. . .
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
NoBody wrote in article <l9knal1dmj5hajme9dsbv0f06kdrln9q8h@It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots
4ax.com>:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 9/15/2026 10:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts
couple
declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their
doctor
called DCF on them. Knowing that it was only a matter of time
before the state
goons showed up, they packed up their five children in the car and
drove to
Texas where they were staying with family. When the DCF
stormtroopers showed
up at their home and found them gone, the state issued a nationwide >>>>> Amber
Alert which said both parents were wanted on five counts of child
kidnapping,
which seems to be a legal impossibility. How can two parents, who
both have
legal custody, kidnap their own children? Kidnap them from whom? It >>>>> seems like
the state is indirectly claiming that all children in Massachusetts >>>>> belong to
the state and that parents are only "allowed" by the state to raise >>>>> them, a
privilege that can be revoked at will by the Eye of Sauron.
When the family was located in Texas, they were extradited back to
Massachusetts in handcuffs and charged with a half-dozen felonies.
For not
violating any law. It's not illegal to go on a family vacation to
another
state. When they left, there was no judicial order prohibiting them >>>>> from
taking the kids anywhere. There's no legal principle that says the
moment
someone threatens you with a call to DCF that you are instantly
prohibited
from leaving the state.
The same people who scream in red-faced apoplectic rage "My body,
my choice!"
will enthusiastically support and do shit like this without a
second thought.
----------------------------------
https://x.com/laurenlee/status/1911904139958714869?s=20
Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion are homeschooling parents of
five. They told
their pediatrician they were postponing vaccines for their baby,
citing
religious reasons.
Days later, DCF showed up at their door. Their crime? Medical
autonomy.
After having a pushy confrontation with their pediatrician, Dr. Behzad >>>>> Goharfar, the parents had decided to switch to a new family doctor.
Unfortunately, that didn't go over well with Goharfar. On their
final visit,
Goharfar, who trained in Iran, allegedly threatened them:
Vaccinate the baby
immediately or he would report them to DCF with a 51A.
After initial contact with DCF, the Riveras made the choice to leave >>>>> Massachusetts for Texas, fearing for their children's safety. Why?
They knew
what was coming and they didn't trust a system that treats religious >>>>> objections like crimes.
Unfortunately, instead of protection, they were met with a manhunt. >>>>> An Amber
Alert was issued, alongside charges of kidnapping and media smear
campaigns.
The Riveras were completely denied due process. A judge rubber-
stamped a
post-hoc Care and Protection Order without a hearing, without
evidence, and
without even attempting to notify the parents.
The couple was "caught" in Texas for daring to protect their
children. They
were dragged back to Massachusetts in handcuffs. Ruth now faces
jail time and
the baby remains under supervised visitation. All five children were >>>>> vaccinated against their will and against their parents' will by
the state.
Meanwhile, Dr. Goharfar continues practicing medicine without
facing any
consequences for his role in this state-sponsored trauma. The
situation has
turned into a complete nightmare scenario for these loving parents.
Disagree with any vaccine?
Lose your kids.
Refuse on religious grounds?
Go to jail.
Try to escape?
Get hunted down.
If you think this ends in Massachusetts, you're not paying
attention. This is
a warning shot. A test case. And it's just the beginning.
There's a reason Big Pharma lobbies the DCF in all 50 states.
There's a reason
"public health" has become a weapon of state control over the
citizens. And
there's a reason more and more parents are afraid to speak out.
Because the state is no longer asking. It's taking. You don't have
to be a
parent to care. You just have to be awake.
In 2025, authoritarianism is allowed and due process denied.
As long as it's dressed in a lab coat.
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare?-a Just >>>> asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child?
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards
drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or
teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do.
I know a different default can be dangerous too. I think of parents with religious objections to things like blood transfusions who have had
their own kids die as a result.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as
young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25 - and neither giving the doctors nor the parents the final decision always
leads to an optimal outcome.
On 9/15/2026 10:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts couple
declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their doctor
called DCF on them. Knowing that it was only a matter of time before the
state
goons showed up, they packed up their five children in the car and drove to >> Texas where they were staying with family. When the DCF stormtroopers showed
up at their home and found them gone, the state issued a nationwide Amber >> Alert which said both parents were wanted on five counts of child
kidnapping,
which seems to be a legal impossibility. How can two parents, who both have >> legal custody, kidnap their own children? Kidnap them from whom? It seems >> like
the state is indirectly claiming that all children in Massachusetts belong >> to
the state and that parents are only "allowed" by the state to raise them, a >> privilege that can be revoked at will by the Eye of Sauron.
When the family was located in Texas, they were extradited back to
Massachusetts in handcuffs and charged with a half-dozen felonies. For not >> violating any law. It's not illegal to go on a family vacation to another >> state. When they left, there was no judicial order prohibiting them from
taking the kids anywhere. There's no legal principle that says the moment >> someone threatens you with a call to DCF that you are instantly prohibited >> from leaving the state.
The same people who scream in red-faced apoplectic rage "My body, my
choice!"
will enthusiastically support and do shit like this without a second
thought.
----------------------------------
https://x.com/laurenlee/status/1911904139958714869?s=20
Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion are homeschooling parents of five. They >> told
their pediatrician they were postponing vaccines for their baby, citing
religious reasons.
Days later, DCF showed up at their door. Their crime? Medical autonomy.
After having a pushy confrontation with their pediatrician, Dr. Behzad
Goharfar, the parents had decided to switch to a new family doctor.
Unfortunately, that didn't go over well with Goharfar. On their final visit,
Goharfar, who trained in Iran, allegedly threatened them: Vaccinate the
baby
immediately or he would report them to DCF with a 51A.
After initial contact with DCF, the Riveras made the choice to leave
Massachusetts for Texas, fearing for their children's safety. Why? They knew
what was coming and they didn't trust a system that treats religious
objections like crimes.
Unfortunately, instead of protection, they were met with a manhunt. An Amber
Alert was issued, alongside charges of kidnapping and media smear campaigns.
