It is quite common for pediatricians (and family doctors) to encounter parents who refuse one or more infant vaccines, most often due to safety concerns. These concerns also mean that pediatricians frequently get requests to modify or delay the vaccine schedule—nearly three-fifths (58%) of pediatricians reported such requests in a 2014 AAP survey. Rather than recognize the validity of parents’ safety concerns or admit to their own ambivalence about some of the newer vaccines, many pediatricians—nearly two in five according to some estimates—choose to boot uncooperative families out of their practice. A recent Medscape survey indicates that one of the main things that pediatricians dislike about their job is “dealing with difficult patients.” However, when pediatricians dismiss families whose only crime is the desire to make informed and individualized health care decisions on behalf of their children, the doctors are doing more than just unprofessionally dumping “difficult” patients—they also are protecting their bottom line. Dr. Bob Sears confirms that HMO plans use incentive practices, conducting year-end chart reviews and awarding large bonuses to pediatric practices that score well. Dr. Sears explains: “This bonus varies depending on the number of patients the doctor sees. One of the requirements for a patient’s chart to pass the test is that they are fully vaccinated. […] Such incentives…end up forcing a doctor to consider the financial implications of accepting patients who even just want to opt out of one vaccine. …Maybe a few such families wouldn’t make them fail the chart reviews, but if they have too many, there goes their year-end bonus.”
9th Circuit Court Upholds Parents’ Constitutional Rights: Rules Against Arizona Social Workers Removing Children without a Warrant
In what is seen as a victory for parental rights, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Arizona parents who had their 3 children removed from their home simply because they had taken photos of them after a bath when they were laying on a towel naked. They went to develop the photos at a Walmart, and an employee reported them to the police who were called in to investigate. The police investigation was extensive, including medical and forensic exams of the children looking for sexual abuse, as well as obtaining a warrant to search the family's home, where police "seized all the evidence that might be relevant to a child pornography investigation: computers, printers, photographs, cell phones, undeveloped film, floppy discs, DVDs, CDs, VHS tapes, and cameras." Police found no evidence of wrongdoing, so no charges were filed against the parents, and the children were returned home. However, Arizona social workers with a participating police detective decided to remove the young children from the home anyway, even without a court issued warrant. The children ended up in foster homes, but then later placed with their grandparents, and eventually returned home. The family sued the police detective and settled out of court, but Arizona courts ruled against the family suing the social workers citing state "Qualified Immunity" laws for social workers. The 9th Circuit disagreed, ruling that social workers are not above the law, and cannot violate the 4th and 14th Amendments, and that the courts have consistently ruled that families have a “well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference.”
A law professor at the oldest law school in the nation believes that there is no inherent right to parent one's own children. In an interview for CRTV about homeschooling, Professor James G. Dwyer told syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin that: "The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws." An investigation into Dwyer's writings and history reveals that this alarming statement was not an exaggerated statement taken out of context or misrepresented by a conservative journalist. Instead, the statement appears to be a foundational core belief held by a man who formerly worked in New York state family courts as a Law Guardian, which is the equivalent of a Guardian ad Litem. Dwyer's writings now influences policy within the family court system. Dwyer argues: "Courts should recognize that newborn babies, much more clearly than birth parents, have fundamental interests at stake in the state's selection of legal parents and, therefore, a much stronger claim to constitutional protection."
California Bill SB18 Wants Authority to Enter Homes to Ensure Parents Comply with State Mandates for Child Care
As we have continued to see increased cases of medical kidnapping and aggressive overreach of the medical system and the marriage of scientific opinion to laws in the United States, parents in California may be seeing a trend first hand that is going to be played out in the rest of the nation. Especially since 134 vaccine mandates have been introduced in this legislative session, indicating the trend for political mandates of your child’s standard of care is nowhere near slowing down. Many have speculated that SB18 is a part of Agenda 21 and Healthy People 2020 -- U.N. and U.S.-based initiatives, respectively, that are designed to corral populations into the inner cities and enforce a standard of care across the board that will implement controls that enable governments to manage portions of the population based on their standards and not the choices of the individual.
Amidst the ever changing, controversial white waters of vaccine safety, parents who choose natural immunity are being targeted by certain members of the medical, legal and public health communities as being guilty of medical neglect. As readers of Health Impact News' MedicalKidnap.com website are fully aware, "medical neglect" is a broad term frequently used against parents who dare to disagree with doctors over the healthcare of their children, and can result in Child Protective Services (CPS) taking the children away from their families by force. The latest example of this usurping of parental rights, which is being pushed and orchestrated by vaccine extremists who insist on pushing a one-size-fits-all approach to immunity, appears in the February edition of the American Journal of Public Health, in an article entitled "Parental Refusal of Childhood Vaccines and Medical Neglect Laws.” The paper, authored by Efthimios Parasidis, JD, M.BE, and Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH, sets out to examine court cases where vaccine refusal is categorized as "medical neglect" under child welfare laws.
When most people today hear of a terrible child abuse case, their immediate reaction is to call on the government to protect the child and bring justice to bear on the situation. This reliance upon government to enforce child protection, rather than families, churches or non-profit groups, is a relatively new concept in history. As American government has grown ever larger in response to society’s expectations that it should be all children’s protector, Americans have discovered these good intentions have created a system that is becoming more and more intrusive, demanding and corrupt. Parents’ protests, state hearings and local media attention are gradually bringing the public’s attention to a Child Protective Services (CPS) system that has the power to rip children from their parents – and do it without any of the civil rights and protections ALL American citizens are guaranteed. How did a government service meant to protect children become something entirely different? How and when did CPS start – and why are Americans facing its growing power without even basic civil rights?
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."
The Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) helps defend parents who chose to educate their children at home from medical tyranny and abuse. They are a non-profit organization that depends on contributions and membership fees to provide free legal representation. They have successfully litigated cases on parental rights all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. HSLDA recently announced they had taken on a case in Virginia where social workers removed two children from the home where they lived with their parents over a fake psychological diagnosis.