Mother has newborn baby taken by CPS for eating a bagel

[Anti Federalist]

I want the "Baby Cheyenne" CPS defenders in this thread.

Let's hear your excuses for this.


Newborn child taken away because of a bagel
Friday, October 15, 2010

New Castle, PENN. (WABC) -- This is a story that will likely outrage many moms. Liz Mort gave birth to a beautiful baby girl, but the next day, police and child protective services in Pennsylvania came to her home and took the infant from her - all because of a bagel.

Liz Mort says she never saw it coming.

"I was shocked. I was at a loss for words. I just started crying," she said.

Child protective services in Pennsylvania were at her doorstep, taking her 1-day-old baby because they thought Liz was abusing drugs.

"Someone was saying that 'Oh, we're CYS and we found something in your system,' and at that time I never even heard of it before. It means that we have to take custody of your child," Mort said.

Jameson Hospital in New Castle, Pennsylvania, tests mothers of newborns for drugs. State law allows it, but what the hospital did not consider more closely was poppy seeds.

"Opium comes from the poppy plant. Ingesting poppy seeds can cause levels of morphine and codeine in a person's urine," Dr. Neil Capretto explained.

On the day Liz gave birth, she says she ate an Everything bagel from Dunkin' Donuts - a bagel with lots of poppy seeds. Now, the local ACLU is taking on the case.

The hospital issued a statement saying: "We have initiated an investigation to compare our standards to other community and regional hospitals. And if necessary, we will advise our reference lab to critique their standards for consistency."

But Liz isn't sure yet it that will be enough.

"I understand that they were doing what they had to do to protect children, but they should have investigated it more. Like I have to drive by that place every day when I go to work, and I just cry every time," said Liz.

So far, no lawsuit has been filed. The ACLU says it is trying to figure out the next step. Liz did get her baby back, but it took 5 days for the hospital and child protective services to determine she was a fit mother.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=7727304

[GreenCardSeeker]

Sounds like the American CPS has learned from the Swedish one. Sweden has been taking babies at maternity hospitals for decades, it was covered by German magazine Der Spiegel back in 1983: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14019042.html , you can run it through Google translate if you don't know German. If you want to know more about what's in your future, read my book, I spend lots of time on the topic of the government as parent.

I'm glad the US justice system offers much better protection for the victims than the Swedish one does though. It would be completely unheard of for Swedish authorities to admit their mistakes, and just about completely impossible to sue the government here if it did that to you.

[Dr.3D]

What ever happened to patient confidentiality?
They should not be allowed to divulge the results of any test taken on the blood of a patient, especially if the test was not authorized by the patient.

[Anti Federalist]

What ever happened to patient confidentiality?
They should not be allowed to divulge the results of any test taken on the blood of a patient, especially if the test was not authorized by the patient.

There is no such thing.

Especially when the state is concerned.

[Dr.3D]

There is no such thing.

Especially when the state is concerned.

The hospital should be sued.

[acptulsa]

That's just not kosher.


Sounds like the American CPS has learned from the Swedish one. Sweden has been taking babies at maternity hospitals for decades, it was covered by German magazine Der Spiegel back in 1983: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14019042.html , you can run it through Google translate if you don't know German. If you want to know more about what's in your future, read my book, I spend lots of time on the topic of the government as parent.

I'm glad the US justice system offers much better protection for the victims than the Swedish one does though. It would be completely unheard of for Swedish authorities to admit their mistakes, and just about completely impossible to sue the government here if it did that to you.

Ever read A Brave New World? Didn't you know the most dangerous of all humans are parents?

[fedup100]

It is far past time to quit using "their" hospitals for birthing babies, mid wives must be sought, this is just out of hand. The hospitals are now a new form of IRS.

[GreenCardSeeker]

That's just not kosher.



Ever read A Brave New World? Didn't you know the most dangerous of all humans are parents?

I've read it.. And experienced it in real life in the form of today's Sweden. :(

[specsaregood]

I want the "Baby Cheyenne" CPS defenders in this thread.

Let's hear your excuses for this.


While I don't consider myself a "cps defender", is it your position that if a mother is a drug addict hooked on heroin/opium and gives birth to a baby addicted to those drugs....that the govt should have no role whatsoever?

[acptulsa]

While I don't consider myself a "cps defender", is it your position that if a mother is a drug addict hooked on heroin/opium and gives birth to a baby addicted to those drugs....that the govt should have no role whatsoever?

Better than stealing (at the height of the bonding period) the children of innocent victims. There's certainly no hint of justice in that.

[specsaregood]

Better than stealing (at the height of the bonding period) the children of innocent victims. There's certainly no hint of justice in that.

So your answer is NO? There is no role for government, when a mother gives birth to a drug-addicted baby?
And does your answer stand if the mother was breast feeding while partaking in heroin?

[pcosmar]

While I don't consider myself a "cps defender", is it your position that if a mother is a drug addict hooked on heroin/opium and gives birth to a baby addicted to those drugs....that the govt should have no role whatsoever?

She ate a damn bagel. Take the stupid shit elsewhere.

[pcosmar]

So your answer is NO? There is no role for government, when a mother gives birth to a drug-addicted baby?
And does your answer stand if the mother was breast feeding while partaking in heroin?

No it is none of anyone's business.
Please that the butinski, control freak shit elsewhere.

[Anti Federalist]

While I don't consider myself a "cps defender", is it your position that if a mother is a drug addict hooked on heroin/opium and gives birth to a baby addicted to those drugs....that the govt should have no role whatsoever?

So you determine that fact by a Fourth Amendment breaching drug test?

By whose authority is that done?

Why limit it to just the hospital?

Why not make it a monthly mandatory requirement for all parents?

For that matter, child abuse is not caused by drug abuse alone.

How about what they are doing in the UK, police cameras in your home, keeping you under 24/7 surveillance. Maybe that's the answer?

After all, it's for the children.

And all of this is predicated on a false assumption, i.e. that the state really gives a shit about anybody's kids.

To answer your question, no.

Two minutes before the birth, the government says you could kill that child.

In the Bizarro World we live in now, I'm willing to say that alone indicates, as another poster put it, the "clown shoe crazy" system we are operating under, all brought about by the fact that the state considers you and your offspring, it's property.

I'd be willing to fund any number of charitable organizations, churches or relief groups that would assist in a situation such that you described.

But no, I'm not going to say the state has a role to play.

[acptulsa]

So your answer is NO? There is no role for government, when a mother gives birth to a drug-addicted baby?
And does your answer stand if the mother was breast feeding while partaking in heroin?

I didn't say the answer was strictly no. I'm just saying there must be a better way.

Would you rather have a legally blind idiot with a shotgun kill the pesky fly in your house or would you rather live with the fly? These people kidnap newborns from their hysterical, still-hormonal mothers on the basis of freaking tests that can't tell codeine from a bagel poppyseed. This in the very faces of the Founding Fathers who felt anyone should have the right to face their accusers, and be considered innocent until proven guilty. You don't consider this forced seperation to be worse than imprisonment for a still-hormonal brand new mother? You feel that injustice to the innocent in the name of preventing injustice to the innocent to be a particularly good idea?