The Riveras were completely denied due process. A judge rubber-stamped a
post-hoc Care and Protection Order without a hearing, without evidence, and >> without even attempting to notify the parents.
The couple was "caught" in Texas for daring to protect their children. They >> were dragged back to Massachusetts in handcuffs. Ruth now faces jail time >> and
the baby remains under supervised visitation. All five children were
vaccinated against their will and against their parents' will by the state. >>
Meanwhile, Dr. Goharfar continues practicing medicine without facing any
consequences for his role in this state-sponsored trauma. The situation has >> turned into a complete nightmare scenario for these loving parents.
Disagree with any vaccine?
Lose your kids.
Refuse on religious grounds?
Go to jail.
Try to escape?
Get hunted down.
If you think this ends in Massachusetts, you're not paying attention. This >> is
a warning shot. A test case. And it's just the beginning.
There's a reason Big Pharma lobbies the DCF in all 50 states. There's a
reason
"public health" has become a weapon of state control over the citizens. And >> there's a reason more and more parents are afraid to speak out.
Because the state is no longer asking. It's taking. You don't have to be a >> parent to care. You just have to be awake.
In 2025, authoritarianism is allowed and due process denied.
As long as it's dressed in a lab coat.
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare? Just asking for a recent defendant...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child?
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child?
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards
drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or
teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as
young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25
On 9/17/2026 10:38 AM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
NoBody wrote in article <l9knal1dmj5hajme9dsbv0f06kdrln9q8h@It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots
4ax.com>:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare?-a Just >>>>> asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child?
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards
drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or
teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't
happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that >> kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do.
I know a different default can be dangerous too. I think of parents with >> religious objections to things like blood transfusions who have had
their own kids die as a result.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as
young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard
repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25 - and >> neither giving the doctors nor the parents the final decision always
leads to an optimal outcome.
The threshold of a "fully formed" brain seems arbitrary if not outright imaginary.
Afaics, the proper solution for Western societies that make
personal freedom paramount is to bite the bullet of allowing it. So,
e.g., parents would have final say until kids reach officially
recognized majority. Trouble is, it's hard to codify early behavior
(like Lindsay Clancy's) that warrant suspension of that freedom.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
. . .
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
Wow.
Conventional medicine means making recimmendations within a narrow set
of guidelines and not varying from them. The guidelines are always about testing, which is not benign. When dealing with my mother's health,
there were numerous times in which we did not follow recommendations
because learning about yet another symptom was irrelevant to her
treatment or there was nothing to do about it because that's not what
would kill her.
I can absolutely see crap like this happening with a teenager the doctor
is trying to force ADHD medicine upon, and that isn't benign. If parent
and child disagree, the doctor wins?
Vaccines are benign. If the mother is an idiot anti-vaxxer and the child wants it, he shouldn't have to wait till his 18th birthday to receive
it. But the vast majority of medical decisions are not that
straightforward.
Sep 17, 2026 at 8:28:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
. . .
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including >>>independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
Wow.
Conventional medicine means making recimmendations within a narrow set
of guidelines and not varying from them. The guidelines are always about >>testing, which is not benign. When dealing with my mother's health,
there were numerous times in which we did not follow recommendations >>because learning about yet another symptom was irrelevant to her
treatment or there was nothing to do about it because that's not what
would kill her.
I can absolutely see crap like this happening with a teenager the doctor
is trying to force ADHD medicine upon, and that isn't benign. If parent
and child disagree, the doctor wins?
Vaccines are benign. If the mother is an idiot anti-vaxxer and the child >>wants it, he shouldn't have to wait till his 18th birthday to receive
it. But the vast majority of medical decisions are not that >>straightforward.
There's also a difference between being an anti-vaxxer in general and being >opposed to specific, untested, "emergency" vaccines that the government has >rushed into production and has no idea what the long-term side effects will >be.
On Sep 17, 2026 at 9:38:29 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/17/2026 10:38 AM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
NoBody wrote in article <l9knal1dmj5hajme9dsbv0f06kdrln9q8h@It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots >>> who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards
4ax.com>:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare?-a Just
asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child?
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or
teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't >>> happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that >>> kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do.
I know a different default can be dangerous too. I think of parents with >>> religious objections to things like blood transfusions who have had
their own kids die as a result.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as >>> young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard
repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25 - and >>> neither giving the doctors nor the parents the final decision always
leads to an optimal outcome.
The threshold of a "fully formed" brain seems arbitrary if not outright
imaginary.
Our previous district attorney, the self-proclaimed communist George Gascon, would refuse to charge most offenders under the age of 25 (unless the case was
a media sensation and he was pressured into it) because he claimed a person's brain didn't mature until then and so they weren't legally responsible for the
crimes they committed.
But he was also (inexplicably) a supporter of kids being able to decide to medically transition to the opposite sex.
So a 20-year-old rapist is just a kid who didn't know any better because his brain is still forming, but a 12-year-old has all the maturity and intellect to decide to turn themselves into a chronic medical patient for life. Make it make sense.
Afaics, the proper solution for Western societies that make
personal freedom paramount is to bite the bullet of allowing it. So,
e.g., parents would have final say until kids reach officially
recognized majority. Trouble is, it's hard to codify early behavior
(like Lindsay Clancy's) that warrant suspension of that freedom.
No... when you attack and try and murder your kids, that's pretty much an easy
line to draw.
On Sep 16, 2026 at 12:16:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/15/2026 10:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts couple >>> declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their doctor >>> called DCF on them. Knowing that it was only a matter of time before the >>> state
goons showed up, they packed up their five children in the car and drove to
Texas where they were staying with family. When the DCF stormtroopers showed
up at their home and found them gone, the state issued a nationwide Amber >>> Alert which said both parents were wanted on five counts of child
kidnapping,
which seems to be a legal impossibility. How can two parents, who both have
legal custody, kidnap their own children? Kidnap them from whom? It seems >>> like
the state is indirectly claiming that all children in Massachusetts belong >>> to
the state and that parents are only "allowed" by the state to raise them, a
privilege that can be revoked at will by the Eye of Sauron.
