Archive | News Articles RSS feed for this section

Barack Obama Has the Worst Supreme Court Record in History

27 Jun

by Joe Cunningham

With the Trinity Lutheran decision offered by the Supreme Court yesterday, we officially reached the end of an era.

That case was the last one the Obama Administration took any part in, having filed an amicus brief to the court supporting the state of Missouri’s decision to withhold funds from the Christian school. The decision, which was overwhelmingly in favor of the school and not the government, is the last beatdown Obama’s administration will receive from the court.

And boy did it receive some beatings.

Overall, Epstein and Posner found, Presidents and government agencies prevailed in about two-thirds of all cases, giving credence to the saying that “when the president goes to court, he wins.”

Except when that President is Barack Obama. Obama’s win rate wasn’t just significantly lower than other administrations, it was the lowest surveyed. The Obama administration won just 50.5 percent of its Supreme Court cases, according to the study.

How does this compare to other recent presidents?

Where the Reagan administration was victorious in the Supreme Court 75 percent of the time, that rate dropped to 70 percent for George Bush (the first), 63 percent for Clinton, and 60 percent for George W. Bush.

What’s more, the executive win rate dropped between terms as well. Clinton performed better in 1994 than he did in 1998, for example. George W. Bush won more his first four years than his second.

Therefore, one could argue that Barack Obama’s administration is the most unconstitutional administration in history. It’s not like we needed the empirical evidence to back us up on that, but it sure as hell is nice to have some vindication on that, isn’t it?

Obama did himself no favors with the nation’s highest court from the very beginning, though. Verbally calling them out in a State Of The Union address was a clear signal that he expected them to go along with him, while also hinting that he would proceed with or without them. Despite his warnings, the then-president also received more unanimous decisions against him than any other president in history.

Of course, this means absolutely nothing to the Democrats, who will absolutely ignore SCOTUS decisions when they don’t like them. They are so bad about doing that, as I mentioned yesterday, the Supreme Court had to target liberal activist groups with specific phrasing in their decision on Trump’s travel ban.

Now, there is a catch here – the Supreme Court appears to be trending away from presidents since Reagan. That means that Donald Trump could be looking at his most hostile court yet, despite a conservative majority. Conservatives who oppose Trump have expressed their concerns with some of his rhetoric bordering on the authoritarian, and that is something the court, conservative or no, is not going to go along with.

As has been said time and again, however, predicting what the Supreme Court will do is pretty much impossible. Determining if they’ll trend away from or more toward a president is a pointless analysis.

What we do know is that Trump is going to have some legal battles ahead of him. The travel ban will be heard in full this autumn, and liberal activist groups will be looking for anything and everything to challenge him on in the courts. The Supreme Court could be his last line of defense… or, it could be his downfall.

High School Student in Critical Condition After Being Tazed by Cops

5 Feb

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
November 25, 2013

The family of a high school student fears he will not survive injuries sustained last Wednesday after school resource officers Tazed him, the family’s attorney has stated.

17-year-old Noe Nino de Rivera is in critical condition at St. David’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas, after he was alleged to have interfered with two sheriff’s deputies working as resource officers, who were attempting to break up a fight between two female students.

The Cedar Creek High School student fell and hit the front of his head when one of the officers, Randy McMillan, used a Taser to subdue him. He sustained a traumatic brain injury, one of the worst his family’s attorney, Adam Loewy, says he’s witnessed in his legal career.

“This is one of the worst traumatic brain injuries we have seen and we will be pursuing all legal remedies at the proper time,” Loewy told KXAN.

He told the Austin American Statesman that if de Rivera “does recover, or survive, he will absolutely not be the same person. It’s just a terrible, terrible tragedy.”

A spokeswoman for the sheriff’s department says the Cedar Creek High School student moved aggressively, did not respond to orders and “looked as though he was ready to fight.”

Noe Nino de Rivera in ICU with brain damage / image via Twitter.article-2515388-19B5FC0700000578-740_634x897

Several students, however, say de Rivera did nothing to deserve being Tased, and Lowey says he has video evidence to this effect.