If this is the best government we can manage, then I say yes, government should have no role if all it can do is be incompetent. After all, if all it can do is be incompetent, they aren't going to help any babies anyway. Let the community have a chance--if the community tries to intervene today (as it used to do) people wind up in jail and charged with things.

Your argument is the one that got us in this mess, and while I really don't completely disagree with it, the fact is that government is so damned incompetent that we really do need to scrap it all and see if we can rebuild what we -really need of it from scratch. Because what we're getting from it now is neither what we need nor what we want, and in a Republic I see no excuse for that.

[specsaregood]

No it is none of anyone's business.
Please that the butinski, control freak shit elsewhere.

Some of you have a total inability to discuss these issues reasonably. I didn't argue for either point of view. I only asked for clarification. You have offered your view.

Obviously this woman should not have had her baby removed. Assuming, that society is not going to allow completely eliminating CPS in the short-term. What safeguards could be put in place to prevent someone like her from going through the experience again?

[Monarchist]

I thought the "eat poppy seeds = positive drug test results" thing was a myth.

[specsaregood]

So you determine that fact by a Fourth Amendment breaching drug test?

By whose authority is that done?


That is a damn good point. I believe that taking the blood from newborns to test for genectic disorders is mandated by law in most states. Is running a tox-screen for drugs part of that law? Did the parents give them permission or did they do it without permission? I would be less than surprised if the parents had signed away permission to run that drug test at some point during their stay at the hospital.

[Anti Federalist]

While I don't consider myself a "cps defender", is it your position that if a mother is a drug addict hooked on heroin/opium and gives birth to a baby addicted to those drugs....that the govt should have no role whatsoever?

Oh, and another thing, that Dr. 3D brought up.

Where is that "confidentiality" that you were hammering me on in the other thread?

Of course, only us mundanes cannot have access to information.

The State/God must know all, however.

[Natalie]

I thought the "eat poppy seeds = positive drug test results" thing was a myth.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

[specsaregood]

Where is that "confidentiality" that you were hammering me on in the other thread?
Of course, only us mundanes cannot have access to information.
The State/God must know all, however.

Another excellent point AF. How come the hospital has the right to release that info to the govt?

[acptulsa]

The State/God must know all, however.

Privacy is un-American. I'm going to report you to McCarthy and Nixon.

Oh, and Liberty is just a slogan for the coins. Remember that.


Another excellent point AF. How come the hospital has the right to release that info to the govt?

Unfortunately, the government seems to think it has no right to withhold information. See AF's comment above.

[Monarchist]

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

No more lemon and poppy seed pound cake for me.

[Danke]

I want the "Baby Cheyenne" CPS defenders in this thread.

Let's hear your excuses for this.


Wow, that didn't take long.

[Anti Federalist]

Obviously this woman should not have had her baby removed. Assuming, that society is not going to allow completely eliminating CPS in the short-term. What safeguards could be put in place to prevent someone like her from going through the experience again?

My thought would be that burden of proof must always lie with the state.

Depending on the state, my understanding is that many CPS outfits operate like IRS, that the burden of proof lies with the parents.

[Anti Federalist]

That is a damn good point. I believe that taking the blood from newborns to test for genectic disorders is mandated by law in most states. Is running a tox-screen for drugs part of that law? Did the parents give them permission or did they do it without permission? I would be less than surprised if the parents had signed away permission to run that drug test at some point during their stay at the hospital.

It's my understanding from the article that it was the mother who was drug screened, not the child.

I'd be lying if I told you I had any idea what PA state law is on that matter.

[specsaregood]

It's my understanding from the article that it was the mother who was drug screened, not the child.

I'd be lying if I told you I had any idea what PA state law is on that matter.

Ok, well leaving the confidentiality part aside. I would think a blood/tox screen would standard for a hospital stay. Since if the mother gets any hospital-approved drugs, they would want to make sure she didn't have any drugs in her blood that would conflict with those and cause an averse reaction. Which leads me to the belief that she signed away permission for them to do so. She might very well have signed away permission for them to report the findings to the govt at the same time, yes?

[specsaregood]

Oh lookie there, already getting neg reps and called names just because I took the unpopular side of the debate and asked reasonable questions.

I guess some would rather live in an echo chamber. If you can't defend you positions here on friendly ground then you have no hope of defending with the majority of society.

[Anti Federalist]

Ok, well leaving the confidentiality part aside. I would think a blood/tox screen would standard for a hospital stay. Since if the mother gets any hospital-approved drugs, they would want to make sure she didn't have any drugs in her blood that would conflict with those and cause an averse reaction. Which leads me to the belief that she signed away permission for them to do so. She might very well have signed away permission for them to report the findings to the govt at the same time, yes?

Very possible.

So a another warning, similar to "don't talk to the cops".

"Don't sign shit unless you know what you are signing".

[specsaregood]

Very possible.
So a another warning, similar to "don't talk to the cops".
"Don't sign shit unless you know what you are signing".

Exactly what I was getting at. You have no cause to complain if you voluntarily sign away your rights.

[Romulus]

It's my understanding from the article that it was the mother who was drug screened, not the child.

Thats right, they drug tested the mother - was that done to her consent? This is outrageous. And she had to take a drug test to get the baby back, after 5 days! Imagine having a newborn taken from away for 5 days?

Awhile back I was on here arguing in favor of local laws that would ban smoking with a child in the car. I am ashamed and have 100% changed my opinion. In no way should the state be allowed into a families life. Ever.

[Melissa]

And yes you do sign something in the hospital when I had my last child almost 2 years ago they gave me a form to sign. I dont remember the exact wording but something to the effect that they can test my baby for anything including drugs if I sign it. I asked the lady can i cross out the parts i dont agree with and she looked shocked like no one had ever asked that.

She then told me no you have to take it all or not sign... well I did not sign she got mad and walked away saying it was in my hands. I even tried to explain to her if they want to test my daughter for something they can gladly walk in my room and I would say yes or no.. she did not like that at all but again I did not sign and my daughter is fine without all thier tests

[Dr.3D]

Another excellent point AF. How come the hospital has the right to release that info to the govt?

From what I was told at my physicians office, your entire medical record now goes into a computer and the government has access to that record. Guess it has something to do with the new Obamacare crap.

[pcosmar]

Some of you have a total inability to discuss these issues reasonably. I didn't argue for either point of view. I only asked for clarification. You have offered your view.

Obviously this woman should not have had her baby removed. Assuming, that society is not going to allow completely eliminating CPS in the short-term. What safeguards could be put in place to prevent someone like her from going through the experience again?

I have seen too much to be polite on this subject. There is not a state in this country that CPS (or other initials) is not completely out of control.
It needs to be abolished., and in the mean time circumvented.

What safeguards?? I would suggest an armed escort for mother and children. At all times.

:mad:

[Dr.3D]

And yes you do sign something in the hospital when I had my last child almost 2 years ago they gave me a form to sign. I dont remember the exact wording but something to the effect that they can test my baby for anything including drugs if I sign it. I asked the lady can i cross out the parts i dont agree with and she looked shocked like no one had ever asked that.