When the family was located in Texas, they were extradited back to
Massachusetts in handcuffs and charged with a half-dozen felonies. For not >>> violating any law. It's not illegal to go on a family vacation to another >>> state. When they left, there was no judicial order prohibiting them from >>> taking the kids anywhere. There's no legal principle that says the moment >>> someone threatens you with a call to DCF that you are instantly prohibited >>> from leaving the state.
The same people who scream in red-faced apoplectic rage "My body, my
choice!"
will enthusiastically support and do shit like this without a second
thought.
----------------------------------
https://x.com/laurenlee/status/1911904139958714869?s=20
Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion are homeschooling parents of five. They >>> told
their pediatrician they were postponing vaccines for their baby, citing >>> religious reasons.
Days later, DCF showed up at their door. Their crime? Medical autonomy. >>>
After having a pushy confrontation with their pediatrician, Dr. Behzad
Goharfar, the parents had decided to switch to a new family doctor.
Unfortunately, that didn't go over well with Goharfar. On their final visit,
Goharfar, who trained in Iran, allegedly threatened them: Vaccinate the >>> baby
immediately or he would report them to DCF with a 51A.
After initial contact with DCF, the Riveras made the choice to leave
Massachusetts for Texas, fearing for their children's safety. Why? They knew
what was coming and they didn't trust a system that treats religious
objections like crimes.
Unfortunately, instead of protection, they were met with a manhunt. An Amber
Alert was issued, alongside charges of kidnapping and media smear campaigns.
The Riveras were completely denied due process. A judge rubber-stamped a >>> post-hoc Care and Protection Order without a hearing, without evidence, and
without even attempting to notify the parents.
The couple was "caught" in Texas for daring to protect their children. They
were dragged back to Massachusetts in handcuffs. Ruth now faces jail time >>> and
the baby remains under supervised visitation. All five children were
vaccinated against their will and against their parents' will by the state.
Meanwhile, Dr. Goharfar continues practicing medicine without facing any >>> consequences for his role in this state-sponsored trauma. The situation has
turned into a complete nightmare scenario for these loving parents.
Disagree with any vaccine?
Lose your kids.
Refuse on religious grounds?
Go to jail.
Try to escape?
Get hunted down.
If you think this ends in Massachusetts, you're not paying attention. This >>> is
a warning shot. A test case. And it's just the beginning.
There's a reason Big Pharma lobbies the DCF in all 50 states. There's a >>> reason
"public health" has become a weapon of state control over the citizens. And
there's a reason more and more parents are afraid to speak out.
Because the state is no longer asking. It's taking. You don't have to be a >>> parent to care. You just have to be awake.
In 2025, authoritarianism is allowed and due process denied.
As long as it's dressed in a lab coat.
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare? Just
asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have the authority to hunt you down to the ends of the earth >because you decided to move somewhere else to avoid their authoritarian >regime?
On 9/17/2026 1:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 9:38:29 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 9/17/2026 10:38 AM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
NoBody wrote in article <l9knal1dmj5hajme9dsbv0f06kdrln9q8h@It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots >>>> who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards
4ax.com>:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare?-a Just
asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child?
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide. >>>>>
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or >>>> teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't >>>> happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that
kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do.
I know a different default can be dangerous too. I think of parents with
religious objections to things like blood transfusions who have had >>>> their own kids die as a result.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as >>>> young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard >>>> repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25 - and
neither giving the doctors nor the parents the final decision always >>>> leads to an optimal outcome.
The threshold of a "fully formed" brain seems arbitrary if not outright >>> imaginary.
Our previous district attorney, the self-proclaimed communist George Gascon,
would refuse to charge most offenders under the age of 25 (unless the case >> was
a media sensation and he was pressured into it) because he claimed a
person's
brain didn't mature until then and so they weren't legally responsible for >> the
crimes they committed.
But he was also (inexplicably) a supporter of kids being able to decide to >> medically transition to the opposite sex.
So a 20-year-old rapist is just a kid who didn't know any better because his
brain is still forming, but a 12-year-old has all the maturity and intellect
to decide to turn themselves into a chronic medical patient for life. Make >> it
make sense.
Afaics, the proper solution for Western societies that make
personal freedom paramount is to bite the bullet of allowing it. So,
e.g., parents would have final say until kids reach officially
recognized majority. Trouble is, it's hard to codify early behavior
(like Lindsay Clancy's) that warrant suspension of that freedom.
No... when you attack and try and murder your kids, that's pretty much an >> easy
line to draw.
Yes, it is ...*if* we've a basic right to draw lines. But our ability
to concoct horrific scenarios shouldn't blind us to the overall cost
such a right may exact on our personal freedoms. As a gun advocate,
you're undoubtedly familiar with well-meant intrusions...
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 8:28:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
. . .
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
Wow.
Conventional medicine means making recimmendations within a narrow set
of guidelines and not varying from them. The guidelines are always about >>> testing, which is not benign. When dealing with my mother's health,
there were numerous times in which we did not follow recommendations
because learning about yet another symptom was irrelevant to her
treatment or there was nothing to do about it because that's not what
would kill her.
I can absolutely see crap like this happening with a teenager the doctor >>> is trying to force ADHD medicine upon, and that isn't benign. If parent
and child disagree, the doctor wins?
Vaccines are benign. If the mother is an idiot anti-vaxxer and the child >>> wants it, he shouldn't have to wait till his 18th birthday to receive
it. But the vast majority of medical decisions are not that
straightforward.
There's also a difference between being an anti-vaxxer in general and being >> opposed to specific, untested, "emergency" vaccines that the government has >> rushed into production and has no idea what the long-term side effects will >> be.
What difference?
Either way, you second-guessed someone else.
I'll also remind you that the Salk vaccine had not received homan
testing, but polio symptoms were so damn serious parents generally
wanted their childrn to receive it.
Where do you stand? Does the kid get to make the decision on his own treatment, or do the parents?