 “I do not believe for a second that he was being aggressive,” Loewy stated, pointing to cell phone footage he says proves de Rivera was not the aggressor. “This officer was way out of control.”

“There were two young ladies fighting and he stepped in to break up the fight,” Loewy explained to KXAN. “What the evidence shows, he was sort of backing up from the fight, the fight was over, and this officer literally walked up on him and Tased him.”

The sheriff’s spokeswoman says they also have video of the incident, and it proves officers were in the right. “He’s being aggressive. He is not complying with any of the verbal orders,” Bastrop County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Sissy Jones told MyFoxAustin. “One of the officers puts his hand on de Rivera’s chest and says, you need to back up and that’s when de Rivera hits the officer’s hand.”

“Totally false, a complete lie,” Loewy says. ”You see the back of the officers come up and you see Noe facing them and then you see the taser go.”

Students at the high school staged a walk-out Friday morning, in which they chanted “Justice for Noe” and carried signs reading “#PrayForNoe,” and protested the use of Tazers in schools.

According to Jones, Rivera could face charges of interference with public duties, resisting arrest, search or transport, and assault should he survive his injuries.

“Those charges are a joke,” Loewy told Fox news, adding, “and I really hope they try to indict a kid who’s in a coma.”

An independent investigation by the district attorney has been launched, in addition to an internal investigation over the incident. Loewy is also calling for a Texas Ranger and federal government investigation of the case.

Officer McMillan remains on duty, though he’s been transferred to a different department.

World Citizen Asks United Nations to Disarm America: “The World Cannot Stand Idly By”

28 Sep

Mac Slavo
SHTFplan.com
September 24, 2013

In his latest article, London Observer writer Henry Porter denigrates American gun owners by calling us insane and requests the assistance of the United Nations to “disarm the irrational rustics.”

Image: Henry Porter.

It’s a sentiment shared by many world citizens, as well as about 52% of Americans who participated in a recent Huffington Post poll.

Via Kurt Nimmo of Infowars:

Outside of the United States, where the idea of self-ownership and the natural right of self-defense is at best a dismal concept, members of the corporatized media are calling for armed intervention to put an end to the Second Amendment.

“But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention?” writes Henry Porter of the London Observer. “As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.”

Mr. Porter proudly notes that Britons long ago dispensed with English Common Law – apparently including its precedent, the Magna Carta – and insists that the right to bear arms is an antiquated idea akin to holding slaves.

“Half the country is sane and rational while the other half simply doesn’t grasp the inconsistencies and historic lunacy of its position, which springs from the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and is derived from English common law and our 1689 Bill of Rights,” he writes. “We dispensed with these rights long ago, but American gun owners cleave to them with the tenacity that previous generations fought to continue slavery.”

Maybe the United Nations can be sent in to disarm the irrational rustics. “This has reached the point where it has ceased to be a domestic issue. The world cannot stand idly by.”

If Mr. Porter had it his way he’d deploy a United Nations force of armed military personnel to the United States for the sole purpose of disarming law abiding Americans.

What Mr. Porter apparently doesn’t understand is that the Second Amendment is the very backstop for people like him, who would violate the natural laws of self preservation and property rights by use of force.

Rather than claiming that we fight for our right to bear arms with the tenacity of slave owners, I like to think we fight for this right with the same tenacity that we fought British imperial rule in the late 1700′s. But Mr. Porter didn’t want to make that analogy, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Porter, I will be the very first American to surrender my weapon to you… from my cold dead heads.

My good friend and Army veteran Ed Thomas who has spent many months in a war zone, and who is also the editor of The Daily Sheeple, has a similar message, and one he recently tattooed on his arm expressly for the purpose of informing people like Mr. Porter and other world citizens who have any skewed ideas about how easy such a gun grab might be:

ed-molon-labe

Come and Take It, Mr. Porter.

The dentistry holocaust: How America has been mercury poisoned by an industry in denial

28 Sep

Mike Adams
Natural News
September 24, 2013

Last Friday, the city council of Berkeley, California, voted to keep mercury hidden in dental fillings, keeping consumers in the dark on the fact that they are all being poisoned with a deadly neurotoxin that causes permanent brain damage. This decision to keep consumers in the dark was, of course, supported by dentists and doctors — both of which have a long history of covertly poisoning their own patients while refusing to disclose the damaging effects of the deadly chemicals or toxic heavy metals they routinely (and profitably) use.