She then told me no you have to take it all or not sign... well I did not sign she got mad and walked away saying it was in my hands. I even tried to explain to her if they want to test my daughter for something they can gladly walk in my room and I would say yes or no.. she did not like that at all but again I did not sign and my daughter is fine without all thier tests

Good for you. A person should never have to sign their rights away.

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly what I was getting at. You have no cause to complain if you voluntarily sign away your rights.

Whoa, wait now, I didn't exactly say that.

The woman is in labor, she gets dumped a 30 page file of "fine print" and legal mumbo jumbo, is told "they're just standard forms, sign them and we'll get you into delivery".

Not everybody carries a lawyer in their pocket.

I know that's not really an excuse, but it is the reality.

[specsaregood]

Whoa, wait now, I didn't exactly say that.

The woman is in labor, she gets dumped a 30 page file of "fine print" and legal mumbo jumbo, is told "they're just standard forms, sign them and we'll get you into delivery".

Not everybody carries a lawyer in their pocket.

I know that's not really an excuse, but it is the reality.

How is it any different than if you talk to the cops and confess without benefit of a lawyer --having been told of your right to a lawyer already? Should those confessions be thrown out?

As to your example, if a woman is labor or distress at the hospital I think one could argue they don't have the ability to sign there rights away anyways in such a situation. Since they aren't in sound mind/body, blah, blah.

[jclay2]

Whoa, wait now, I didn't exactly say that.

The woman is in labor, she gets dumped a 30 page file of "fine print" and legal mumbo jumbo, is told "they're just standard forms, sign them and we'll get you into delivery".

Not everybody carries a lawyer in their pocket.

I know that's not really an excuse, but it is the reality.

AF: No matter what you say they will still sit there stating that the CPS/state is there to protect the innocent and those who can't fend for themselves. They can't understand that the tiny percent of good provided by the system is minimal in comparison to the outright tyranny that is just rampant and plainly spelling out P O L I C E S T A T E.

[specsaregood]

It needs to be abolished., and in the mean time circumvented.

What safeguards?? I would suggest an armed escort for mother and children. At all times.

Fair enough. So those aware of the problem should circumvent it. And let the free market decide? The more evil CPS and the hospitals' enabling behavior gets, the more people will opt out of their system, yes?

Could one argue that the downside of their overreach and evil behavior be unintended consequences? That those that need help or are abusers would be more likely to opt out as well? Meaning that the people that still go to the hospital and get harassed by CPS become even more likely to be innocent victims that didn't try to opt out because they thought they had nothing to fear?

[tangent4ronpaul]

What ever happened to patient confidentiality?
They should not be allowed to divulge the results of any test taken on the blood of a patient, especially if the test was not authorized by the patient.

Haven't you heard of Obama's health care bill? - your medical records are not the property of the state and will be data mined by law enforcement - all for your best interests, of course. :rolleyes:

-t

[coastie]

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

Ummm, I still call bullshit, something's not right here. I have a crazy, borderline psychotic addiction to poppy seed muffins. I literally eat at least two in the morning, every day. Did this while I was active duty as well, for many years, and NEVER failed any drug test, nor have I ever heard of this happening, and I was a CDAR( Command Drug/Alchohol Rep) for several units, coordinating the tests.

Hell, before I started school full time I had a part time job and passed that test, and had a poppy seed bagel on the way to the lab that morning:confused::confused::confused:

[pcosmar]

Could one argue that the downside of their overreach and evil behavior be unintended consequences?

You must find it particularly amazing how this country grew to 50 states without CPS.
And that humans have survived all these thousands of years without the state interference.

:confused:

[specsaregood]

You must find it particularly amazing how this country grew to 50 states without CPS.
And that humans have survived all these thousands of years without the state interference.

:confused:

You must be confused, because my post was actually trying to help work out another argument for abolishing it.

In short: the more abusive CPS becomes, the more likely those people that CPS was created to "catch" will opt out.

[Dr.3D]

Haven't you heard of Obama's health care bill? - your medical records are not the property of the state and will be data mined by law enforcement - all for your best interests, of course. :rolleyes:

-t

What should be and is are two different things. :(

[pcosmar]

You must be confused, because my post was actually trying to help work out another argument for abolishing it.

In short: the more abusive CPS becomes, the more likely those people that CPS was created to "catch" will opt out.

No Not confused at all. The confusion comes from people thinking the the sales pitch is the real agenda.
CPS is not about helping children or families. It is about destroying them.
The sales pitch is a lie.
:mad:

[specsaregood]

No Not confused at all. The confusion comes from people thinking the the sales pitch is the real agenda.
CPS is not about helping children or families. It is about destroying them.
The sales pitch is a lie.
:mad:

pcos, I'm inclined to agree. But society has bought that sales pitch and I don't think that everyboy involved is evil, some might truly think they are doing good. I was but offering yet another argument against it.

[pcosmar]

pcos, I'm inclined to agree. But society has bought that sales pitch and I don't think that everyboy involved is evil, some might truly think they are doing good. I was but offering yet another argument against it.

Society has bought several sales pitches. That is why we are in the state we are in.
Most bought the war in Iraq. They will buy the One World Currency when the Dollar crashes. And eventually a One World Government. They will buy that those that resist it are terrorists.

Society likes nice lies.
I'm not civilized. I'm house broke. That's as good as it gets.
;)

[MelissaWV]

Ummm, I still call bullshit, something's not right here. I have a crazy, borderline psychotic addiction to poppy seed muffins. I literally eat at least two in the morning, every day. Did this while I was active duty as well, for many years, and NEVER failed any drug test, nor have I ever heard of this happening, and I was a CDAR( Command Drug/Alchohol Rep) for several units, coordinating the tests.

Hell, before I started school full time I had a part time job and passed that test, and had a poppy seed bagel on the way to the lab that morning:confused::confused::confused:

Like any other foreign chemical trace, the way levels remain in the blood/urine vary. My dad had been told the poppyseed thing for years in relation to work, and beyond that he was not allowed to take OTC medication or anything that could even remotely show up as alcohol in the event a blood/urine/hair test was necessary. If you passed all the tests, you might have tested below the threshhold or you might metabolize things differently. This is a new mom who likely had other drugs/chemicals in her system, not to mention a hormone cocktail that would make a hippo tipsy. :p


Whoa, wait now, I didn't exactly say that.

The woman is in labor, she gets dumped a 30 page file of "fine print" and legal mumbo jumbo, is told "they're just standard forms, sign them and we'll get you into delivery".

Not everybody carries a lawyer in their pocket.

I know that's not really an excuse, but it is the reality.


How is it any different than if you talk to the cops and confess without benefit of a lawyer --having been told of your right to a lawyer already? Should those confessions be thrown out?

As to your example, if a woman is labor or distress at the hospital I think one could argue they don't have the ability to sign there rights away anyways in such a situation. Since they aren't in sound mind/body, blah, blah.

These two posts have something in common.