Sep 17, 2026 12:51:28 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 8:28:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
. . .
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status, >>>>>beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including >>>>>independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents, >>>>>disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional >>>>>medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
Wow.
Conventional medicine means making recimmendations within a narrow set >>>>of guidelines and not varying from them. The guidelines are always about >>>>testing, which is not benign. When dealing with my mother's health, >>>>there were numerous times in which we did not follow recommendations >>>>because learning about yet another symptom was irrelevant to her >>>>treatment or there was nothing to do about it because that's not what >>>>would kill her.
I can absolutely see crap like this happening with a teenager the doctor >>>>is trying to force ADHD medicine upon, and that isn't benign. If parent >>>>and child disagree, the doctor wins?
Vaccines are benign. If the mother is an idiot anti-vaxxer and the child >>>>wants it, he shouldn't have to wait till his 18th birthday to receive >>>>it. But the vast majority of medical decisions are not that >>>>straightforward.
There's also a difference between being an anti-vaxxer in general and being >>>opposed to specific, untested, "emergency" vaccines that the government has >>>rushed into production and has no idea what the long-term side effects will >>>be.
What difference?
Umm.. years of clinical trials.
Either way, you second-guessed someone else.
I'll also remind you that the Salk vaccine had not received homan
testing, but polio symptoms were so damn serious parents generally
wanted their childrn to receive it.
But were not forced to give it to them under pain of losing their >livelihoods.
Where do you stand? Does the kid get to make the decision on his own >>treatment, or do the parents?
Given a choice between the state and the parents, I'm going with the parents.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 12:51:28 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 8:28:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>> The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
. . .
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
Wow.
Conventional medicine means making recimmendations within a narrow set >>>>> of guidelines and not varying from them. The guidelines are always about >>>>> testing, which is not benign. When dealing with my mother's health,
there were numerous times in which we did not follow recommendations >>>>> because learning about yet another symptom was irrelevant to her
treatment or there was nothing to do about it because that's not what >>>>> would kill her.
I can absolutely see crap like this happening with a teenager the doctor >>>>> is trying to force ADHD medicine upon, and that isn't benign. If parent >>>>> and child disagree, the doctor wins?
Vaccines are benign. If the mother is an idiot anti-vaxxer and the child >>>>> wants it, he shouldn't have to wait till his 18th birthday to receive >>>>> it. But the vast majority of medical decisions are not that
straightforward.
There's also a difference between being an anti-vaxxer in general and being
opposed to specific, untested, "emergency" vaccines that the government has
rushed into production and has no idea what the long-term side effects will
be.
What difference?
Umm.. years of clinical trials.
What difference does it make? Either the patient or health care guardian
has autonomy, or he does not.
Either way, you second-guessed someone else.
I'll also remind you that the Salk vaccine had not received homan
testing, but polio symptoms were so damn serious parents generally
wanted their childrn to receive it.
But were not forced to give it to them under pain of losing their
livelihoods.
It's a counter example of guidelines, in this case for human trial, not
being followed. It could have gone wrong, like the Sabin vaccine.
Where do you stand? Does the kid get to make the decision on his own
treatment, or do the parents?
Given a choice between the state and the parents, I'm going with the parents.
What is your position on who has autonomy? I already know your opinion of
a heavy-handed exercise of power by government.
On Sep 17, 2026 at 1:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/17/2026 1:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 9:38:29 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 9/17/2026 10:38 AM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
NoBody wrote in article <l9knal1dmj5hajme9dsbv0f06kdrln9q8h@It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots
4ax.com>:
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare?-a Just
asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child? >>>>>>
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including >>>>>> independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide. >>>>>>
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards >>>>> drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or >>>>> teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't
happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that
kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do. >>>>>
I know a different default can be dangerous too. I think of parents with
religious objections to things like blood transfusions who have had >>>>> their own kids die as a result.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as
young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard >>>>> repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25 - and
neither giving the doctors nor the parents the final decision always >>>>> leads to an optimal outcome.
The threshold of a "fully formed" brain seems arbitrary if not outright >>>> imaginary.
Our previous district attorney, the self-proclaimed communist George Gascon,
would refuse to charge most offenders under the age of 25 (unless the case
was
a media sensation and he was pressured into it) because he claimed a
person's
brain didn't mature until then and so they weren't legally responsible for
the
crimes they committed.
But he was also (inexplicably) a supporter of kids being able to decide to
medically transition to the opposite sex.
So a 20-year-old rapist is just a kid who didn't know any better because his
brain is still forming, but a 12-year-old has all the maturity and intellect
to decide to turn themselves into a chronic medical patient for life. Make
it
make sense.
Afaics, the proper solution for Western societies that make
personal freedom paramount is to bite the bullet of allowing it. So, >>>> e.g., parents would have final say until kids reach officially
recognized majority. Trouble is, it's hard to codify early behavior >>>> (like Lindsay Clancy's) that warrant suspension of that freedom.
No... when you attack and try and murder your kids, that's pretty much an >>> easy
line to draw.
Yes, it is ...*if* we've a basic right to draw lines. But our ability
to concoct horrific scenarios shouldn't blind us to the overall cost
such a right may exact on our personal freedoms. As a gun advocate,
you're undoubtedly familiar with well-meant intrusions...
As a gun advocate, I don't believe they're well-meant at all.
Wow.
Conventional medicine means making recimmendations within a narrow set
of guidelines and not varying from them. The guidelines are always about testing, which is not benign.
When dealing with my mother's health,
there were numerous times in which we did not follow recommendations
because learning about yet another symptom was irrelevant to her
treatment or there was nothing to do about it because that's not what
would kill her.
I can absolutely see crap like this happening with a teenager the doctor
is trying to force ADHD medicine upon, and that isn't benign. If parent
and child disagree, the doctor wins?
Vaccines are benign. If the mother is an idiot anti-vaxxer and the child wants it, he shouldn't have to wait till his 18th birthday to receive
it. But the vast majority of medical decisions are not that
straightforward.
You don't? What do you believe is their actual goal, if not an ending
of gun deaths?
