliefs, even of minors, without violating the First Amendment in doing so (as I think they would be doing), they are left with making decisions without any consideration of religion whatsoever (as I also think a constitutionally secular - i.e. with separation of Church and State - government ought to make every decision they ever take). Which leaves pragmatism and science.

Now - as I've said before - the ham-fistedness with which NebraskaMom's case was handled trumps this and the state authorities are so far in the wrong we'd need a telescope to see them waving. But that isn't the debate question at hand - they would be violating the rights of the child if they allowed for religious/personal exemptions in regards to testing.

As to due process rights - yup. Let's have another look through the telescope - see? You can see the judge waving. At least, those black flowing robes are flapping about on a windless day. Maybe he's jogging on the spot?

And where should the line be drawn in regards to private family convictions and the needs of the state to ensure health and well-being of children? With the well-being of the children (which would in principle include taking blood samples to test for disease, regardless of their rarity, if only to provide better epidemiological data to the doctors so maybe risk factors can be identified without needing to take blood samples. And - needless to say - the well-being of the child is not especially well-served by being abducted. Happily, little Joel is probably too young to have been caused any lasting harm by his experiences - small comfort, though, for his justifiably angry family.

It's the method of execution that's all wrong here, in my book. The underlying principle taken by the state which snowballed into this mess was not, in itself, flawed.

What do you base this assumption on?

In the US, the parents have the right to make all decisions with regard to the welfare of the child as long as they do not violate laws concerning abuse and neglect. Unless one would consider not getting a screening test abuse or neglect, this is well within parental rights in the US, just as corporal punishment is.

When you bust open doors and shove guns in mothers faces of children under no harm whatsoever- I feel very comfortable with calling them "nazis" "fascists" and "jack booted thugs"-

they are evil scumbags for doing this, there is no "politicaly correct" terminology here, there is no soft pedaling, there is no need to try to make it anything other than it was- police state style tactics.

First of all the numbers 5000 would only be if no one was screened. Remember 46 states do have exemptions. I read somewhere that only 1% of the population chooses to opt out of screening. If that 1% was statistically average we would expect to hear of 50 unscreened babies each year in the nation having the disease. However, that is not the case. I told you there is a website that watches these things. I have challenged our opponents for the past few years to show me even 1 case of child who had a disease when there parents had opted out. They couldn't name any. I am sure in the nation that there must be some, but it obviously is not a common problem in the 46 states that already have exemptions or we would be hearing about it.

Back to due process. I think some must have posted without reading all the posts.

Timeline.

September 2-baby born
September 18 standard form letter informing of the law sent by Newborn Screening Department
September 19 phone call asking if we planned to screen
October 11 Sheriff deputies forcibly enter home with guns and clubs and grab baby taking custody.
October 12 Juvenile court hearing held to determine whether state would continue custody, judge gives verbal order to the social worker to test, judge decides to keep custody until test results are back against the expressed recommendation of the social workers for immediate reunification, refuses to move case to district court as stated in the statute, restricts breastfeeding


We received no other contact of any kind between Sept 19 and Oct 11. The was no court order to test. Period.

Odds Cause of Death
1:1,126 accidental drowning
1:1,222 complications from medical/surgical care
1:2,526 falling up or down stairs
1:3,357 exposure to forces of nature

Defect Nebraska Risk

Congenital Primary
Hypothyroidism 1:2,963.6

Hemoglobin-opathies 1:11,697

PKU 1:11,434

MCAD 1:51,582

Galactosemia 1:7,316

Biotinidase Deficiency 1:13,839

This is simply the risk of having the disease. Not of dying from it. Some of these cases are actually very mild. Just because the initial screening isn’t done, does not mean that the disease can not be discovered and treated later. Of course early treatment is more effective if you actually have a disease. However, none of my 10 children have had a disease.

In the state of Nebraska last year 41 children had a confirmed metabolic disease. If 1% of parents opted out of the screening then .41 children would received delayed treatment if they were statistically average. However, you will find that since these diseases to run in families, the people who opt out will be less likely to have a disease than the average.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

Patrick Henry said:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

The Constitution was written to protect minority views-not for the majority.

Since accidental DEATH by drowning is more common than any of these diseases, why doesn't the state outlaw swimming pools to protect the public health? Quality of life matters.

Everyone of you takes risks. Some of you more than others. There are many other parental behaviors that are more dangerous to children that are not outlawed.

It matters not to me if the state wants to mandate blood screening as long as there is an opt out procedure for people who sincerely object. I do not think the objections should be restricted to religious ones.

Whoa! Lots of numbers and statistics there, NebraskaMom. Good research, except you left one statistic out. How many children are harmed by a simple blood test? How many of them die or suffer an affliction that damages their quality of life? What are the odds of that happening? What is the risk vs reward equation for a simple blood test to catch a disease early when it can possibly be treated? Even a rare disease. Do you have those numbers by any chance? Could it possibly be a ZERO chance for any harm to the child from a simple blood test? I don't know, perhaps you do?