The phrase "if you have nothing to hide, why not sign it?" comes to mind. The reason I thought of that is that a mom could very easily think along those lines, knowing she's not on drugs, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink; absolutely healthy lifestyle! She might even be a vegan! Then, *poof* the fact that she had a bagel (something that many people think will NOT show a positive on a drug test) becomes crucial to getting her baby back.

In order for this to equate with a post-Miranda confession, you'd have to have the form indicate in plain English that poppyseeds may produce false positives. Even then, with the stack of paperwork that one signs for even the most routine hospital visits, it could be argued that it was not made clear enough. This is why so many businesses have "important information" flyers. Labor is often a slow process. There's usually some time to read, if you can focus on the letters.

What the hospital could have done, and really should have done, is put a rush on a secondary test and allowed the mother contact with the baby. I'm sure the Dunkin Donuts bag was still hanging around. The "positive" cannot possibly have been that darned high of one. If the hospital was concerned at the "levels" then there should have been a prohibition on breastfeeding until it was sorted out and the levels came down, but that's a decision for a doctor... not CPS.

[Mini-Me]

Some of you have a total inability to discuss these issues reasonably. I didn't argue for either point of view. I only asked for clarification. You have offered your view.

Obviously this woman should not have had her baby removed. Assuming, that society is not going to allow completely eliminating CPS in the short-term. What safeguards could be put in place to prevent someone like her from going through the experience again?

The problem is a fundamental lack of accountability that is endemic to the system, so no small band-aids would really prevent a recurrence.

For what it's worth, here's a copy of another post I made in response to Kludge in the first Cheyenne thread:

The problem is that there is no accountability for misbehaving CPS kidnappers, judges, prosecutors, etc. As a rule, abducting children without due process cannot be allowed. Under especially extreme circumstances, perhaps we can allow a judge to issue a warrant/court order to preemptively secure the children...but by doing so, they should be putting their own asses on the line, and there should be serious consequences if they're wrong. A trial for the parents must follow shortly thereafter, much like with habeas corpus...and the interested parties (kidnappers, judge who signed warrant, etc.) should have no influence over the proceedings. If the parents are exonerated by reasonable doubt, that means the warrant was wholly unjustified and on shaky grounds (because it should only be used in extreme and obvious smoking-gun situations). At that point, the abductors and judge must be held FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for their actions, like anyone else would be. No, "Oops, we were wrong. Sorry we ruined your lives," shit. Their sentence should be no different from any other child abductor's. Basically, there are exceptions to every rule, but when you break a rule, you'd better have a damn good reason, or else.

Just to throw in a few more reforms:
Eliminate bar requirements or other legal requirements to become a practicing lawyer. Short term, all hell breaks loose with crappy lawyers. Long term, the market stabilizes.
If you bring forth frivolous/unsubstantiated lawsuits as a plaintiff: You should have to pay for all legal costs on both sides, plus compensation for wages, etc. This doesn't happen enough, which is why there are too many frivolous lawsuits.
Anyone should be able to bring forth criminal charges, not just government-appointed prosecutors. If you bring forth frivolous/unsubstantiated criminal charges: You should have to personally pay the same costs as above (unless the DA office pays for you, but taxpayers should have a say...that is, unless we go full-out voluntaryist). On top of that, prosecutors (etc.) should seriously start being held criminally accountable for misconduct of all sorts...which would happen if anyone could bring charges against them in response to corruption/misconduct/etc. in another trial.

Just as two side notes:
When I say "due process," I mean a full criminal trial. Depriving you of your children is at LEAST as serious as putting you in prison.
When I say anyone should be able to bring charges, I am not saying we should do away with grand juries (which serve as filters for frivolous charges with zero evidence).

Until we institute basic, fundamental reforms like this and/or get rid of CPS entirely, we will continue to hear these stories.

[Anti Federalist]

Awhile back I was on here arguing in favor of local laws that would ban smoking with a child in the car. I am ashamed and have 100% changed my opinion. In no way should the state be allowed into a families life. Ever.

Almost missed that.

+rep

[Romulus]

Almost missed that.

+rep

Thanks. I realized this after what happened to baby Cheyenne. In no way could I ever support a law that would interfere with the parent child relationship. With such a law in place its just carte blanche to feed a corrupt system.

This latest case just confirms it. She had a f'ing bagel and lost her baby for 5 days!

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks. I realized this after what happened to baby Cheyenne. In no way could I ever support a law that would interfere with the parent child relationship. With such a law in place its just carte blanche to feed a corrupt system.

This latest case just confirms it. She had a f'ing bagel and lost her baby for 5 days!

Exactly.

And it's tough to put aside the natural response to try and protect an innocent child.

But more state involvement in the family is a "cure" that kills.

[specsaregood]

Just as two side notes:
When I say "due process," I mean a full criminal trial. Depriving you of your children is at LEAST as serious as putting you in prison.
When I say anyone should be able to bring charges, I am not saying we should do away with grand juries (which serve as filters for frivolous charges with zero evidence).

Until we institute basic, fundamental reforms like this and/or get rid of CPS entirely, we will continue to hear these stories.

I'm pretty sure I agree with your post completely.

[specsaregood]

Exactly.
And it's tough to put aside the natural response to try and protect an innocent child.
But more state involvement in the family is a "cure" that kills.

Which is why it is necessary to come up with sales pitches that can work on educating society and suggest fundamental reforms such as what mini-me suggested above. Just wholesale saying, CPS is evil, you are a fascist for daring defend the idea won't get us anywhere. I still think I might be onto something with the unintended consequences where abusive families will avoid interactions with officials, and the innocents won't which leads to innocents being more likely to get caught in the trap.

[Anti Federalist]

Which is why it is necessary to come up with sales pitches that can work on educating society and suggest fundamental reforms such as what mini-me suggested above. Just wholesale saying, CPS is evil, you are a fascist for daring defend the idea won't get us anywhere. I still think I might be onto something with the unintended consequences where abusive families will avoid interactions with officials, and the innocents won't which leads to innocents being more likely to get caught in the trap.

And the "guilty" less likely to be caught and the children cared for.

I understand your point, my approach with "straights" is not what it normally is with people that either A) understand already (this forum) or B) I don't give a fuck what they think of me.

[specsaregood]

And the "guilty" less likely to be caught and the children cared for.

Exactly. To which the statists would argue that the solution is to require every birth to go through official channels (hospitals). Which is why just avoiding them isn't necessarily the best solution.

[silentshout]

CPS is a very corrupt agency that needs to be fixed. For every BS case like this that they look into, a true case of abuse or horrific neglect gets passed over. Then the kids get thrown into some foster home and drugged up. I can't stand that gestapo agency!

[silentshout]

So your answer is NO? There is no role for government, when a mother gives birth to a drug-addicted baby?
And does your answer stand if the mother was breast feeding while partaking in heroin?

Well, yes, that is very sick, but you do know that women are told to breast feed while taking very addictive drugs like Klonopin, Xanax, and so on, all the time. Many of my friends are on these and breastfeeding, but of course would scream for CPS to take a baby away if the mom was smoking a joint for her mental issues. (I know you didn't mention cannabis, but some people see that as bad as heroin.)