Sep 17, 2026 at 1:58:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 12:51:28 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 8:28:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
. . .
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status, >>>>>>>beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including >>>>>>>independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents, >>>>>>>disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional >>>>>>>medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
Wow.
Conventional medicine means making recimmendations within a narrow set >>>>>>of guidelines and not varying from them. The guidelines are always about >>>>>>testing, which is not benign. When dealing with my mother's health, >>>>>>there were numerous times in which we did not follow recommendations >>>>>>because learning about yet another symptom was irrelevant to her >>>>>>treatment or there was nothing to do about it because that's not what >>>>>>would kill her.
I can absolutely see crap like this happening with a teenager the doctor >>>>>>is trying to force ADHD medicine upon, and that isn't benign. If parent >>>>>>and child disagree, the doctor wins?
Vaccines are benign. If the mother is an idiot anti-vaxxer and the child >>>>>>wants it, he shouldn't have to wait till his 18th birthday to receive >>>>>>it. But the vast majority of medical decisions are not that >>>>>>straightforward.
There's also a difference between being an anti-vaxxer in general
and being opposed to specific, untested, "emergency" vaccines that >>>>>the government has rushed into production and has no idea what the >>>>>long-term side effects will be.
What difference?
Umm.. years of clinical trials.
What difference does it make? Either the patient or health care guardian >>has autonomy, or he does not.
And in the case of the Wuhan Flu vaccine, millions did not.
Either way, you second-guessed someone else.
I'll also remind you that the Salk vaccine had not received homan >>>>testing, but polio symptoms were so damn serious parents generally >>>>wanted their childrn to receive it.
But were not forced to give it to them under pain of losing their >>>livelihoods.
It's a counter example of guidelines, in this case for human trial, not >>being followed. It could have gone wrong, like the Sabin vaccine.
Where do you stand? Does the kid get to make the decision on his own >>>>treatment, or do the parents?
Given a choice between the state and the parents, I'm going with
the parents.
What is your position on who has autonomy? I already know your opinion of
a heavy-handed exercise of power by government.
Children never have autonomy. Most of them wouldn't go to school or eat >vegatables if they had autonomy.
Adam H. Kerman wrote in article <118h0vm$d4ve$1@dont-email.me>:
. . .
When dealing with my mother's health,
there were numerous times in which we did not follow recommendations >>because learning about yet another symptom was irrelevant to her
treatment or there was nothing to do about it because that's not what
would kill her.
I'm glad you applied common sense. It sounds like you're happy
with the calls you made. It also sounds like you and your mother
came to the decision together, though, so it's not a similar
situation.
When caregiver and care recipient disagree, who do you think
should make the call?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2. . .
On 9/17/2026 4:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 1:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 9/17/2026 1:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 9:38:29 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/17/2026 10:38 AM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
NoBody wrote in article <l9knal1dmj5hajme9dsbv0f06kdrln9q8h@ >>>>>>> 4ax.com>:It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status, >>>>>>> beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including >>>>>>> independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents, >>>>>>> disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional >>>>>>> medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide. >>>>>>>
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare?-a Just
asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child? >>>>>>>
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards >>>>>> drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or >>>>>> teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't
happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that
kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do. >>>>>>
I know a different default can be dangerous too. I think of parents with
religious objections to things like blood transfusions who have had >>>>>> their own kids die as a result.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as
young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard >>>>>> repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25 - and
neither giving the doctors nor the parents the final decision always
leads to an optimal outcome.
The threshold of a "fully formed" brain seems arbitrary if not outright
imaginary.
Our previous district attorney, the self-proclaimed communist George >>>> Gascon,
would refuse to charge most offenders under the age of 25 (unless the case
was
a media sensation and he was pressured into it) because he claimed a >>>> person's
brain didn't mature until then and so they weren't legally responsible for
the
crimes they committed.
But he was also (inexplicably) a supporter of kids being able to decide to
medically transition to the opposite sex.
So a 20-year-old rapist is just a kid who didn't know any better
because his
brain is still forming, but a 12-year-old has all the maturity and
intellect
to decide to turn themselves into a chronic medical patient for life. Make
it
make sense.
Afaics, the proper solution for Western societies that make
personal freedom paramount is to bite the bullet of allowing it. So, >>>>> e.g., parents would have final say until kids reach officially
recognized majority. Trouble is, it's hard to codify early behavior >>>>> (like Lindsay Clancy's) that warrant suspension of that freedom.
No... when you attack and try and murder your kids, that's pretty much an
easy
line to draw.
Yes, it is ...*if* we've a basic right to draw lines. But our ability
to concoct horrific scenarios shouldn't blind us to the overall cost
such a right may exact on our personal freedoms. As a gun advocate,
you're undoubtedly familiar with well-meant intrusions...
As a gun advocate, I don't believe they're well-meant at all.
You don't? What do you believe is their actual goal, if not an ending
of gun deaths?
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 1:58:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 12:51:28 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 8:28:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>> The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
. . .
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including >>>>>>>> independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
Wow.
Conventional medicine means making recimmendations within a narrow set >>>>>>> of guidelines and not varying from them. The guidelines are always about
testing, which is not benign. When dealing with my mother's health, >>>>>>> there were numerous times in which we did not follow recommendations >>>>>>> because learning about yet another symptom was irrelevant to her >>>>>>> treatment or there was nothing to do about it because that's not what >>>>>>> would kill her.
I can absolutely see crap like this happening with a teenager the doctor
is trying to force ADHD medicine upon, and that isn't benign. If parent >>>>>>> and child disagree, the doctor wins?
Vaccines are benign. If the mother is an idiot anti-vaxxer and the child
wants it, he shouldn't have to wait till his 18th birthday to receive >>>>>>> it. But the vast majority of medical decisions are not that
straightforward.
There's also a difference between being an anti-vaxxer in general
and being opposed to specific, untested, "emergency" vaccines that >>>>>> the government has rushed into production and has no idea what the >>>>>> long-term side effects will be.
