Government Kidnappers (Medical Terrorism)
(latest posts at the bottom)
(posted 6/22/05)
Texas Officials, Parents, Spar Over Girl's Cancer Treatment
6/9//05 Channel3000.com This is a most controversial story and this will doubtlessly be a controversial post. However, as you know, we do not hide from controversy on this site; rather, we embrace it, analyze it, and see what we can learn from it. A judge has postponed until Friday a ruling that could prevent doctors from treating a 12-year-old girl who was taken from her parents after Texas officials accused them of not doing enough to treat her cancer. The Werneckes' three sons were placed in a foster home. These kids were taken from their parents because they didn't follow government prescribed medical treatment.
What if she was fatter than the government elitists believed was appropriate? Could she be 'taken' then? What if an ADD child's parents decide not to medicate him? Can he be taken? What if a parent smokes at home? That's obviously unhealthy for the child. Clearly, the child should be taken from their 'unfit' parents at gunpoint. What if the state decides that a certain medicine is best for the flu, but the parent's disagree? Seize the children! What if government decides that a certain vaccination is needed to 'protect the children', but parents refuse to give it to their children? Send in the Storm Troopers! My friends, don't think I am exaggerating; genocides have taken place across the world for more ridiculous reasons than these. If you let government take a step in this direction, you are opening the door to a future wave of nothing less than government sponsored terror. Texas Child Protective Services said her life could be in jeopardy if chemotherapy and radiation treatments don't resume. Who does this agency think it is to be opining on Medical treatments? Are they a bunch of doctors? Are they the child's parents? Are they God? They are neither of these things. They are trampling the rights of all Americans in order to, ostensibly, save this one child's life.
Last week, authorities issued an Amber Alert to gain custody of Katie after receiving an anonymous tip about possible neglect. The Amber Alert should be issued against the government, not the parents! How sad, that an alert intended to be used against sexual offenders, is now used by the government to terrorize the populace.
Notice that thus far I have reserved judgment on who is actually right, the parents or the state, in the correct treatment for Katie. The point is that it doesn't matter. If I had to guess, and from what I've read, I'd say the state probably is right. Katie might die because she doesn't get the proper treatment. Say I was a doctor and I thought a certain treatment would give her a 50% chance to live and without it she would certainly die. I had the power to snatch Katie from her parents and give her the treatment. Would I do it? Not a chance. Am I cruel and heartless? No, I am actually taking the compassionate stance and I know people are going to vehemently disagree with me on this because about eight out of ten people on Freerepublic.com, one of the most Conservative/Libertarians groups in the country, disagreed with me. Quite disappointing.
Those that would use brute force to save Katie's life are actually the cruel and heartless ones. In reality, in my humble opinion, they will kill more than they will save and spread sorrow more than they spread happiness.
The same arguments are used for gun control. Take away all the guns; inhibit freedom, in order to stop the violence. What happens? More people are killed than ever before, violence and theft run rampant. To prevent CIA members from getting killed or captured, we won't let any into enemy territory. Whoops! Now we have a terrorist attack that killed thousands of American citizens. European nations are paying huge ransoms to kidnappers in Iraq. Save one, but kill 10 down the road because the behavior is rewarded and encouraged. In order to prevent poverty, government stole and spent trillions of dollars that decimated whole classes of people. The cure is nearly always worse than the disease.
This is why rights are so hard to defend. Individual survival and Constitutional Rights are not, in the short term, necessarily linked. People will die if you protect their Rights, BUT, far more will be killed in the long run if you step in to save the few and violate the Rights of all. Intellectual cowardice, resulting from excessive attachment, is too often rationalized and explained away as a simple excess of good intentions, as if this is symbolic of some underlying positive trait. In my opinion, this short term emotional cognitive dissidence is the greatest problem in society that exists today.
Conservatism/Libertarianism will go down in flames over the issue of health care because the emotional arguments of Liberalism are strongest in this area. This is why I have been writing about Canadian Health Care and British Health Care. Government should not be deciding who shall live and who shall die or what treatment its citizens must get. In fact, government should get completely out of health care. It is in this area that it can do the most damage. How strange that Europeans and Canadians look down on the United States for not having 'universal health care'. I'd say we certainly do. After all, here we have government seizing children if they don't undergo what the government determines is the proper treatment! Sounds like Universal Health care to me!
