Hands off our children!

Daniel Hauser is 13 years old. He should be enjoying life and looking forward to his future.

Instead, Daniel Hauser has cancer, Hodgkins lymphoma, and finds himself the center of a controversy in Minnesota pitting the government against his parents and, indeed, Daniel too.

The issue is that Daniel could be facing death; then again, maybe not.

Daniel and his parents decided not to proceed with his chemotherapy.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg took 58 pages to rule that parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, are guilty of "medically neglecting" their son.

TRENDING: Madison Cawthorn introduces bill to protect border wall by declaring it a national monument

The family was ordered to appear in court last Tuesday with new X-rays to show any disease progression. Mr. Hauser was there, but his wife and Daniel weren't. The judge issued an arrest warrant for Colleen Hauser charging contempt because she and Daniel missed the hearing. Mother and son are now outlaws.

On Thursday, the sheriff's department issued a felony arrest warrant for Mrs. Hauser for "deprivation of parental rights."

Understand, the "deprivation" refers to the fact that the court granted custody of Daniel to Brown County family services. Because Mrs. Hauser and Daniel disappeared, the court says she's depriving Daniel's "parents" – in this case, the government, not his real parents – from caring for him.

Furthermore, the FBI is involved in the search while Daniel's father issues pleas for his wife and child to return.

As I write this, the two were seen in Southern California, possibly headed for Mexico.

What's going on? A child has cancer, the state gets in the middle of it, tells parents what to do and if they don't comply, they're criminals?

Yes – and if Colleen Hauser is tried and convicted, she could face two years in jail for each of the two charges, plus fines.

In January, Daniel was diagnosed with the cancer, which is considered 90 percent curable with treatment, but without it survival is 5 percent.

Daniel had one chemo treatment in February. He hated it. He and his parents opted out, saying they preferred to proceed with alternative medicines for religious reasons.

Doctors' concerns led to the court proceedings which, despite the survival statistics, in reality usurped the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their minor children.

Also, Daniel's age raises the issue of his rights, concerning what's done to him and indeed, whether he has "legal" say in such decisions. Some accuse Daniel of being a "dumb kid" and "brainwashed" by his parents.

But he's been outspoken, insisting he will resist any attempts to force the treatment and that he'll punch and kick anyone who tries.

That would present a problem if he returns, is put into county custody and forced to receive treatment. How do you get a needle into a fighting boy?

Arthur Caplan, chair of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania, told Fox News, "It can be very difficult to treat a 13-year-old boy who doesn't want to be treated. I don't want to say it's impossible, but it makes it very tough on the doctors."

To say nothing of Daniel and his parents who are doing what they believe is right. What are their rights in care for their child?

The real issue is when can the state can intervene into family issues and how "neglect" is defined?

Does a 13-year-old boy, with parental agreement, have the right to refuse chemotherapy?

If not, why does a 13-year-old girl, without parental consent (or notification), have the right to birth control or an abortion? In reality, her right to abortion is subtle state permission for her to have sex – although sex with a minor is illegal.

Yet the same girl can't get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental consent.

Perhaps that's to make the parents feel they have some authority.

Why do doctors and the state have the right to mandate a vaccine for Hepatitis B be given to a newborn before it leaves the hospital, despite the fact that the disease in question is only transmitted through sex or drug use? Those are hardly activities of infants.

Life is made miserable for parents who refuse. It's so bad that some pediatricians refuse to accept children as "well-baby patients" if parents refuse the shot. Parental rights?

Why does the state require immunizations for school entrance while making it more difficult for exemptions to be granted for religious or medical reasons? Physicians are loathe to help, and schools "just follow the rules!"

Why are school districts and states mandating the new cervical cancer vaccine despite the growing number of illnesses and deaths attributed to the shot, the fact it isn't known how long it might be effective and the fact it doesn't prevent all forms of the disease? The millions spent on advertising the vaccine ignore such issues.

Indeed, while the state will require such vaccines or allow birth control or abortions without parental notification, the state has no liability.

If the child suffers psychological, emotional or physical illnesses, diseases, fertility problems – or even death – well then, that's the parent's responsibility.

How did we allow ourselves to get to this point?

There are age requirements to drink, smoke, drive, sign contracts, vote, get married and join the military. Parents are legally responsible for their minor children involved in any of those activities and those who get involved in crimes.

Yet if parents make a medical decision the "state" doesn't like, they lose custody.

The Hausers made a life or death decision. It should be their choice.

We're getting closer to the big hand of government declaring parents completely unable to influence/teach their own children.

Just birth 'em and pay for 'em; leave the rest to us.

Uh, no. Not while I'm breathing.