What difference?
Umm.. years of clinical trials.
What difference does it make? Either the patient or health care guardian >>> has autonomy, or he does not.
And in the case of the Wuhan Flu vaccine, millions did not.
that did not meet your "years of clinical trials" criterion. Childhood vaccinations do and largely prevent communicable disease spread.
Why don't you believe state immunization mandates are constitutional? If
they are, why isn't the important public health goal adequate for
strict scrutiny?
Either way, you second-guessed someone else.
I'll also remind you that the Salk vaccine had not received homan
testing, but polio symptoms were so damn serious parents generally
wanted their childrn to receive it.
But were not forced to give it to them under pain of losing their
livelihoods.
It's a counter example of guidelines, in this case for human trial, not
being followed. It could have gone wrong, like the Sabin vaccine.
Where do you stand? Does the kid get to make the decision on his own >>>>> treatment, or do the parents?
Given a choice between the state and the parents, I'm going with
the parents.
What is your position on who has autonomy? I already know your opinion of >>> a heavy-handed exercise of power by government.
Children never have autonomy. Most of them wouldn't go to school or eat
vegatables if they had autonomy.
Given your "years of clinical trials" criterion, you would think the anti-vaxxer parents are wrong in conflict with the child.
A number of years ago, in a wealthy suburb, due to a large number of
idiot upper-middle-class anti-vaxxer parents who had opted out on
religious grounds, the local high school had a whooping cough outbreak.
I child in that community, not yet infected, could have a justified
fear of getting sick. The state mandate hasn't been violated, and the
Supreme Court doesn't permit testing how sincerely held a religious
belief is.
Couldn't that reasonably be called child neglect or endangerment? Maybe
the state should force the issue, or the boy could petition for a
guardian.
Do you not agree? "Because religion" shouldn't trump the duty of
carectoward the child, For ghod's sake, you objected over parking enforcement.
Sep 17, 2026 at 2:12:44 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/17/2026 4:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 1:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Yes, it is ...*if* we've a basic right to draw lines. But our ability >>>>to concoct horrific scenarios shouldn't blind us to the overall cost >>>>such a right may exact on our personal freedoms. As a gun advocate, >>>>you're undoubtedly familiar with well-meant intrusions...
As a gun advocate, I don't believe they're well-meant at all.
You don't? What do you believe is their actual goal, if not an ending
of gun deaths?
Control.
On Sep 17, 2026 at 6:38:16 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 1:58:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 12:51:28 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 8:28:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
. . .
. . .
Why don't you believe state immunization mandates are constitutional? If >>they are, why isn't the important public health goal adequate for
strict scrutiny?
Babies do not need to be vaccinated mere weeks out of the womb. If parents >want to wait until the child is older to vaccinate, they should not be
turned into nationwide fugitives for doing so.
. . .
Children never have autonomy. Most of them wouldn't go to school or eat >>>vegatables if they had autonomy.
Given your "years of clinical trials" criterion, you would think the >>anti-vaxxer parents are wrong in conflict with the child.
A number of years ago, in a wealthy suburb, due to a large number of
idiot upper-middle-class anti-vaxxer parents who had opted out on
religious grounds, the local high school had a whooping cough outbreak.
I child in that community, not yet infected, could have a justified
fear of getting sick. The state mandate hasn't been violated, and the >>Supreme Court doesn't permit testing how sincerely held a religious
belief is.
Couldn't that reasonably be called child neglect or endangerment? Maybe
the state should force the issue, or the boy could petition for a
guardian.
Do you not agree? "Because religion" shouldn't trump the duty of >>carectoward the child, For ghod's sake, you objected over parking >>enforcement.
I would just tell parents they have a decision to make. Either vaccinate your >kid or she can't go to school here. Either find a school that doesn't require >vaccinations (and good luck with that) or home school your kid. Which is what >the parents in the above situation were doing.
But that's only for well-established vaccines. Any new, untested, novel >vaccination technology should not be forced on anyone, ever, under any >circumstances.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 2:12:44 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/17/2026 4:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 1:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Yes, it is ...*if* we've a basic right to draw lines. But our ability >>>>> to concoct horrific scenarios shouldn't blind us to the overall cost >>>>> such a right may exact on our personal freedoms. As a gun advocate, >>>>> you're undoubtedly familiar with well-meant intrusions...
As a gun advocate, I don't believe they're well-meant at all.
You don't? What do you believe is their actual goal, if not an ending
of gun deaths?
Control.
I like it! We can control the crimunal population by forcing them to
register their illegally-obtained firearms before they commit the
planned criminal act! Then we can take them away!
Purpose of illegal gun purchase, check all that apply
Intimidation
Revenge
Killing my girlfriend to prove I love her
Mass shooting
Bitch can't get away with dissin' me on social media
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 6:38:16 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 1:58:55 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 12:51:28 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Sep 17, 2026 at 8:28:54 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
. . .
. . .
Why don't you believe state immunization mandates are constitutional? If >>> they are, why isn't the important public health goal adequate for
strict scrutiny?
I ask about the mandate at school registration, which you did not
address.
Babies do not need to be vaccinated mere weeks out of the womb. If parents >> want to wait until the child is older to vaccinate, they should not be
turned into nationwide fugitives for doing so.
The recimmended schedule for most vaccines is between 6 months and 2
years. No doctor would insist that young as the vaccine won't be
effective.
Children never have autonomy. Most of them wouldn't go to school or eat >>>> vegatables if they had autonomy.
Given your "years of clinical trials" criterion, you would think the
anti-vaxxer parents are wrong in conflict with the child.
A number of years ago, in a wealthy suburb, due to a large number of
idiot upper-middle-class anti-vaxxer parents who had opted out on
religious grounds, the local high school had a whooping cough outbreak.
I child in that community, not yet infected, could have a justified
fear of getting sick. The state mandate hasn't been violated, and the
Supreme Court doesn't permit testing how sincerely held a religious
belief is.
Couldn't that reasonably be called child neglect or endangerment? Maybe
the state should force the issue, or the boy could petition for a
guardian.