Aquilla

You got it backwards Aquilla- it isn't for NM to come up with a compelling reason here- it is the state-

I thought you would understand that- this is the point that confuses me about some poeple that claim they are "small goverment conservative" - but are very unequal/inconsistant in thier application of that philosophy.

IF there is statistically miniscule risk of harm to the child, much, much lower than just about any preventable death issue, such as a swimming pool, or guns in the house, or a bee collection- it is NOT for NM to have to explain why her relgious beliefs prohibit this- it is for the goverment to prove why the child is in immenent danger, enough to warrant the storm troopers here?

Spanking is definately a religious convicition for many- yet I am sure you would be quite upset if your kids were yanked out of your custody, guns shoved in your face, judge deciding if you should EVER get your kids back if you spanked your child.

As Amlord said- NM has to explain nothing, the state has to explain thier gestapo like tactics, and even worse still, there is NO repurcussions for the judge or the thugs he sent out after her- and this is a real problem in the US, we have over protected our goverment officials. He should be answering to kidnapping and extorsion charges, NOT being allowed some god like immunity to act as he sees fit.

Aquilla- all christians seem strange and bizarre in thier beliefs, especially when I see one that has actually read a book or two, and still hold to those beliefs. However, I don't want you to have to defend those beliefs when it comes to raising your family and your PERSONAL behaviors- I will make fun of you as a hypocrite, when you hold someone to a standard you won't hold yourself too- but I don't want you to have to risk losing your kids for your beliefs, unless the state can show very, very compelling evidence that your children are in IMMENENT danger from your beliefs, or, if you are using your beliefs as a smoke screen for neglect and abuse.

I get very upset when the religious types try to force thier book down our throats through laws and micro-managing other's lives through legislation, or use it as a bludgeon to discriminate against others, but I also don't want to see YOUR rights to either voice those opinions, or force you to MY lifestyle or morals through legislation either.

Freedom is a precious thing, and we should allow everyone as much of it as we can, because it only breeds more liberty and more freedom, in most cases. You go taking it away from one group, usually, it eventually comes back to you and you lose yours too.

This is a classic case of the "nanny state" thug mentality gone too far.

The biggest mistake the founding fathers made were not enough checks and balances on all forms of power. That and not putting enough personal accountability into the system either- not for the little guy, but for those in charge. There needs to be more risk built into the system for a judge and group of gung-ho storm troopers we are talking about in this situation.

The state does have a compelling reason, indeed a responsibility to protect the rights of a citizen, even if that citizen is a newborn child. It seems to me that a benign test that can uncover a potentially life-altering condition which is treatable if detected early would fall under that state responsibility blanket. Ideally such intervention would be unnecessary because most parents would place the health and welfare of their child above other personal considerations. When that doesn't happen the state has the duty to step in and assert the rights of the child.


Aquilla

It is statistically less likely for a child to have PKU than drown, true. Put all of the diseases screened in this test together, though, and there's about a 1:650 chance that the child will have one of them. That's significantly higher than the number of drownings per year, or the other of the things mentioned. All avoided by one tiny, one-time pin-prick test.

That said, okay, I confess I've changed my mind. This bloodtest should be obligatory, but if the parent actively objects and understands the risks, and isn't in a category likely to be afflicted (no family history of these diseases), they should be able to opt out.

Edited to add: NM, if I were in your position, I would take a trip down to the hospital laboratory and inquire how long it generally takes to do a newborn screening blood panel test. Don't ask how long 'it takes to get test results', because it can take a while for the lab techs to place the results in the computer, and for that information to get to the parent. I would inquire specifically about how long it physically takes to place the blood into the machine (if the mass spec is used) or place drops onto the panel (if it's manual) and the time it takes for the results come off of the machine (or show up in the precipitate). I would include this in information in evidence against the state. There is no reason why they should have taken and kept your baby for so much time....especially in a situation like yours, this should have been a stat test that took seconds. They might say that the laboratory had to be 'state approved' and that took more time, but all medical laboratories are state approved or they wouldn't operate.

And if you put all the ways of dying together, I'm pretty sure we all have a 1:1 chance of having that happen. You have to take the odds of each disease separately, not together.



It is Constitutionally bound to make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof. This doesn't mean that it makes no decisions whatsoever regarding religion.



People aren't citizens?

Religion is a belief system. At what point in its development does a child develop a belief system?

Okay then- where is this line drawn in the nanny state thought proccess Aquilla- let's say that NM's numbers are correct.

Does the state have a compelling interest in the rights of the child to take away a parents rights and religious beliefs for a 1:13000 chance ? Something only 43 poeple in a country of 300 million plus MAY get? And then, "mild cases" are counted in?

If this were the case- wouldn't outlawing guns and swimming pools and such be a much more cost-effective and much better idea to start putting kids into foster care for those much more dangerous items?

And Mrs P- it is already mentioned- but it is a very large stretch to "put all the diseases together"- especially since she stated EXACTLY what tests they demanded, and what the odds of each were.

Are you saying no immenent harm is neccesary for the state to take your children?