Image: Dentist.

It turns out that “amalgam fillings” are intentionally and deliberately misnamed for the express purpose of misleading consumers. Those fillings are actually more than 50 percent mercury, and once installed in mouths, they off-gas mercury vapor which is then inhaled by the patient, entering their bloodstream and causing permanent cellular damage to heart, kidneys, liver and brain. Click here to see a video of mercury fillings off-gassing deadly mercury vapor.

There’s also a stunning video from the University of Calgary that provides visual proof of mercury damaging brain neurons. If you’ve never seen this video, click here to watch it now.

Here’s why so many dentists are clinically insane

The dentistry industry knows that mercury is extremely toxic. It’s one of the reasons why so many dentists are clinically insane. They’ve come into contact with so much mercury of the years that they, themselves, are victims of it. That’s why so many retired dentists are stark raving mad. The “mad hatter” effect is what happens when you touch, absorb or inhale too much mercury over the years.

So instead of trying to remove mercury from fillings — which would be the obvious solution here — the dental industry has, for decades, engaged in a delusional campaign of denialpretending that mercury fillings are somehow not toxic. Could this be because the dental industry organizations also happen to own patents on mercury fillings and earn huge revenues every time one is purchased for use on a child?

Yet even in their absurd denial of the toxicity of mercury, mainstream dentists and poison pushers forget yet another critical aspect of all this: the environmental damage caused by mercury used in dentistry.

Mercury-based dentistry is destroying our world

Thanks to modern dentistry, mercury is “the poison that keeps on giving.” Even after poisoning the patient, that same mercury goes on to poison the world. How?

Cremation.

When people who have mercury fillings die, many are cremated. This causes the mercury in their mouths to be “cooked off” and turned into a deadly gas that gets blown right into the atmosphere. Mainstream environmentalists are quite familiar with the idea of mercury being released by coal power plants, but almost nobody talks about mercury being released from the cremation of patients who have been implanted with mercury fillings.

This mercury gets blown by trade winds and eventually settles on crop lands all across America. From there, it enters the food, causing trace levels of mercury to be found across the food supply. This is just one of the many ways in which modern dentistry is poisoning our world.

Mercury used in fertilizers for food

Believe it or not, mercury is also found in biosludge (human waste) fertilizers that are routinely spread on crops grown in the USA and elsewhere. This is a common but little-known practice in the food production industry.

The EPA openly confirms this, by the way, stating, “if mercury-contaminated sludge is used as an agricultural fertilizer, some of the mercury used as fertilizer may also evaporate to the atmosphere. Through precipitation, this airborne mercury eventually gets deposited onto water bodies, land and vegetation.”

Just how big of a problem is this? According to the EPA, over 30 tons of mercury were used in dental fillings in 2004. Dental offices are also polluting the world with mercury through improper disposal of mercury-contaminated devices and supplies. As the EPA states on its dental amalgam page:

If the amalgam waste is sent to a landfill, the mercury may be released into the groundwater or air. If the mercury is incinerated, mercury may be emitted to the air from the incinerator stacks. And finally, if mercury-contaminated sludge is used as an agricultural fertilizer, some of the mercury used as fertilizer may also evaporate to the atmosphere. Through precipitation, this airborne mercury eventually gets deposited onto water bodies, land and vegetation. Some dentists throw their excess amalgam into special medical waste (“red bag”) containers, believing this to be an environmentally safe disposal practice. If waste amalgam solids are improperly disposed in medical red bags, however, the amalgam waste may be incinerated and mercury may be emitted to the air from the incinerator stacks. This airborne mercury is eventually deposited into water bodies and onto land. Mercury amalgam also accumulates on dental supplies, such as cotton swabs and gauze, and these materials are usually deposited in the regular trash. In local areas where trash is incinerated, the mercury in this trash can be released via air emissions.