Do you not agree? "Because religion" shouldn't trump the duty of
carectoward the child, For ghod's sake, you objected over parking
enforcement.
I would just tell parents they have a decision to make. Either vaccinate your
kid or she can't go to school here. Either find a school that doesn't require
vaccinations (and good luck with that) or home school your kid. Which is what
the parents in the above situation were doing.
In the decision I cited elsewhere, extending Maumood's reasoning to
vaccine mandates, state laws without religious exception compelling
parents are unconstitutional. And what you suggest denies equal
protection in state cumpulsory education laws, which are both a mandate
to be schooled and a right to attend public school.
But that's only for well-established vaccines. Any new, untested, novel
vaccination technology should not be forced on anyone, ever, under any
circumstances.
Just admit I'm right that the free exercise clause, intended to be a
civil right, has been misapplied to become a privilege.
I think you agree with me, hence your well-established medicine
exception, but haven't said it.
On Sep 17, 2026 at 8:58:19 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
In the decision I cited elsewhere, extending Maumood's reasoning to
vaccine mandates, state laws without religious exception compelling
parents are unconstitutional. And what you suggest denies equal
protection in state cumpulsory education laws, which are both a mandate
to be schooled and a right to attend public school.
Public schools place all sorts of restrictions on attendance (geographic >residency, etc.)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2. . .
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 8:58:19 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
In the decision I cited elsewhere, extending Maumood's reasoning to >>>vaccine mandates, state laws without religious exception compelling >>>parents are unconstitutional. And what you suggest denies equal >>>protection in state cumpulsory education laws, which are both a mandate >>>to be schooled and a right to attend public school.
Public schools place all sorts of restrictions on attendance (geographic >>residency, etc.)
An attendance boundary may be covered by Brown v. Board of Education
but it's not analogous to Mahmoud's reasoning as extended to vaccine >mandates. To be constitutional, state law must make a religion exception
from vaccine mandates. Patient Zero can enroll in her local public
school if she claims a religion exception, killing all the kids with
idiot anti-vaxxer parents.
This is from 2025. What you suggest is not constitutional.
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
NoBody wrote in article <l9knal1dmj5hajme9dsbv0f06kdrln9q8h@It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots
4ax.com>:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 9/15/2026 10:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts couple >>>>> declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their doctor >>>>> called DCF on them. Knowing that it was only a matter of time before the state
goons showed up, they packed up their five children in the car and drove to
Texas where they were staying with family. When the DCF stormtroopers showed
up at their home and found them gone, the state issued a nationwide Amber >>>>> Alert which said both parents were wanted on five counts of child kidnapping,
which seems to be a legal impossibility. How can two parents, who both have
legal custody, kidnap their own children? Kidnap them from whom? It seems like
the state is indirectly claiming that all children in Massachusetts belong to
the state and that parents are only "allowed" by the state to raise them, a
privilege that can be revoked at will by the Eye of Sauron.
When the family was located in Texas, they were extradited back to
Massachusetts in handcuffs and charged with a half-dozen felonies. For not
violating any law. It's not illegal to go on a family vacation to another >>>>> state. When they left, there was no judicial order prohibiting them from >>>>> taking the kids anywhere. There's no legal principle that says the moment >>>>> someone threatens you with a call to DCF that you are instantly prohibited
from leaving the state.
The same people who scream in red-faced apoplectic rage "My body, my choice!"
will enthusiastically support and do shit like this without a second thought.
----------------------------------
https://x.com/laurenlee/status/1911904139958714869?s=20
Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion are homeschooling parents of five. They told
their pediatrician they were postponing vaccines for their baby, citing >>>>> religious reasons.
Days later, DCF showed up at their door. Their crime? Medical autonomy. >>>>>
After having a pushy confrontation with their pediatrician, Dr. Behzad >>>>> Goharfar, the parents had decided to switch to a new family doctor.
Unfortunately, that didn't go over well with Goharfar. On their final visit,
Goharfar, who trained in Iran, allegedly threatened them: Vaccinate the baby
immediately or he would report them to DCF with a 51A.
After initial contact with DCF, the Riveras made the choice to leave >>>>> Massachusetts for Texas, fearing for their children's safety. Why? They knew
what was coming and they didn't trust a system that treats religious >>>>> objections like crimes.
Unfortunately, instead of protection, they were met with a manhunt. An Amber
Alert was issued, alongside charges of kidnapping and media smear campaigns.
The Riveras were completely denied due process. A judge rubber-stamped a >>>>> post-hoc Care and Protection Order without a hearing, without evidence, and
without even attempting to notify the parents.
The couple was "caught" in Texas for daring to protect their children. They
were dragged back to Massachusetts in handcuffs. Ruth now faces jail time and
the baby remains under supervised visitation. All five children were >>>>> vaccinated against their will and against their parents' will by the state.
Meanwhile, Dr. Goharfar continues practicing medicine without facing any >>>>> consequences for his role in this state-sponsored trauma. The situation has
turned into a complete nightmare scenario for these loving parents.
Disagree with any vaccine?
Lose your kids.
Refuse on religious grounds?
Go to jail.
Try to escape?
Get hunted down.
If you think this ends in Massachusetts, you're not paying attention. This is
a warning shot. A test case. And it's just the beginning.
There's a reason Big Pharma lobbies the DCF in all 50 states. There's a reason
"public health" has become a weapon of state control over the citizens. And
there's a reason more and more parents are afraid to speak out.
Because the state is no longer asking. It's taking. You don't have to be a
parent to care. You just have to be awake.
In 2025, authoritarianism is allowed and due process denied.
As long as it's dressed in a lab coat.
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare? Just >>>> asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child?
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards
drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or
teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't >happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that >kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do.
I know a different default can be dangerous too. I think of parents with >religious objections to things like blood transfusions who have had
their own kids die as a result.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as
young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard >repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25 - and >neither giving the doctors nor the parents the final decision always
leads to an optimal outcome.
