The medical terrorists are at it again and they’re gaining on us, aiming the big guns at children and parents.
If you think parents have the right to raise their children according to their own beliefs and standards, think again.
The truth is, in this twisted world, you only have the right to raise your children as long as the state doesn’t think it knows better. When that happens, watch out. The guy with the biggest fist wins, and that usually means the parents and the kids lose.
The most recent public battle of this nature is the situation now facing the Cherrix family of Chincoteague, Va.
The courts have not only taken partial custody of their 16-year-old son away from the parents, Jay and Rose, and given it to the county, but now, the court is forcing the boy to undergo massive cancer treatments which neither the parents nor the boy want.
The boy, Starchild Abraham Cherrix has Hodgkin’s disease. Last year, Abraham underwent three months of chemotherapy, as doctors prescribed. It made him weak and nauseated but he completed it. The family hoped the disease might be in remission or cured.
But early this year, tests showed Abraham’s cancer recurred and doctors recommended he again undergo chemo.
Note, the word ”recommended.” What a lie that turned out to be.
The boy, now 16, and his parents, said they didn’t want a second round of chemo because the cancer reactivated and the first treatment was so debilitating. They decided they’d prefer an alternative treatment offered at a Mexican clinic, which includes herbal supplements and a sugar-free, organic diet.
As soon as a social worker got wind of their decision, there was a request to the courts to require the conventional treatment.
The family objected, but in May, the judge awarded partial custody of Abraham to the county and, as reported by the Associated Press, issued a temporary restraining order against the parents, finding them ”neglectful.”
Last Friday, a ruling came down ordering Abraham be taken to a hospital in Norfolk for the treatment and that the parents sign a legal consent for it, affirming they were ”neglectful” in their handling of their son’s situation. The parents must also continue to share custody of their boy with the county.
The family is crushed.
Their attorney John Stepanovich says, they’ll seek to stay enforcement of the order, but more details are hard to come by. The lawyer says the juvenile court judge, Jesse E. Demps, has sealed much of the case and the Social Services Department is close-mouthed, citing privacy laws.
But Stepanovich is blunt about what he sees as happening and what he firmly believes could happen to any family.
”I want to caution all parents of Virginia. Look out, because Social Services may be pounding on your door next, when they disagree with the decision you’ve made about the health care of your child.”
This is another clear case of parental rights eroding under the force of law. The nanny state has been armed with the power of the court, which in turn is backed by the force of the state. For parents, those are powerful opponents and the children are caught in the middle.
Cases like these are more and more common, most notably over religious issues. The court overrules parents, regardless of their objections.
But increasingly, as with Abraham Cherrix, it’s not a religious issue, but a considered decision about medical treatment the state doesn’t accept.
As the state encroaches into the parental sphere of child raising, there are other indications of the growing power the state is amassing and clear evidence the ”state nanny” is now the ”enforcer.”
Nowhere is this more evident than with vaccines. The basic childhood vaccines were few and effective. But then, more were developed for other diseases and were either added to doses of existing vaccines or simply added to the list of inoculations for children. Naturally, these were just ”suggested,” then they became ”required” in well-baby care by pediatricians, and just to be sure ”recommendations” were followed, they became ”required” for school entry.
A 1-year-old healthy child today can get 10 different antigens injected into his body in one day. No one knows the effect on his immune system, and such tests haven’t been conducted. This same child gets inoculations from the day of birth, at varied month intervals during his first year and on required schedules until the teen years at least.
The ”traditional” childhood diseases are among them, but so too are the newer shots, for chickenpox, hepatitis B, meningitis, pneumonia, and many others. At various stages of development and use are shots for typhoid, encephalitis, strep, influenza, diarrhea, and croup. Over one hundred separate vaccines are being studied, including a one-shot, include everything, vaccine!
Bottom-line in virtually all of these is that they’re developed, approved, introduced and ”recommended.” Then it’s a fast track to ”required.”
Hospitals demand, for example, that newborns cannot leave the hospital without a hepatitis B shot – despite the fact that the only way the disease is transmitted is through sex or drug use. Health officials admit they’re planning for the future actions of these children.
Some pediatricians now refuse to accept children as patients if their parents prefer for them not to have certain shots.
Pre-schools and schools will refuse entry for children without shots, according to state regulations. There are ways around these requirements but it’s so difficult, most parents cave in.
What else? Consider the massive attempt to develop an AIDS vaccine.
The goal is to eliminate AIDS by vaccinating everyone. Step one: The feds say they want to test everyone for HIV; the next step, is vaccination. No doubt, neither will be voluntary.
How will the vaccine be tested? With all the fast-track pressure, how can we know it’ll be safe? Follow the money. Who pays? Who will profit? Federal law already virtually exempts drug companies from any vaccine liability.
The bigger question is what happens to people who refuse to be tested or vaccinated? What happens to parents who refuse to have their children injected with a vaccine for a disease that can only be contracted through sex or drug use?
That requirement already exists for the hepatitis B vaccine.
Consider that just weeks ago, the FDA approved a vaccine for genital warts and most cervical cancer. Both viruses are contracted during sex.
Who are ”recommended” to have the shots? Girls as young as nine, through at least 28. In other words, starting with children who are not having sex, because the government ”enforcer” wants to protect them in the future.
What if parents don’t like that intrusion into their children’s sex lives? What of religious objections? What if parents fear, with legitimate concern, their children’s immune systems are harmed by too many inoculations?
If you don’t like the government forcing medical treatments, consider that the state of Washington is implementing a survey of 1,100 households to determine people’s health. Participants, not volunteers, will be chosen to represent population diversity. They’ll be visited by a medical team, including nurses, who will ask questions, give physical exams and take blood and hair samples.
The CDC is paying for this and similar surveys in Kansas and Arkansas. Individual participants will get a $45 gift card.
What happens when this plan spreads? When does it become mandatory? When does ”treatment” become part of the plan?
The ”enforcer” is on the road and he’s after all of us.