Mercury denialists, poison pushers and destroyers of life

The mercury denialists are all the usual suspects. They are the very same destroyers of life who are also pushing GMOs, vaccines, psychiatric drugs and other poisons that are destroying our world. These very same people insist that mercury is somehow not toxic to humans, nor to the environment, nor to any life on our planet.

Of course, they know they’re lying about mercury, just as they’re lying about GMOs, vaccines, psychiatric drugs, glyphosate, triclosan, aspartame and all the other poisons now devastating our world.

It’s time to stop the dentistry holocaust and outlaw the use of mercury in both dentistry and medicine. Mercury has no place whatsoever in the dental practices of a civilized society. We have suffering mercury poisoning for too many generations, and We the People will no longer tolerate the denials of a corrupt, profiteering industry that earns money by installing neurotoxic substances into the mouths of children.

What you can do to stop the dentistry holocaust

Join Natural News in halting this modern-day holocaust:

#1) Demand mercury-free dentistry for yourself and your family members. If your current dentist still uses mercury, switch dentists.

#2) Demand that your representatives in government support legislative bans on mercury in dentistry and vaccines.

#3) If you currently have mercury in your mouth, have it removed by a competent holistic dentist. Please note that you will need to consume extra nutritional supplements before and after any mercury removal procedure to protect your body from absorbing the mercury. Most importantly, you will need an oxygen respirator during the procedure to avoid inhaling mercury vapor as the fillings are being drilled out! If your dentist does not give you a respirator during this procedure, refuse to work with that dentist, period! (Removing mercury fillings exposes you to very high levels of mercury vapor during the removal.)

#4) Share this story and keep reading Natural News for the truth about mercury, dentistry, vaccines, GMOs and other topics that the mainstream media flat-out refuses to cover.

P.S. There is no “safe” form of mercury, as is sometimes claimed by the poison pushers. Mercury is toxic in all its forms and isotopes. You can speciate mercury all day long, but you’ll never find a form that’s a nutrient. Every form of mercury is poison to life on our planet, without exception! (Ethylmercury, methylmercury, inorganic mercury, etc.) Click here for a great online resource explaining the different “species” of mercury most likely to be encountered.

Report Finds “Probable” Carcinogens in Every Tap Water Sample Tested

28 Sep

Elizabeth Renter
Infowars.com
September 27, 2013

One of the most important things you can do to stay healthy and feel good is stay hydrated. But in a world where so much of the water is contaminated by pollution or supplemented chemical treatments, it’s difficult to know where to get the best water. A report earlier this year from the Environmental Working Group found that tap water may not be your best bet—determining every water sample they tested, from 201 city water systems in 43 states, was contaminated with “probable human carcinogens.”

Image: Tap Water.

The report, Water Treatment Contaminants: Forgotten Toxics in American Water, highlights the dangers of American municipal water systems and the toxic chemicals that are added to the water to “treat” contaminants. Yes, the things they add to the water to clean it up are the very things we need to be watching out for.

Namely chlorine, a disinfecting agent added to water to kill disease-causing microorganisms, is reacting with organic matter like sewage, manure, fallen leaves, and the like, to create potentially toxic and harmful chemicals.

According to the EWG report:

“This unintended side effect of chlorinating water to meet federal drinking water regulations creates a family of chemicals known as trihalomethanes. The Environmental Protection Agency lumps them under the euphemism “disinfection byproducts” but we call them what they are: toxic trash.”

These resulting trihalomethanes are partially regulated by the EPA, but it’s regulation doesn’t do enough. For one, the agency only regulates four members of the trihalomethane family when there are hundreds in the water. And as for these four types of toxic chemicals, regulations still allow their presence in the water at harmful levels.

Numerous studies have found these chemicals to increase the risk of bladder cancer. Right now, the EPA limits the amount of trihalomethanes to 80-parts-per-billion, though research has tied bladder cancer risk to much lower amounts.

For instance, a 2007 study in Spain found exposure to trihalomethanes as low as 35 parts per billion to be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Also in 2007, researchers in Taiwan linked bladder cancer risk with levels of only 21 parts per billion. Of those water systems tested by the EWG, 168 had trihalomethane concentrations greater than 21 parts per billion. In 53% of those tested, the levels were greater than 35 parts per billion.