[specsaregood]

Then the kids get thrown into some foster home and drugged up.

There are many good foster homes, let's not make the mistake of blaming the problem on them.

[silentshout]

There are many good foster homes, let's not make the mistake of blaming the problem on them.

Yes, but there are just as many of them that are in no way good for the children involved.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I do not like government involved in families but I advocate voluntaryism. I advocate consent should not be based on age. Since I know many of you are for some government then you need to clear up the hypocrisy. Bitching about child services is not going to bring about change. If all Ron Paul ever did was bitch about federal reserve notes it would accomplish nothing. Instead Ron Paul offers a solution, legalize competing currency. Minarchists who advocate for the state should start proposing solutions to how the state should intervene in cases of child rape, etc. instead of just bitching about child services. Whether you all want to admit it or not as soon as an open an shut case of child abuse comes around you all are going to be cheerleaders for government taking away the kids.

[Mini-Me]

CPS is a very corrupt agency that needs to be fixed. For every BS case like this that they look into, a true case of abuse or horrific neglect gets passed over. Then the kids get thrown into some foster home and drugged up. I can't stand that gestapo agency!

You know, this is a good point, and a thought just crossed my mind: At least in some areas, does CPS deliberately avoid taking action in many cases of truly horrific neglect and abuse? It might sound ridiculous outside of this forum, but it's technically in their interests: It ensures that the shocking headlines about child abuse continue, along with the demand for more CPS powers and funding (because this is the predictable response when government programs fail).

[GreenCardSeeker]

You know, this is a good point, and a thought just crossed my mind: At least in some areas, does CPS deliberately avoid taking action in many cases of truly horrific neglect and abuse? It might sound ridiculous outside of this forum, but it's technically in their interests: It ensures that the shocking headlines about child abuse continue, along with the demand for more CPS powers and funding (because this is the predictable response when government programs fail).

I share this view too. These agencies have been able to grant themselves ever more jurisdiction, but in spite of this, they still neglect to intervene in clearly necessary cases. Over here in Sweden, there have been cases where children have even contacted the authorities from living in squalor with junkies as parents, but where the government still hasn't intervened.

The government is allocated resources depending on how large perceived problems there are in society. If they use these resources on the ones that need them the most, they will get the same amount next year since it's obvious that the resources are enough. If on the other hand they intentionally go after children that aren't in danger, they benefit in two ways. Not only will the budget appear too small due to the children that weren't saved - they will also be able to damage the formerly safe children by taking them into state custody, who will become future dependents.

There's no evil like big government evil.

[devil21]

Let's get down the nitty-gritty on this stuff.

It's all to justify jobs and bigger budgets required under ever-expanding government at all levels. Remember, expansion of anything and everything is a requirement of the Keynesian fiat money system. How else can all of these government tit-suckers justify their larger and larger budgets if they aren't getting more and more intrusive on our lives and "acting" on the smallest of issues like a poppy-seed induced drug test "failure"? It's just one more thing they chest beat about to justify their payrolls and budgets. They'll say "We removed a child from a drug user's home!"
The agency reports and subsequent budget committee hearings don't care about this woman or her child, or the truth, for that matter. They care about the $$$$ generated.

Remember kiddies, it's always about the money. Always.


You know, this is a good point, and a thought just crossed my mind: At least in some areas, does CPS deliberately avoid taking action in many cases of truly horrific neglect and abuse? It might sound ridiculous outside of this forum, but it's technically in their interests: It ensures that the shocking headlines about child abuse continue, along with the demand for more CPS powers and funding (because this is the predictable response when government programs fail).

Good question and I've noticed this trend myself. Recently in my area of NC there's a handicapped child that disappeared and allegations of repeated abuse have surfaced. These allegations were made to CPS multiple times to no avail and the child has most likely ended up dead. I agree that CPS does enjoy their headlines (again, justify their existence while claiming they need more money) but I also think that most CPS workers really don't want to be involved with the truly horrific abuse cases where they see the worst sides of humanity. It's easier to snatch up someone's baby from the hospital for eating a poppy seed bagel than involve themselves in a real mess of an abuse case. It's kinda like how cops usually prefer to bust a marijuana grow over a meth lab. The meth lab is much more dangerous than a couple stoners growing a plant.

Article on CPS failures in child disappearance case mentioned above:
http://www.wcnc.com/home/Case-of-missing-Zahra-Baker-highlights-DSS-issues-105148474.html


Brett Loftis, who heads Charlotte's Council for Children's Rights, said children lack a strong constituency in politics.

Caseworkers simply do not have enough resources, Loftis said. "We are in the Stone Age as far as children go."

Money quote^^^^ "We really would have been able to do something if we just had MORE MONEY!"

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Remember kiddies, it's always about the money. Always.

Now we are getting somewhere. It's always about the money and if you are using a debt based fiat currency, in the grand scheme, it is always about the expansion of money.

I support any motion to curb CPS by repealing legal tender law and bringing about the beginning of the end for expanding government via the federal reserve.

So as soon as these biatches get elected lets start a focused citizen campaign to repeal legal tender law & end the war or your azz will go home next election.

[Danke]

YouTube - The Child Documentary Promo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6Eod0j8Q4&feature=player_embedded#)!

[HOLLYWOOD]

HR20-New Mother's Mandated Mental Health Test-JUST PASSED HOUSE

Submitted by runforron (http://www.dailypaul.com/user/16461) on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 08:43

[/URL]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-324 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-324)

[URL]http://www.dailypaul.com/node/89675

A sweeping government policy for all new births in the United States has just passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate. The Mother's Act, if passed, will mandate that all new mothers be screened by means of a list of subjective questions that will determine if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home from the hospital.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/6/gr030603.html

State Responses to Substance Abuse Among Pregnant Women
By Cynthia Dailard and Elizabeth Nash
With the U.S. Supreme Court considering a high-profile case involving the prosecution of pregnant substance abusers, policymakers and advocates once again are confronted with the decade-old question of how best to deal with pregnant women who use drugs. State laws now vary considerably in their approach to the problem, reflecting a deep division in public opinion. For many lawmakers, the issue comes down to the difficult task of balancing a woman's right to bodily integrity with society's interest in ensuring healthy pregnancies, and the question of whether punitive approaches will foster—or hinder—healthy outcomes for women and children.
On October 4, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ferguson v. City of Charleston, a case brought by 10 women who were secretly tested for cocaine use while seeking routine prenatal care at a South Carolina public hospital. Women who tested positive were reported to local prosecutors and then arrested or threatened with arrest for criminal child abuse. The Court is considering whether the practice of testing pregnant women for drug use without either a warrant or consent and reporting them to law enforcement authorities violates their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches.
For many Americans, Ferguson is about much more than the technical application of Fourth Amendment protections; instead, it raises the question of how society can best deal with the agonizing problem of prenatal substance abuse—a problem that poses serious risks to both a pregnant woman and her fetus. This question has plagued state lawmakers since the late 1980s, and many remain at odds over how to approach the problem. Some states have attempted to criminalize prenatal drug use or treat it as grounds for terminating parental rights, while others have placed a priority on making drug treatment more readily available to pregnant women. But the issue—perhaps more than any other—vividly demonstrates the difficulty policymakers face in attempting to balance the autonomy and bodily integrity of pregnant women with society's interest in ensuring the birth of healthy children. For advocates of women's reproductive rights, it raises the question of whether the state can ever be justified in regulating a pregnant woman's behavior in the interest of protecting her fetus and whether such policies potentially undermine the legality of abortion ("Concerns Mount over Punitive Approaches to Substance Abuse Among Pregnant Women," (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/gr010503.html) TGR, October 1998, page 3).
State Activity

[teacherone]

^^^^ you must be fucking kidding me...

what's the roll call on that one?