Again, you might ask, how can I let this sweet little girl die? Because I know there are countless faceless and nameless little girls and boys that I will be saving by respecting her rights, the rights of her parents, and limiting the power of government.
Tyranny of Experts (Posted 7/4/05)
6/27/05 US News and World Report If you will recall, on 6/22 (above) I wrote a post on how the Texas government tyrannically kidnapped a 12 year old girl from her parents in order to forcibly give her the medical treatment the state believed was necessary. The government also took the three brothers away from the 'neglectful' parents. I argued, as I always do, that it is not the duty of government to save lives. It is the duty of government to protect liberty. In my post I said the following:
Notice that thus far I have reserved judgment on who is actually right, the parents or the state, in the correct treatment for Katie. The point is that it doesn't matter. If I had to guess, and from what I've read, I'd say the state probably is right. Katie might die because she doesn't get the proper treatment.
Well, it turns out I was mistaken. Yes, I must apologize to my faithful readers for a grievous error in judgment. I should never, ever, ever, have given government the benefit of the doubt. As Bernadine Healy, M.D., writes:
In Katie's case, the state mistakenly believed that the immediate radiation ordered by her doctor was a government-sanctioned and required treatment, part of the complete standard of care needed for her survival. Most pediatric oncologists would beg to differ. The state was wrong! The parents were right! My point from before was that even if the parents were wrong the state still had no business seizing children. But now we find out the parents were, in all probability, actually right! In no uncertain terms, the following may have occurred: The government kidnapped a child from her family in order to poison her. It is nothing less than the government sponsored terror I eluded to in my previous post. You might think my rhetoric is too 'harsh', but I actually don't think it's harsh enough. The government of Texas is headed down the same path as Canada, which is killing its own citizens with their socialistic health care. This inbred political correctness with which we defend our criminal government is most inexplicable.
Say I entered your house, put a gun to your head, took your daughter and your three sons back to my house, and forced her to eat a bowl of rat poison because I thought it might save her life. Oh, and when your wife resisted I stole $50,000. What would be your reaction? You would call the police and shout: "An armed and dangerous lunatic has robbed me, kidnapped my children and is now killing my daughter! Arrest him and save her!" Yet, when the government does the same thing, we pussyfoot around and cringe when I use the words "kidnapped", "poison her", "criminal", and "killing its own citizens".
Intentions and protocol do not matter. The theoretical kidnapper and the government both have the same idiot intentions. We should hold them both equally accountable. Those who use government to kill, steal, and kidnap, should be held to the same standards as private citizens. If that means throwing some Congressmen and child protection bureaucrats in jail then so be it.
For more info you can visit katie's blog and read how the family had to mortgage their home to post the $50,000 bond when the mother was thrown in jail for resisting the state kidnapping. Amazingly, the CPS [Child Protection Services] and the State of Texas has had custody of Katie for nearly 30 days and she has received no treatments that they said were necessary to save her life and used to justify taking her from her parents in the first place.
Armed government thugs keep a close eye on Katie: Katie was surrounded by five armed guards at the airport. <.> Katie's hospital room is guarded by an armed guard.
CPS is now authorizing doctors, against the will of the parents, to perform more surgeries on Katie. As of now, there is no sign of the cancer.
(Posted 7/4/05)
Now, imagine you had not read my post (above) and the 6/22 post (also above) and just read the following news stories. How twisted would your view of reality be? How biased and wrong are these news stories?:
Father of teen-ager criticizes procedure
7/4/05 The Herald Democrat The teenager was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's Disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, for which she underwent chemotherapy. Doctors recommended she follow that treatment with radiation, but her parents refused, believing she was in remission. The cancer returned.
Dad asks doctors why girl faces more surgery
7/1/05 Houston Chronicle Nueces County Juvenile Court Judge Carl Lewis of Corpus Christi removed Katie from the Werneckes' custody on June 4 after the parents said they did not want to put the girl through radiation treatment because they believed her illness was in remission. However, state attorneys said at her custody hearing last month that tests showed the cancer had returned.
6/21/05 The Albuquerque Tribune When doctors recommended radiation treatment, Wernecke's parents refused it based on their belief that the side effects were too dangerous for a healthy girl. The state of Texas removed Katie from her parents' custody and ordered her to begin treatment. Now the latest reports say tests show Wernecke's cancer returned.