But, as the EWG reports, “trihalomethanes are just the tip of the iceberg.” More than 600 potentially dangerous chemicals are created when water treatment disinfectants react with pollutants in source water. These contaminants may be linked to birth defects, various forms of cancer, infertility, and more. Fluoride in particular has gained a lot of attention, mainly for it’s ability to reduce IQ.

Fluoridation victories continue as Washington town banishes toxic chemical from water supply

14 Sep

Jonathan Benson
Natural News
September 9, 2013

fluorideAnother victory has been won in the fight to protect the public against water supplies intentionally poisoned with artificial fluoride chemicals, this time in Woodland, Washington, a city located just 30 miles north of Portland, Oregon. As reported by The Daily News online, the Woodland City Council recently voted 6-to-1 to stop adding synthetic fluoride chemicals to its public water supply after it was determined that the outmoded practice is both unsafe and ineffective.

Following the lead of nearby Portland, which back in May also decided to keep its water supply pure and free of toxic industrial waste, Woodland joins many other scientifically progressive communities across the country that have had enough of all the status quo, pro-fluoride rhetoric. Citing a cohort of peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses published in recent years, vigilant Woodland residents were able to show the receptive council that artificial fluoride is dangerous, and has no place being added to water.

“I’m against my government medicating me without my consent,” said Terry Day, a local resident, to the council at a recent meeting. Day was one of 20 other local residents who showed up to oppose fluoride — not a single individual in favor of artificial fluoridation showed up to the meeting to defend the practice.

According to reports, all of Woodland’s councilmen had conducted their own research prior to the meeting, and, with the exception of just one, came to the conclusion that fluoridating the water needed to stop. Councilman Ben Fredricks, for instance, expressed that cities have no business adding fluoride chemicals, which are technically a drug, to water supplies without consent.

Adding fluoride “allows decision makers without medical qualifications to do to the whole community what a doctor is not allowed to do to his or her patients,” Fredricks is quoted as saying.

Councilwoman Marilee McCall agrees, having also expressed concerns about fluoride, and particularly its safety when ingested continually over the course of one’s lifetime. She and Fredricks, along with four other council members, voted to give back to the people of Woodland their health freedom and allow individuals to choose whether or not to ingest or use fluoride.

“Everyone has the opportunity to use [fluoride] topically as a toothpaste if they wish,” added Fredricks in his dissent against fluoridation. “Every doctor I go to knows they can’t force a patient to take a medicine without their informed consent.”

A fluoride-free Woodland means less government spending, improved public health

Ending the fluoridation program in Woodland will also result in taxpayer savings of up to $5,000 per year, which is what the city used to spend to truck in the industrial waste and dump it into the water. Contrary to popular myth, the fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies are not natural but rather are derived from industrial processing byproducts, which typically also contain lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, radionuclides and other poisonous compounds.

“[E]veryone is free to use fluoride-containing toothpaste, or to add fluoride to their diet,” wrote one commenter on a related article about the decision. “Why compel the entire population, including millions of children, to ingest a substance which is, AT BEST, of unknown toxicity?”

To learn more about the dangers of fluoride, and for information about how you can help get it removed from your local water supply, be sure to check out the Fluoride Action Network:
http://www.fluoridealert.org

Sources for this article include:

http://www.nwcn.com

http://www.columbian.com

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu

http://cof-cof.ca

http://tdn.com

http://www.fluoridealert.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

 

Newborn Baby Seized by Hospital and Police Because Mother Questioned Vaccine

14 Sep
Newborn baby Newborn Baby Seized by Hospital and Police Because Mother Questioned Vaccine

 

Newborn Seized in Hospital by Police, Social Worker

Michael P. Farris, Esq.
HSLDA Chairman

I am not content to sit on the sidelines while the government gradually usurps the very essence of parental rights. I hope you share my determination. We need to stand with people like Scott and Jodi Ferris (obviously no relation to someone named Farris). Here’s their story:

Jodi went into labor a bit earlier than she had expected—and the baby was coming rapidly. Given their location and other factors, the midwife they had hoped would deliver the baby at their home encouraged them to get in an ambulance and head to the hospital.