[Romulus]

^ that deserves its own thread.

[libertarian4321]

I want the "Baby Cheyenne" CPS defenders in this thread.

Let's hear your excuses for this.




Did it ever occur to you that people who questioned the "baby was taken because the father was an Oath Keeper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" hysteria might not be "CPS defenders," but rather people who question hysterical bull shit being hyped as truth?

[osan]

Liz did get her baby back, but it took 5 days for the hospital and child protective services to determine she was a fit mother.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=7727304 (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=7727304)

Who the hell died and left these fuckers as the arbiters of who is fit?

These people need to be shot. That aside, I hope the ACLU sue the bejeezus out of everyone involved.

One can only wonder how far all this will go before people start to push back in ways that will really get "their" attention. IMO, people better start getting religion on the virtues of community before it is too late. When 10 armed cops show up, 40 armed neighbors should, too. It keeps everyone polite - something about which cops generally do not know enough.

[osan]

Ummm, I still call bullshit, something's not right here. I have a crazy, borderline psychotic addiction to poppy seed muffins. I literally eat at least two in the morning, every day. Did this while I was active duty as well, for many years, and NEVER failed any drug test, nor have I ever heard of this happening, and I was a CDAR( Command Drug/Alchohol Rep) for several units, coordinating the tests.

Hell, before I started school full time I had a part time job and passed that test, and had a poppy seed bagel on the way to the lab that morning:confused::confused::confused:

Perhaps the interpretive standards or procedural protocols under which you operated took this into account. I know of quite a few people who have been flagged for exactly this reason.

[Kylie]

So your answer is NO? There is no role for government, when a mother gives birth to a drug-addicted baby?
And does your answer stand if the mother was breast feeding while partaking in heroin?



One day after giving birth to my son, I had surgery to tie my tubes. Because of that surgery, they would not allow me to go upstairs to nurse my child until I could move my toes. In trying to get to that point, I pulled every muscle in my body from my chest down, because I didn't want him going hungry, and I didn't want to be away from him for one more second.

They doped me up on morphine and percocets for the next month. And he got every single bit of it too, because I kept nursing him. They told me I could do it.

Now are you telling me that I should have had him taken away from me because I chose to hurt myself trying to get back to my child?

THE STATE HAS NO BUSINESS IN YOUR FAMILY, UNLESS YOU CAUSE HARM TO SAID FAMILY. That is when it is necessary for government intervention, when violence happens. Violence is a crime. Eating a fucking poppy bagel is not.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have had him in the house. He would be truly free, but I was an ignorant child myself(about the same age as Baby Cheyenne's mother) so I thought that the best place for us was at a hospital.

[Anti Federalist]

Did it ever occur to you that people who questioned the "baby was taken because the father was an Oath Keeper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" hysteria might not be "CPS defenders," but rather people who question hysterical bull shit being hyped as truth?

What hysterical bullshit?

Was Oathkeepers listed in a sworn affidavit, by a duly certified NH DCYF case worker, as a reason for the state to take custody of their newborn child or not?

ETA - So, to answer your question, no, it never occurred to me.

It very seldom occurs to me to give the "state" the benefit of doubt.

9 times out 10, I find out that, as bad as what I thought government was up to, the reality is often worse than I imagined it.

[MelissaCato]

Not to change the subject too much, but I think these CPS workers really just want to snatch children.

I had a serious horse accident that left me all messed up in the hospital for months Jan 3rd of 2000. I broke my spine, pelvis and sternum. Couldn't move anything from my arms to my legs.

I remember not even being in the hospital 12 hours and they came to me wanting me to sign over my child because I was a single parent who isn't leaving the hospital anytime soon.

Fortunately for me, my Doctors were in the room at the time the lady was there and halted all communications with me. I owe those moments to those doctors in all honesty, because I was in no shape to sign, think, act even debate what could have happened to my child.

My family took my son home and cared for him for those 9 months in the hospital. I never seen that CPS lady again.

So, I think the doctors and staff really have the final say in some of these matters.
JMO.

[specsaregood]

What hysterical bullshit?


the fact that when it first hit the wire it was being hyped as the "Sole reason" the child was taken. That wasn't even remotely true.

[Anti Federalist]

the fact that when it first hit the wire it was being hyped as the "Sole reason" the child was taken. That wasn't even remotely true.

I never said that nor made that point.

It was listed as item number 7, in a duly authorized affidavit, from a certified public "official", in a notarized court document declaring termination of parental rights and a seizure order.

[Kylie]

the fact that when it first hit the wire it was being hyped as the "Sole reason" the child was taken. That wasn't even remotely true.

While it seems to not have been the "sole" reason this child was taken, it sure does seem odd that once they were forced to remove it, the courts found that the child was to be returned to her parents.

Unless there is something I'm not seeing, that would lead me to believe that the oathkeepers were the reason for taking his child. Then again, since there is a gag order, I do not know for sure. I'm not fluent in legalese, so I'm just going on what I've seen.

[specsaregood]

I never said that nor made that point.


I understand that. My comment was only in regards to your comment below:




but rather people who question hysterical bull shit being hyped as truth?

What hysterical bullshit?

[Anti Federalist]

I understand that. My comment was only in regards to your comment below:

Yes, and mine was in regard to this:


Did it ever occur to you that people who questioned the "baby was taken because the father was an Oath Keeper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" hysteria

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the baby was seized in part, because of the father's "association" with OathKeepers.

That is not tolerable, under any circumstances, is a violation of state law, and should be resisted and protested, hysterically, loudly and passionately, with no quarter.

[libertarian4321]

Yes, and mine was in regard to this:

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the baby was seized in part, because of the father's "association" with OathKeepers.

That is not tolerable, under any circumstances, is a violation of state law, and should be resisted and protested, hysterically, loudly and passionately, with no quarter.

Look, if being an "Oath Keeper" was a primary reason the child was taken, there wouldn't be an "Oath Keeper" in the state of NH who didn't lose his kids.

Since this was the ONLY "Oath Keeper" to have his kid taken, it stands to reason that being an "Oath Keeper" wasn't the only, or even the primary reason the kid was taken- and that is the kind of stuff that was being hyped on the other thread.