On Sep 17, 2026 at 9:38:29 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/17/2026 10:38 AM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
NoBody wrote in article <l9knal1dmj5hajme9dsbv0f06kdrln9q8h@It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots >>> who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards
4ax.com>:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare?a Just >>>>>> asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child?
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status,
beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including
independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents,
disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional
medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or
teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't >>> happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that >>> kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do.
I know a different default can be dangerous too. I think of parents with >>> religious objections to things like blood transfusions who have had
their own kids die as a result.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as >>> young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard
repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25 - and >>> neither giving the doctors nor the parents the final decision always
leads to an optimal outcome.
The threshold of a "fully formed" brain seems arbitrary if not outright
imaginary.
Our previous district attorney, the self-proclaimed communist George Gascon, >would refuse to charge most offenders under the age of 25 (unless the case was >a media sensation and he was pressured into it) because he claimed a person's >brain didn't mature until then and so they weren't legally responsible for the >crimes they committed.
But he was also (inexplicably) a supporter of kids being able to decide to >medically transition to the opposite sex.
So a 20-year-old rapist is just a kid who didn't know any better because his >brain is still forming, but a 12-year-old has all the maturity and intellect >to decide to turn themselves into a chronic medical patient for life. Make it >make sense.
On Sep 17, 2026 at 2:12:44 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/17/2026 4:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 1:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 9/17/2026 1:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 9:38:29 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/17/2026 10:38 AM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-09-17 8:02 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
NoBody wrote in article <l9knal1dmj5hajme9dsbv0f06kdrln9q8h@ >>>>>>>> 4ax.com>:It's a long way from perfect. What if the doctors are activist-zealots
Oregon has tried to address this with "young adult" status, >>>>>>>> beginning at age 15. It comes with some extra rights, including >>>>>>>> independent medical rights. If the teenager and the parents, >>>>>>>> disagree on what to do, the deciding factor is conventional >>>>>>>> medicine: whichever party agrees with the doctors gets to decide.
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:16:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Should a parent have absolute authority over their kids' welfare?-a Just
asking for a recent defendant...
Should the state have absolute authority over a parent's child? >>>>>>>>
It's not perfect, but it's a decent first attempt.
who believe whole-heartedly that even a vague inclination towards >>>>>>> drugging and slicing the kid into whatever gender his peer group or
teacher has convinced him he should be? And don't tell me that doesn't
happen. The Tavistock Clinic in Britain seemed to be run by exactly that
kind of people and has been greatly curbed in what it used to do. >>>>>>>
I know a different default can be dangerous too. I think of parents with
religious objections to things like blood transfusions who have had
their own kids die as a result.
I don't know what the right answer is but I'm dubious about someone as
young as 15 having the power to decide for themselves - we've heard
repeatedly in recent years that the brain is fully formed until 25 - and
neither giving the doctors nor the parents the final decision always
leads to an optimal outcome.
The threshold of a "fully formed" brain seems arbitrary if not outright
imaginary.
Our previous district attorney, the self-proclaimed communist George >>>>> Gascon,
would refuse to charge most offenders under the age of 25 (unless the case
was
a media sensation and he was pressured into it) because he claimed a >>>>> person's
brain didn't mature until then and so they weren't legally responsible for
the
crimes they committed.
But he was also (inexplicably) a supporter of kids being able to decide to
medically transition to the opposite sex.
So a 20-year-old rapist is just a kid who didn't know any better >>>>> because his
brain is still forming, but a 12-year-old has all the maturity and >>>>> intellect
to decide to turn themselves into a chronic medical patient for life. Make
it
make sense.
Afaics, the proper solution for Western societies that make >>>>>> personal freedom paramount is to bite the bullet of allowing it. So,No... when you attack and try and murder your kids, that's pretty much an
e.g., parents would have final say until kids reach officially >>>>>> recognized majority. Trouble is, it's hard to codify early behavior >>>>>> (like Lindsay Clancy's) that warrant suspension of that freedom. >>>>>
easy
line to draw.
Yes, it is ...*if* we've a basic right to draw lines. But our ability >>>> to concoct horrific scenarios shouldn't blind us to the overall cost >>>> such a right may exact on our personal freedoms. As a gun advocate, >>>> you're undoubtedly familiar with well-meant intrusions...
As a gun advocate, I don't believe they're well-meant at all.
You don't? What do you believe is their actual goal, if not an ending
of gun deaths?
Control.
On 9/17/2026 10:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 2:12:44 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 9/17/2026 4:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 1:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
No... when you attack and try and murder your kids, that's pretty >>>>>> much an
easy
line to draw.
Yes, it is ...*if* we've a basic right to draw lines. But our ability >>>>> to concoct horrific scenarios shouldn't blind us to the overall cost >>>>> such a right may exact on our personal freedoms. As a gun advocate, >>>>> you're undoubtedly familiar with well-meant intrusions...
As a gun advocate, I don't believe they're well-meant at all.
You don't? What do you believe is their actual goal, if not an ending
of gun deaths?
Control.
That's the area of contention, but not the original motivator. E.g., I don't imagine that a typical anti-gun advocate delights to hear of each
new mass-shooting.
On Sep 18, 2026 at 8:09:40 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9/17/2026 10:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 2:12:44 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 9/17/2026 4:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 17, 2026 at 1:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
No... when you attack and try and murder your kids, that's pretty >>>>>>> much an
easy
line to draw.
Yes, it is ...*if* we've a basic right to draw lines. But our ability
to concoct horrific scenarios shouldn't blind us to the overall cost >>>>>> such a right may exact on our personal freedoms. As a gun advocate, >>>>>> you're undoubtedly familiar with well-meant intrusions...
As a gun advocate, I don't believe they're well-meant at all.
You don't? What do you believe is their actual goal, if not an ending >>>> of gun deaths?
Control.
That's the area of contention, but not the original motivator. E.g., I
don't imagine that a typical anti-gun advocate delights to hear of each
new mass-shooting.
They do delight in the opportunity it gives them for greater control, however.
Rahm Emanuel: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 120:07:50 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,002 |