horse pucky...
Posted on 10/17/2007 7:14:18 PM PDT by jabchae
If they have 9 proven healthy kids, I’d be willing to exempt them from the blood tests.
And of course the social worker opposes the breast feeding - how dare the mother be a mother, and see her child several times a day and bond with it? Despite government ads that breast is best ...
On the other, these people knew or should have known that their state law has no exception on the grounds of religious belief, so they should have moved or sued several children back.
Save us, dear Lord, from those who would save us.Art Hoppe, On the Death of Robert Kennedy
San Francisco Chronicle, 1968
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.
-
so risk the life to save the blood?
By the way, the parents did get the baby back, only a little worse for wear, after six days.
horse pucky...
ping
The life is in the blood for sure, but the main Scriptural injuctions dealing with it are for forbidding to eat it and the fact that the life is in the blood is the reason.
There’s nothing in Scripture that I could see would prevent testing. Transfusions-I could see someone’s reasoning, but not testing.
What’s she going to do if her kids cut themselves? Or they witness a bad accident and need to help? Do they not eat meat because it has blood in it, no matter how hard you try to get it out?
Good questions, all.
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.
As a mother your situation terrifies me. That a judge can be so ignorant of common medical standards, like ebf’ing being recognized as important to a childs health... that she could be so dismissive of your views and feelings... that it appears she chose to punish your family for having differing views from hers... (why else place your baby in foster care pending test results) is shocking and horrifying.
Is there a link or page we can go to that will keep people updated on the situation?
Metabolic testing/screening ping, and be sure to read post 11.
We do not have a webpage for this, but that is a good idea. I will ask my oldest, a computer programmer, to work on it. In the meantime here is our lawyer’s blog. http://nebraskainjurylawreport.com/
We did get Joel back after 5 and a half terribly long days. There is a picture of me holding Joel with a few of my other children.
Again, please write to someone in post 11. My lawyer’s site will probably have additional addresses to write to eventually.
So you’re okay with this?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Bureaucrats be damned...
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.
By the way, what a beautiful picture of you and your baby at your lawyer’s blogsite. God bless you and your family.
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.