the late 30ís?
by Peary Perry
Iraq while Saddam was in power?
in your house with your family.
Itís late at night.
You just had a baby three weeks earlier.
Your husband hears some automobiles pull up and stop directly in front
of your house.
Cautiously he looks out the window.
Armed police officers are getting out of their vehicles and headed
to your door.
Terrifying thoughts race through your mind.
Why are they here?
What have we done?
Perhaps there is a mistake.
Sure, thatís it, a mistake, we havenít done anything wrong, they must
have us confused with someone else.
But the ranking officer produces a warrant for your newborn child.
How can this be?
Our baby is only three weeks old, what reason could you have for him?
Your cries are to no avail and your child is taken from your arms
and driven away.
is this you might ask?
Germany in the late 30ís?
Iraq while Saddam was in power?
Russia after World War II?
Nope, not even close.
How about Omaha, Nebraska this month?
Yes, dear friends it seems that a child was born in Omaha in September
and the parents did not wish to have the child subjected to a blood
test for certain illnesses while the baby was in the hospital. They
objected to this test for religious reasons.
The State of Nebraska sends them a letter advising that they needed
to have the child tested and that the child was in Ďimmediate dangerí.
The parents ignore the letter and do not wish to have the child tested.
The state then decides to issue a warrant, make the child a ward of
the state, then seize the child and ask questions later. The child
was grabbed, tested and placed in foster care for ten days until the
test results were returned. These were negative and the child was
allowed to be returned to its parents.
to be made:
If this is an example of how our future medical system is supposed
to work, stop the world I want to get off. With all of the talk being
bantered back and forth between the potential presidential candidates
concerning universal health care, it appears to me that the state
(our government) is getting a little too much involved in our health
Iím all for good health coverage, and medical treatments, but not
any treatments that would be mandatory or else. In order for me to
travel to certain parts of the world Iíd have to have a series of
shots or I canít go. Fine with me, I donít want the shots so Iím not
going. If I really wanted to go, then Iíd have to take the shotsÖbut
itís my option to choose if I wanted them or not, not some judge sitting
in some courtroom where I canít see him when he makes a decision that
affects my life.
No, my friends, once they get to the point where a judge can decide
what medicine or treatment I need to take or else face jail time,
then we are headed in the wrong direction. Once common sense is thrown
out the window of justice then who is to determine how I should be
treated? Will it get to the point where the court gets to make a decision
as to whether or not I can live or die? What if some judge in the
future decides that all old people over the age of say, eighty five
are a burden upon society and need to be put down?
is the fairness in this type of activity? Do we want a country where
a judge, not a jury, but a judge has the right to issue a warrant
and take a child away without any hearing to determine if the circumstances
warrant such action? Seems like I remember that this situation existed
a long time ago in England. As I recall, the sheriff and King were
going around the countryside arresting people for one spurious reason
or another and locking them up for long periods of time. There was
no jury, only a judge until the people got enough of it and wrote
a paper called the Magna Charta.
I also recall that we had something like this in the country called
the Bill of Rights.
Donít small three week old children and their parents have rights
Or are we past that point and headed off into the great blue yonder
of socialized medicine for the good of all at the expense of a few?
Hitler was ahead of his time and in the wrong country.