CPS sometimes does stupid shit- and this new story sounds like one of those times. But I'm not going to grab my torch and pitch fork and run into the street screaming just because the words "Oath Keeper" may have appeared somewhere in the document when there were clearly other more significant reasons for the CPS action.

Calling "bull shit" on an overhyped post is NOT the same as bing a "CPS defender."

[Anti Federalist]

Look, if being an "Oath Keeper" was a primary reason the child was taken, there wouldn't be an "Oath Keeper" in the state of NH who didn't lose his kids.

Since this was the ONLY "Oath Keeper" to have his kid taken, it stands to reason that being an "Oath Keeper" wasn't the only, or even the primary reason the kid was taken- and that is the kind of stuff that was being hyped on the other thread.

CPS sometimes does stupid shit- and this new story sounds like one of those times. But I'm not going to grab my torch and pitch fork and run into the street screaming just because the words "Oath Keeper" may have appeared somewhere in the document when there were clearly other more significant reasons for the CPS action.

Calling "bull shit" on an overhyped post is NOT the same as bing a "CPS defender."

Somehow, I doubt that there is anything that would make you grab your torch and pitchfork, aside from, perhaps, being forced to go to church.

Rest assured my torch and pitchforks would be out in your defense.

So, mutter into your beard all you want and sit on your hands as you please, that's your choice and no skin off my nose.

Just don't go around insulting those of us who are passionate about this issue, because the fact remains:

KNOWN ASSOCIATION WITH OATHKEEPERS WAS LISTED AS A REASON FOR THE STATE TO SEIZE THIS CHILD.

That is not in dispute, and that cannot be allowed, ever, period.

I wouldn't give a rat's ass if it was mentioned as a minor footnote in Appendix B of the court documents.

[Anti Federalist]

YouTube - Stewart Rhodes Responds to Child Abduction (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPyIGVTM334&feature=player_embedded)

[pcosmar]

Look, if being an "Oath Keeper" was a primary reason the child was taken,

It was not the "Primary Reason", It was A reason given.

There are thousands of children taken, most for little or no reason. This was an opportunity to strike back because they used a Political Affiliation as a reason.

But instead of seizing the opportunity, every excuse under the sun was used as an excuse not to.
Just as this other woman had a child seized because of a legal food, and everyone wants to excuse it. Or justify it.
It is wrong. Just plain wrong.

:(

[Son of Detroit]

Now, I hope I don't get neg repped or flamed for this (I'm sure I will), but I want to ask something for those who wish to abolish CPS.

Say it wasn't a poppyseed bagel, and actually was heroin in the mother's system. Now the baby is endangered due to the presence of heroin in its own system.

How would the free market handle something like this? I'm asking this purely from a curiosity standpoint. I'm not arguing for the alternative since I'm not very educated on this matter, but rather asking what would be your solution to protect the life of the baby?

[libertarian4321]

Just don't go around insulting those of us who are passionate about this issue,

Those that are excessively passionate, who tend to go off half cocked, sometimes need others to temper that passion a bit.

We won't get far if we are perceived as wide-eyed zealots who instantaneously go berserk over every perceived offense.

I actually agree that the "oath keepers" remark was not appropriate, but it was not the sort of alarming incident that we were originally sold.

[pcosmar]

Now, I hope I don't get neg repped or flamed for this (I'm sure I will), but I want to ask something for those who wish to abolish CPS.

Say it wasn't a poppyseed bagel, and actually was heroin in the mother's system. Now the baby is endangered due to the presence of heroin in its own system.

How would the free market handle something like this? I'm asking this purely from a curiosity standpoint. I'm not arguing for the alternative since I'm not very educated on this matter, but rather asking what would be your solution to protect the life of the baby?

Is it anyone"s business?
Seriously What about parents feeding their kids Happy Meals?
Or owning a pool or a house near the water?

For many years Opium products were sold over the counter and were perfectly legal.
Several of them were for Childhood remedies. (Teething/toothache)
http://www.jokelibrary.net/yNonJokes/b_to_t/fac2-medication09.jpg
http://www.dizzy-dee.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/medication-from-100-years-ago-8.jpg

The population grew. The human race survives. And I don't see records of it being a huge problem. Not till the War on Drugs.
:(

[libertarian4321]

Say it wasn't a poppyseed bagel, and actually was heroin in the mother's system. Now the baby is endangered due to the presence of heroin in its own system.



We need more information. Did she get the poppyseed bagel at an Oath Keepers event? If so, she's going down :)


Denard Robinson For Heisman

Just a heads up, looks like you forgot to delete this 2 weeks ago...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Now, I hope I don't get neg repped or flamed for this (I'm sure I will), but I want to ask something for those who wish to abolish CPS.

Say it wasn't a poppyseed bagel, and actually was heroin in the mother's system. Now the baby is endangered due to the presence of heroin in its own system.

How would the free market handle something like this? I'm asking this purely from a curiosity standpoint. I'm not arguing for the alternative since I'm not very educated on this matter, but rather asking what would be your solution to protect the life of the baby?

Block published an article recently with several citations:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html

Considering some of the most vocal critics on this topic are not voluntaryist advocates and lean minarchist the proper question is how do minarchists advocate the state should do it. The voluntaryist solutions involve private courts and most minarchists aren't down with the concept of competing courts.

[Anti Federalist]

Did it ever occur to you that people who questioned the "baby was taken because the father was an Oath Keeper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" hysteria might not be "CPS defenders," but rather people who question hysterical bull shit being hyped as truth?

That ^^^


Those that are excessively passionate, who tend to go off half cocked, sometimes need others to temper that passion a bit.

Is not that. ^^^


I actually agree that the "oath keepers" remark was not appropriate, but it was not the sort of alarming incident that we were originally sold

It was not a "remark".

It was a sworn statement, taken as matter of established fact by the state, that, among other things, sent armed state enforcers into a hospital room and seized a newborn baby from her parents.

If that doesn't make you angry and impassioned, nothing will.

[pcosmar]

This one is Ky, but there are plenty more. It is every state.

YouTube - CPS Stalking, Orders 4 Babies, Forced Adoptions Confirmed by Investigation - 3/3 KY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S36rozABiZk)

It is wide spread. And it is getting worse.
:(

[Son of Detroit]

Is it anyone"s business?
Seriously What about parents feeding their kids Happy Meals?
Or owning a pool or a house near the water?


I'm one who believes the function of government is to protect our rights, such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't know if that makes me a "statist" or not, but if I am, so be it.

Come on man, if you can't see the difference between happy meals and a baby addicted to heroin...


Just a heads up, looks like you forgot to delete this 2 weeks ago...

I'm still trying to keep up hope. :( :D

[Anti Federalist]

Come on man, if you can't see the difference between happy meals and a baby addicted to heroin...

What's the difference in this context?

Some people think the state should involve itself in the lives of families with regard to what they feed their children.

And Pete's right.

Why did society not collapse when opium products were marketed, over the counter, in children's patent medicines.

Why were we more free then than we are now?

[pcosmar]

I'm one who believes the function of government is to protect our rights, such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't know if that makes me a "statist" or not, but if I am, so be it.

Come on man, if you can't see the difference between happy meals and a baby addicted to heroin...

