Rush Limbaugh's Morning Update: Seized!
Six weeks ago, a Nebraska couple became first-time parents. However, their religious beliefs ran afoul of a Nebraska law requiring all newborn infants to receive a mandatory blood test to screen for several diseases. They refused the test. So sheriff's deputies seized the newborn, allowed health workers to draw and screen the blood -- then placed the infant into foster care for almost a week, waiting for the results.
According to a Department of Health and Human Services spokes-babe, this was the first time in Nebraska that an infant has been seized. While other states have similar laws on the books, four states -- South Dakota, Michigan, Montana, and Nebraska -- don’t offer religious exemptions.
The baby tested okay, and is now back home with the parents. But the parents’ attorney, Jeff Downing, says it’s "a classic case of the government overreaching and violating a family's constitutional rights." Although the family isn’t seeking damages -- they want to ensure this won’t happen again.
Put aside for the moment whether you agree or disagree with the parents on blood tests. What oughta chill you to the bone is what this incident represents. If government officials won’t hesitate to seize a newborn -- imagine what they’ll do with you … should you make a decision they don’t like.
The more power you cede to the government over your health care, the less freedom you and your family have -- over your own health, and your own life.
Read the Background Material on the Morning Update...
AP: Suit Says Baby's Seizure Violated Rights
According to a Department of Health and Human Services spokes-babe, this was the first time in Nebraska that an infant has been seized. While other states have similar laws on the books, four states -- South Dakota, Michigan, Montana, and Nebraska -- don’t offer religious exemptions.
The baby tested okay, and is now back home with the parents. But the parents’ attorney, Jeff Downing, says it’s "a classic case of the government overreaching and violating a family's constitutional rights." Although the family isn’t seeking damages -- they want to ensure this won’t happen again.
Put aside for the moment whether you agree or disagree with the parents on blood tests. What oughta chill you to the bone is what this incident represents. If government officials won’t hesitate to seize a newborn -- imagine what they’ll do with you … should you make a decision they don’t like.
The more power you cede to the government over your health care, the less freedom you and your family have -- over your own health, and your own life.
Read the Background Material on the Morning Update...
AP: Suit Says Baby's Seizure Violated Rights
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 7:33 AM
10 Comments:
Okay, Rush, so this is a pretty egregious abuse of government power, but what makes it so different than the abuse you were advocating just a few days ago?
Leave aside the emotional response of parents being forcefully separated from their children for a moment. Rush was advocating government force to stop someone from producing fake excuses for people who skip work. That is an intrusion into a relationship between individuals just as much as this is.
Other than Rush's personal distaste for the guy who produced the excuses, please, someone enlighten me as to the difference.
Do you have a link to the story about Rush advocating government intervention to stop someone from producing fake excuses for people who skip work? I remember the story, but not the specifics.
It's on the BP. Scroll down.
I found it; thanks. :)
Reading what Rush said, he didn't say anything about government getting involved to stop this business from issuing fake excuses. I did take out of the commentary that he did believe it was unethical.
"Some question whether the products are legal or ethical." Is there any doubt about this?
I'm not sure who you think would enforce the legality of it if not the government.
Other options include a fake jury summons...
I believe Rush's point was that he couldn't believe the media would question whether this was legal or ethical. If I'm not mistaken, producing a fake jury summons is illegal, like producing a fake driver's license would be illegal. Rush isn't saying the government should go in to shut the business down, but why is the media putting in the story wondering if it's legal or not when producing a fake jury summons clearly is illegal. I hope that makes sense.
As far as I know, producing a fake jury summons is not illegal. Nice attempt at spin, though. It would work except that you have to stand on your head, squint just right, and look the other direction to make his words mean what you propose.
Rush says that there is no question as to whether the business is legal. He wasn't just talking about jury summons, he was talking about the whole business.
Face it, Rush is no more opposed to government intrusion than Hillary is, he simply has a different set of definitions for which intrusions are acceptable.
Comparing Rush to Hillary leaves many, including myself, scratching their heads. As someone who listens to Rush on a daily basis, he doesn't favor government intrusion into people's lives. With that said, you can believe what you want.
Comparing Rush to Hillary leaves many, including myself, scratching their heads.
Not me. Most everyone we discuss here on this board is comparable; without the bureaucracy of the federal government, they'd all be looking for real jobs.
Comparing Rush to Hillary leaves many, including myself, scratching their heads.
Nice try again, but Nature Boy is awarded ten demerits for committing a logic foul. I compared Hillary's and Rush's tolerance for statism, I didn't compare them to one another.
Post a Comment
<< Home