Omaha court case widens from screening test to baby's meals

A judge ordered that 6-week-old Joel Anaya, whose hungry cries interrupted Friday's court hearing, be administered the state-mandated newborn screening test his parents object to and remain in foster care until the test results are received, despite the mother's wishes to continue nursing the boy.

Joel's parents, Mary and Josue Anaya of Omaha, object to the testing because of their religious beliefs and conscience. They believe in certain Scriptures that say life is in the blood.

The Anayas previously fought a court order that the testing be done on their daughter, Rosa, but in 2005, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the order to have the testing performed. In that case, Rosa remained in the Anayas' custody while the case was being argued.

State law requires metabolic testing of all newborns. The tests, which involve pricking a baby's heel and drawing about five drops of blood, are used to screen for a variety of conditions, including cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. Doctors recommend the test be performed when babies are between 1 day and 1 week old, because the diseases could lead to mental retardation or death.

Most states provide some sort of exception for people who object to the blood tests based on "religious" or "sincerely held" beliefs. Nebraska has no such provision.

Joel was taken into state custody after a petition was filed Wednesday in Douglas County Juvenile Court. Prosecutors argued that because Joel has not received the testing, he is at risk for mental retardation or death.

"I can't imagine greater risk than death or disability. How does it get any worse than those two things?" she said at Friday's hearing, which was held to determine whether Joel should remain in state custody or be returned to his parents.

Crnkovich said she didn't believe the Anayas would follow the order to have the testing done, so she ordered that the boy remain in foster care until preliminary results confirm no further testing is needed.

"I don't know how long it will take. I am sensitive to the love of these parents. But I have to admit, I don't understand placing a loved one at risk. That one boggles the mind," Crnkovich said.

Earlier in the hearing, Mary Anaya, who has been visiting her son several times a day in foster care to breastfeed, cringed when she heard him crying from outside the courtroom.

Dressed in a conservative black suit, she told the judge her convictions prevented her from swearing, so instead she "affirmed" to tell the truth before taking the stand. During her testimony, she answered questions about her son's feeding habits. "Do you nurse your baby?" her attorney, Jeff Downing, asked.

"If I said someone came in and said the baby needs nursed, this would be about the right time, wouldn't it?"

Interrupting, Crnkovich said the line of questioning was inappropriate and briefly talked to the attorneys in private.

She then left the courtroom, and when she returned, she quipped, "It has come to the court's attention . . . that the child is hungry and needs to be fed."

She ordered workers with the Nebraska Health and Human Services Department to take the baby out of the courthouse, feed him, and not bring him back.

She later added, "I don't approve of Mom popping in (to the foster home) nine times a day to nurse."

When asked what her objection to the testing was, Anaya said the Bible states that life is in the blood. "To me, the blood is something important and not to be tampered with," she said.

Anaya and her husband are ordained ministers and administrators of the Mission for All Nations food and clothing pantry in Omaha. They take their faith very seriously and are raising their children according to those beliefs, Anaya told the court.

But after the hearing, crying in a courtroom hallway, Mary Anaya seemed more concerned about her son being fed than the testing being done.

"This is inhumane — to deny my right to feed my baby," she said, distraught over where her baby had been taken.

The Anayas have 10 children aged 21 years to 6 weeks. They have avoided having the metabolic screening done on most of their 10 children.

Copyright ©2007 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.

I hope none of you are under the illusion that the press reported things correctly. They keep hounding us to say more about our religious beliefs whereas we would prefer to keep
this an issue of conscience.

Facts:
Oldest 2 children- not born in Nebraska. Oldest now 20-he went to college at 14, graduated at 17 with 2 degrees-youngest graduate ever of that University. 2nd oldest 17, sophomore at same university on the dean’s list.

Next 5 children-homebirthed in Nebraska. Received certified letters telling us to take children in for screening.

Checked into the law and found no enforcement provision.
Informed by others who had refused that we would be ignored or fined for non-compliance. We were ignored all five times.

Our 8th child, 6th born in Nebraska was Rosa. When she was 2 months old we received a subpoena to District Court. That had been added to the enforcement provision of the statute. We found a lawyer and fought it. That lawyer wanted us to fight 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 by the Nebraska Supreme Court. The Nebraska Supreme Court moved the case from the appeals court and the US Supreme Court did not hear the case.

Our 9th child, Justus, was born 2 years ago in Iowa to avoid the situation. A waiver form is included in the birth registration packet there.

For 2 consecutive 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 never made it to the floor for a vote.

Here are e-mails for the committee:

perdman@leg.ne.gov;
jjohnson@leg.ne.gov;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov;
tgay@leg.ne.gov;
dpankonin@leg.ne.gov
ghoward@leg.ne.gov;
thansen@leg.ne.gov;

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.

Weeks went by without hearing anything. 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 screaming 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.

I do not have time to elaborate further, but I do want to mention that the social workers invited me along, were quite compassionate, and allowed me to nurse on demand the first
day and a half until the juvenile court judge got all bent out of shape about my frequent nursing.

My entire family has been needlessly traumatized. I can not begin to tell you about all the ripple effects. For the sake of future generations, please help us to fight this horrible injustice.

It would be relevnt to assess exactly what the risk to the child is of a metabolic or chromosomal disorder, when apparently neither his parents nor his 9 siblings have any such disorder. This being the case, what are the odds? One in 10,000? One in 100,000?

Versus what are the odds for getting a bacterial infection from a needle stick in a hospital? One in 2,000? One in 1,000?

Mind you, I am making up these figures: but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the risk of bacterial infection at a hospital is greater than the rate of metabolic disease in a child whose parents an siblings do not have this disease.

Furthermore, the risk of disrupting nutrition and bonding bu interfering with a breastfeeding mom who wants to nurse her baby --- Good Lord, this is a tiny baby only 6 weeks old! --- outweighs the risks they are trying to screen for.

I'm not drawing any final conclusions here. I'd want to see the risk/benefit statistics. Surely they must be available somwhere.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.