Their baby, whom I will call “Annie,” was born in the ambulance in the parking lot of the Hershey Medical Center—a government hospital in Pennsylvania. Hospital personnel arrived very quickly and took charge of both baby and mom.

As any mother would do, Jodi immediately began to ask the nurses and attendants how her baby was doing. The hospital staff was utterly unresponsive. When they started to give Jodi an injection, she asked what it was and what it was for. They gave her vague answers like, “It’s just to help.” Only after giving her the injection of oxytocin did they tell her what it was and then asked, “You aren’t allergic to that are you?”

Jodi persisted in asking about Annie. No one would tell her anything other than “she’s in good hands and you’ll be able to see her soon.”

Eventually a doctor told her that Annie scored a 9 on a physical exam applied to newborns known as the APGAR test. A score of 8 or higher is considered healthy. (It is unclear when the score was given since she was in the ambulance at birth.) But shortly after this a different doctor told Jodi that Annie was “very sick” and would need to stay in the hospital. This doctor’s comments were accompanied by an explanation of his disdain for midwives saying, “Too many people think they know what they’re doing.”

About an hour later, another hospital staffer finally brought Annie to Jodi and said, “The baby is doing good. She will be able to go home in no time.”

Legal Requirements?

However, several hours later yet another staffer told Scott and Jodi that Annie would have to stay in the hospital for 48 to 72 hours for observation. Even though they persisted in asking why Annie would need to stay, his only answer was that “the law requires us to keep the baby for 48 hours.” When they asked for a reference to this supposed law, he answered, “you’ll have to get that from risk management.” (By the way, there is no such law in Pennsylvania.)

The risk management staffer eventually told them that even though they saw nothing wrong with the baby, they just like “to keep babies like this” for 48–72 hours. The Ferrises were told that Annie would not be released for this period since it was “unsafe for her to leave the hospital.”

Eventually, a risk management staffer admitted that the risk that was being managed was not the health of Annie but the risk that the hospital might get sued if something went wrong after she was discharged.

Ultimately, risk management said that they would be satisfied with a 24-hour stay and that Jodi and Scott could remain with the baby overnight.

You have been Accused

Late in the afternoon, a government social worker named Angelica Lopez-Heagy came into Jodi’s room announcing that she was there to conduct an investigation. Jodi asked to know the allegations. The social worker claimed that it would be against the law for her to show Jodi the allegations.

Jodi replied that she would not be comfortable answering the questions if she couldn’t know the allegations. Immediately the social worker proclaimed, “Since you’re not going to cooperate, I’ll just go and call the police and we can take custody of the baby.”

Fearing that the social worker would carry out her threat, Jodi replied that she was willing to cooperate.

The social worker soon intimated that the issue was Jodi’s refusal to consent to medical treatment for the baby. Jodi replied that she had no idea why anyone would say that. The social worker claimed that she had refused to allow a Vitamin K shot for Annie. Jodi replied that no one had asked her about such a shot. Moreover, she had overheard hospital staffers saying that they had already given Annie such a shot.

Neither the social worker nor any hospital staffer ever gave Jodi or Scott any example of any medically necessary treatment that they had refused for Annie.

At this point, Scott left the hospital to tend to their older children who were staying with friends.

Ordering Tests

Shortly after this, the hospital asked to check Annie’s white blood cell count and to perform a strep test. Jodi agreed to the testing.

Then the hospital demanded that they give Annie shot for Hepatitis B. Jodi said that she would agree only if they tested her or Annie to see if either of them were positive. If so, then she was quite willing to have the shot for Annie. The hospital claimed that they had forgotten about this earlier when it was still possible to test that day, and that they needed to give the shot anyway without any testing.

When the social worker pressed her to make an immediate decision about this shot, Jodi asked her if they could simply wait until Scott got back before they decided.