Girl With Cancer to Stay in Texas Custody
6/16/05 Associated Press
Katie's parents tried to convince Lewis during a custody hearing that they would not resist efforts to resume her treatment. But he refused to return the girl to their care, noting that Katie's mother had previously fled (to prevent her child from being kidnapped!) with Katie and her father had rejected several doctors' findings. (The father was probably right.)
She received chemotherapy, and doctors recommended it be followed with radiation.
Additionally, on their blog, the Werneckes say that the mother has the same blood type as the daughter. Numerous stories state the opposite, like this one: The couple, members of the Church of God, have said they oppose blood transfusions unless they were from Katie's mother. Doctors have said the two aren't a match. Who do we trust now?
In looking through all the news articles on this story I was unable to find one story that correctly stated what actually was occurring. In fact, all of them insinuated, directly or indirectly, that her parents were stupid religious zealots who were responsible for Katie's cancer returning! Yet, even with Katie in their custody, the state hasn't even given her the radiation treatment they kidnapped her for. This is why I do not trust the media. They do not do the work and their general ideology and ingrained political correctness predispose them to certain unavoidable, almost predicable, biases. The Werneckes are 100% correct when they say: They crucified Edward and Michele (Mom and Dad) in the courts. They crucified Edward and Michele in the newspapers and on TV.
Posted 7/21/06 (By Travis)
1/3/06 Newstarget.com It has been a while since I wrote about this, but here an update describing how a judge ruled Katie Werneke free from CPS and apparently the family has now finally been given control over her treatment. But this may be only temporary...
(Added to 'Government Kidnapping')
Posted 7/23/06 (By Travis)
Teen Loses Fight To Seek Alternative Cancer Treatment
7/22/06 AP A different story than the one I've been covering on Katie Werneke, but equally appalling.
A Virginia judge has ruled that a 16-year-old cancer patient fighting to use alternative treatment must report to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors feel is necessary.
The
family's attorney says the judge also found the parents neglectful for allowing him to pursue
alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements in Mexico.
The lawyer says the parents are devastated by the new order and plan to appeal.
Regardless of outcome or objective, if it can be measured, 'rightness' of a given treatment, citizens and parents should be left free to chose treatments of their choice. The last thing we need, if we don't have it already, is a government monopoly/mandate on treatment.
After all, it is not the duty of the state to 'save lives', as any attempt to do so ironically costs lives, but rather it is the duty of the state to protect freedom and property, which, incidentally, saves lives.
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship . . . to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic . . . The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."
Dr. Benjamin Rush (signatory to the Declaration of Independence)
Sadly, Dr Rush's fears have already come to pass. Extensive licensing laws restrict who can do what, regulatory battles occupy the time of lobbyists and legislators, and meddling healthcare legislation and regulations are destroying the health industry.
(Added to 'Government Kidnapping')
Posted 4/20/08 ( by Travis)
The
Texas polygamy raid (was the action taken by the state excessive ?)
WorldnetDaily
^ | April 20,2008 | Joseph Farrah
Pretty outrageous if you ask me, for the state to seize over 400 children from their families on what have turned out to be false charges and then fish for crimes. What happened to innocent before proven guilty?
This is not the first time we've written about Texas Child Services on this website.
Posted 5/20/08 ( by Travis)
Texas
will immunize FLDS children
The
Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 09 May 2008 | Brooke Adams
"The truth is [FLDS parents] don't kow what to
do," said Polly R. O'Toole, who represents one child. "They would prefer to make that
decision. But they are afraid to exercise any options out of fear they will be perceived as
uncooperative by CPS."
Willie Jessop, an FLDS member and spokesman, said some parents have immunized their children and some have not. "It's an individual decision," he said. But the parents "oppose forced mandates of things happening to their children they don't even know don't even know about."
Speaking of police state...
Posted 5/26/08 ( by Travis)
Court:
Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids
AP
via Yahoo ^ | 5/22/08
A welcome development from the state of Texas, and a related article:
System
Intended to Protect Children Under Fire for Overzealousness
Fox
News ^ | Robin Wallace
For similar posts see 'Government Health Care'