:D

:confused:
This is better?

YouTube - Child Protective Services Destroys Kids & Here's PROOF.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNyA3v7U80)

:mad:

[phill4paul]

:confused:
This is better?

YouTube - Child Protective Services Destroys Kids & Here's PROOF.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNyA3v7U80)

:mad:

For those with time constraints or cognitive dissonance.

tldw; So what we have here is a government agency that will take away a newborn because the mother tested positive for poopyseeds while they are free to keep the kids sedated once they are in their care.

End DSS! For the children.

[Son of Detroit]

:confused:
This is better?

YouTube - Child Protective Services Destroys Kids & Here's PROOF.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNyA3v7U80)

:mad:

That is terrible. That result occurred because we have some idiots in there. What needs to happen is that we need some liberty-minded people to infiltrate it in order to make sure the CPS does what it is supposed to do: protect the rights and life of the baby. Of course, it must be done constitutionally and with due process of law.

[Son of Detroit]

What's the difference in this context?

Some people think the state should involve itself in the lives of families with regard to what they feed their children.



I don't even know why I have to argue why a new born baby going through heroin withdrawals is different than a 5 year old kid eating a burger or two a month. I don't even know how without sounding like Captain Obvious.


Why did society not collapse when opium products were marketed, over the counter, in children's patent medicines.

Why were we more free then than we are now?

I'm not knowledgeable on the extent of opium products back then. Were they addictive? Did they cause severe health problems like heroin would to a new born baby?

[Anti Federalist]

I don't even know why I have to argue why a new born baby going through heroin withdrawals is different than a 5 year old kid eating a burger or two a month. I don't even know how without sounding like Captain Obvious.

How do you know that they are only eating a burger or two?

Better pass a law making monthly cholesterol blood tests mandatory.

So if ten burgers a month are eaten then the state should seize the children?

Twenty?

Fifty?


I'm not knowledgeable on the extent of opium products back then. Were they addictive? Did they cause severe health problems like heroin would to a new born baby?

Yes and yes.

Google: Laudanum addiction.

[pcosmar]

I don't even know why I have to argue why a new born baby going through heroin withdrawals is different than a 5 year old kid eating a burger or two a month. I don't even know how without sounding like Captain Obvious.



I'm not knowledgeable on the extent of opium products back then. Were they addictive? Did they cause severe health problems like heroin would to a new born baby?

That would depend on whether you prefer truth or Propaganda.
But on the subject of families,,, hat tip to Danke

YouTube - The Child Documentary Promo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6Eod0j8Q4)

[Son of Detroit]

How do you know that they are only eating a burger or two?

Better pass a law making monthly cholesterol blood tests mandatory.

So if ten burgers a month are eaten then the state should seize the children?

Twenty?

Fifty?



No I don't think the food a child eats should be regulated. The difference between food, a necessity in life, and heroin, a deadly narcotic is enormous. Shooting up your newborn baby with heroin should not be legal IMO.




Yes and yes.

Google: Laudanum addiction.

Thanks, I will at a later time. Unfortunately, homework beckons. :(

[pcosmar]

No I don't think the food a child eats should be regulated. The difference between food, a necessity in life, and heroin, a deadly narcotic is enormous. Shooting up your newborn baby with heroin should not be legal IMO.

:(

See how that works.
Now eating a Poppy Bagel is the equivalent of shooting up the baby with heroin.
:eek:

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

See how that works.
Now eating a Poppy Bagel is the equivalent or shooting up the baby with heroin.
:eek:

I think we need Poppy Bagel statues, Poppy Bagel police, and Poppy Bagel licensing to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public from heroin in Poppy Bagels.

I don't mind paying an extra few dollars for each Poppy Bagel for government making Poppy Bagels safe.

[Anti Federalist]

I think we need Poppy Bagel statues, Poppy Bagel police, and Poppy Bagel licensing to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public from heroin in Poppy Bagels.

I don't mind paying an extra few dollars for each Poppy Bagel for government making Poppy Bagels safe.

God Bless those brave boys for keeping me safe from the Poppy Seed Menace.

[pcosmar]

http://sniggle.net/banana.php

YouTube - Donovan - Mellow Yellow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8DgszzXOo0)

:cool:

[RonPaulGetsIt]

the state needs to shrink drastically and now

[RideTheDirt]

That is horrible.

[fisharmor]

That is terrible. That result occurred because we have some idiots in there. What needs to happen is that we need some liberty-minded people to infiltrate it in order to make sure the CPS does what it is supposed to do: protect the rights and life of the baby. Of course, it must be done constitutionally and with due process of law.

Seriously? Rights of the baby? AF already established in this thread that that baby's rights don't exist until it's fully out of the womb.
Infiltrate? Why in God's name would I want to do that? Why would any liberty minded person waste their valuable time trying to infiltrate a corrupt organization, and ultimately be party to the types of crimes we've been discussing?
How would that liberty minded person make sure CPS does what it is supposed to do? Do you suggest they get jobs only to hold them at gunpoint? Or perhaps they're supposed to rise in the ranks of CPS to get into a position of power?
How ought they to do that? If CPS generally rewards kidnapping over poppy seed bagels, how is a liberty-minded person to become head of CPS without doing these things?




I don't even know why I have to argue why a new born baby going through heroin withdrawals is different than a 5 year old kid eating a burger or two a month. I don't even know how without sounding like Captain Obvious.

Well, captain, allow me to be Admiral Obvious for a second: there are few relativists here. Practically everyone here appeals to some level of truth in their argumentation. The truth you apparently appeal to is that we must apply relativistic principles to actions of government.

A lot of us here no longer agree with government existing in the first place.
The rest of us here generally agree that there must be some consistency to its actions. This is sometimes defined as the "rule of law". It is what allows us to anticipate actions of government.

Without anticipating actions of government we can't engage in business, hold jobs, go to church, get married, or, indeed, have children - not without the constant fear that it will all get shit on at some point.

What you're calling for is inconsistency. But CPS needs to be eliminated for its inconsistency.

[Madly_Sane]

This situation reminds of a Seinfeld episode, the one where Elaine failed a drug test because of Poppy Seed Muffins

[Anti Federalist]

Dupe post.

See below VVVV

[Anti Federalist]

A lot of us here no longer agree with government existing in the first place.

The rest of us here generally agree that there must be some consistency to its actions. This is sometimes defined as the "rule of law". It is what allows us to anticipate actions of government.

Without anticipating actions of government we can't engage in business, hold jobs, go to church, get married, or, indeed, have children - not without the constant fear that it will all get shit on at some point.

What you're calling for is inconsistency. But CPS needs to be eliminated for its inconsistency.

Excellent points, capriciously and irregularly and inconsistently enforced laws, which exist by the millions now, are the essence of tyranny.

It's what makes the state apologist's standard argument, "well if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?", so ridiculous.

We're all doing something wrong, it's only because the evil eye hasn't focused on you yet, that would make anybody think otherwise.

And if, by some statistical miracle, the state finds you to be Simon pure, they will just make something up.

[Anti Federalist]

///