Put yourself in Jodi’s shoes at this moment. You gave birth that morning in an ambulance. The hospital has made wild and conflicting claims about your baby’s health all day long. You are exhausted. You are in pain. Your husband has gone to check on your children. And a social worker who has threatened to take your baby into police custody is standing in your hospital room demanding that you make an immediate decision.

Jodi simply said, “Please can’t this wait until my husband gets back.”

The social worker renewed her threat. If Jodi would not answer her question right then, she would call the police. And then the social worker started adding conditions. She and Scott would have to agree to sign a safety plan before she could conclude her investigation.

Jodi said that she wanted her husband and an attorney to look at the plan. She felt she was in no position to read such a document and really understand what she was being pressured to sign.

Thrown Out

And then the story turns ugly.

The social worker left the room and called the police. Without a court order they took custody of Annie, immediately claiming that she was suffering from illness or injury—a patently false claim.

The social worker consented to the administration of the Hepatitis B shot even though no blood test had been done.

The police made Jodi Ferris get up out of her hospital bed and escorted her to the entrance—they were expelling her from the hospital because she had not signed the “safety plan.”

Scott met her at the entrance to the hospital. The police escorted them both off of the grounds of the hospital.

Jodi was told that she would be allowed to return every three hours to nurse the baby through the night.

Jodi and Scott were forced to spend the night that she had given birth in their car in the parking lot of a nearby Wal-Mart. You read that right. They kicked this mother out of the hospital, and in order to be close enough to feed her child, she had to sleep in the car.

To add insult to injury, Jodi was given access to Annie only sporadically and not every three hours.

Baby Returned

The next morning a judicial officer held a shelter care hearing. After hearing the evidence, the officer immediately returned custody of Annie to her parents.

No parents should be put through this kind of ordeal. It is not a crime to ask questions about the well-being of your child. It is not a crime to ask for testing to ensure that a procedure is needed before it is done. It is not a crime to be a protective mom.

It is a moral offense of the highest order to kick a mother out of a hospital and to seize her child on the day of her birth simply because a mom wanted to have her husband read a legal document before she signed.

Both the medical personnel and the social worker engaged in outrageous behavior toward this family.

And we believe that they violated their rights under the Constitution of the United States. And we are going to court to prove it.

Why is HSLDA fighting for parental rights in this context? It is not a homeschooling case.

Parental Rights at Risk

We are taking this case because we are tired of seeing the erosion of parental rights in virtually every area of life. Parental rights in medical cases have an impact on broader parental rights, including educational decisions.

And the plain fact is this: If we don’t fight for parental rights, it is probable that our rights will be eroded bit by bit until there is nothing that remains.

We cannot afford to fund cases like this out of HSLDA’s membership dues. We are taking this case because we believe that our members and friends will stand with Jodi and Scott Ferris. We believe that parents should not be punished by “over-the-top” social workers and doctors.

The social worker’s priority was not the welfare of Annie, but her own convenience and her own perception of her power. She was aiming to teach this homeschooling mother a lesson.

And the hospital was clearly not concerned that Annie had a medical issue—they were just trying to avoid being sued for medical malpractice.

When government workers run over parents in cases like this, the lesson that needs to be taught is to the government.

This case will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Your tax-deductible gifts to the Homeschool Freedom Fund of the Home School Foundation will make it possible for us to take this case to court and to try to establish a precedent that will help protect us all.

All of our families are at risk when the government is allowed to run over one of us. When we stand together, we can fight back for freedom and for truth.

Thanks for giving as the Lord leads you. And pray for us. This is not an easy case. We really need your ongoing prayers.

Help Defend Parental Rights

Health Impact News Editor Comments: This is a shocking story of how the medical community claims to have more authority over parents’ children than the parents do. Michael Farris is an attorney and long-time champion of homeshool parents’ rights. I am very happy to see him start a new foundation to support legal cases such as this where parents rights are being abused by the medical system. Attorney Farris has also assisted with the case of Jacob Stieler and his parents in Michigan that we have reported here, where the state wants to force chemo therapy on a cancer-free child against his and his parents wishes. We need to support this new Homeschool Freedom Fund to help these parents with legal expenses.

%d bloggers like this: