When does the State have the right to remove children from a home where they are living with their parents? We have been covering medical kidnapping stories now on MedicalKidnap.com for about 3 months. This website was started to document the many stories that were coming to our attention where families were losing their children to the State, and the foster care system, over medical disagreements. In many of these cases, their children were taken away simply because they disagreed with a doctor, or wanted to take their children to a different doctor to get a second opinion. Does the State have a right to take children away from parents for what is now being called "medical abuse," a term used by medical authorities when parents disagree with doctors, or want to seek a second opinion? Most of the people who follow MedicalKidnap would state "no." And we have published many stories now showing that this is indeed happening all across the country, in every state, every single day. But what about in other situations? Are there any situations where authorities should step in and remove children from their homes, taking them away from their parents? Judging from comments made in social media from many commenting on some of our articles, I think it is safe to assume that the majority of people in the United States today feel that in certain situations, the State has a legitimate right to step in and take children away from their families, removing them from their homes. However, I would like to suggest that the Constitution of the United States of America protects the rights of individuals and families, and that it is never lawful for social services to remove a child from their biological parents, taking them out of their home and making them a ward of the State, removing legal custody from their parents. This phenomena is a recent development in the history of our country, and if it is not lawful to take such actions, we are correct in calling such actions "state-funded kidnappings."
A new federal executive order expands the list of illnesses for which you could be detained, isolated, and treated against your will if you are entering the US or traveling between states—even if you are completely healthy. Some states have similar or worse laws that would even allow entry into your home. The Public Health Service Act allows the government to apprehend and detain individuals based on communicable diseases named in the Act, or named by presidential executive orders. Executive orders do not have to get congressional approval.
So who are these parents who want to refuse vaccines for their children? The mainstream media generally portrays these parents as "anti-science, ignorant, foolish, etc." It was refreshing, therefore, to read an honest journalistic piece on this topic on the "Michigan Live" website which actually interviewed some parents who exercise their lawful rights to refuse some vaccines. In contrast to the predominantly one-sided media reports labeling all parents who refuse vaccines as "uneducated," here is a description of the parents refusing vaccines based on demographic data in Michigan: Statewide, about 6 percent of Michigan schoolchildren have vaccination waivers, which equates to about 150,000 children who are unvaccinated or undervaccinated. Many are clustered in affluent communities such as Rochester, and have well-educated, health-conscious parents who buy organic food and eschew antibiotics in favor of a homeopathic approach to illnesses. They fear injecting so many viruses into their children could do more harm than good, and see widespread immunizations as being driven by "Big Pharma," which they see as more concerned about profits than public health.
Are Americans' freedom to choose what is injected into their body at risk in the United States today? Is it possible that the day is not far off when if you refuse a mandated vaccine at your place of employment, or refuse a mandated vaccine for your child, that you could come home one day to find your residence quarantined, restricting you from leaving your home or having visitors simply for exercising your right to refuse a medical treatment? There is compelling evidence that this is not some conspiracy prediction of a future Orwellian society, but something that is already in process in the United States of America. Many fear that a person's choice of accepting or refusing mandatory vaccines could restrict one's ability to travel in or out of the United States, one's ability to send their children to school, one's ability to continue working at their place of employment, or even one's ability to leave one's own privately owned home.
The Fourth Amendment strikes a carefully crafted balance between a family’s right to privacy and the government’s need to enforce the law. In most situations, government agents cannot simply force their way into a home. Instead, they must explain to a neutral magistrate why they need to enter the home, and they must provide real evidence to support that need. This rule applies to all government agents. Court after court has agreed that there is no social services exception to the Fourth Amendment. All too often, law enforcement officers and child-welfare workers act as if the Fourth Amendment does not apply to CPS investigations. They are wrong.
Commissioner Thomas Verge ruled Friday that Cleave and Erica could have their three babies back, after CPS had removed them from their home, as first reported by Health Impact News on our Medical Kidnap website. The original story has been read by over 1.5 million people and shared on Facebook by over 1 million, creating a national outcry. It is but one of many stories we have covered at MedicalKidnap.com. We get multiple requests every day from families begging us to publish their stories of "medical kidnap." If we had not picked up this story and published it on behalf of the parents who requested us to do so, would they be going home today with their children? Judge Verge, in allowing the parents to have their children back, reportedly made several conditions, threatening the young couple that their children would be removed again if they did not comply with his directives.
Lindey Magee of Mississippi Parents for Vaccine Rights recently commented on an article published in Mississippi's Clarion Ledger on their front page, boasting about the state's 99.7% vaccine rate for kindergartners. Mississippi has the highest rate of childhood vaccination because it is one of only two states in the U.S. that does not allow parents a choice regarding vaccines, as a requirement for attending school. Only a medical doctor can provide an exemption, as religious and philosophical exemptions are not allowed. The Clarion Ledger was obviously proud of their vaccination rates, and many around the country want to follow their model and remove vaccine choice from parents and families. Lindey Magee, however, does not think Mississippi should be so proud of their vaccination rates, given the fact that Mississippi ranks last in the U.S. in infant mortality rates and very low in other key health figures for children. More:
The most divisive and hotly debated of all health freedom issues is the question of whether individuals should be at liberty to dissent from established medical and government health policy and exercise freedom of thought, speech and conscience when it comes to vaccination. In the health freedom movement, there are some who will defend the legal right to purchase and use nutritional supplements, drink raw milk, eat GMO free food, remove fluoride from public water systems and mercury from dental amalgams or choose non-medical model options for healing and staying well, but are reluctant to publicly support the legal right to make vaccine choices.
Last week saw an inter-agency power grab. It begins with the weakening of organic standards—and could end with the term “organic” becoming practically meaningless. Action Alert! Tell the USDA to use a public and transparent process for all major changes to organic standards by publishing proposed changes in the Federal Register, and actively seeking public input and discussion. In addition, tell the USDA to enforce the sunset provision of the OFPA as it was originally intended—allowing synthetic products to remain after their “sunset” date only after public debate and a two-thirds vote of the NOSB. More than 100 synthetics will be up for sunset consideration in 2015. We must act now to protect the integrity of organics.
Amazing—the little “Like” button has the power to magically turn supplements into drugs. You will recall how the FDA threatened cherry growers and walnut producers with jail if they opened their mouths about the curative powers of these foods. Now the FDA has issued a warning letter to the Utah nutritional supplement company Zarbee’s, Inc. The most troubling part of the letter concerns Zarbee’s participation on Twitter and Facebook. The agency says that when the company “likes” their customer’s Facebook comments, they are essentially endorsing the customer’s statement. In other words, when customers say a product has helped their children stop coughing or has relieved their bronchitis, and Zarbee’s “likes” that post, the FDA believes they are essentially saying, “We certify that everything you have written is scientifically accurate,” and therefore are promoting their supplements as drugs not approved by the FDA.