Government Unjustly Seizes Newborn Baby

[eagle_eye222001]

Unbelievable, but real. This is what the government does to those who they envision stand in their way of thinking.


[quote]

[b] [url="http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/pa/201203270.asp"]http://www.hslda.org...a/201203270.asp[/url][/b]



[b] Newborn Seized in Hospital by Police, Social Worker[/b]

[color=#000000][b]Michael P. Farris, Esq.
HSLDA Chairman[/b][/color]

[color=#000000]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:[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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?”[/color]

[color=#000000]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.”[/color]

[color=#000000]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.”[/color]
[color=#000000]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.”[/color]

[b] Legal Requirements?[/b]

[color=#000000]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.)[/color]

[color=#000000]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.”[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]
[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[b] You have been Accused[/b]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]
[color=#000000]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.”[/color]

[color=#000000]Fearing that the social worker would carry out her threat, Jodi replied that she was willing to cooperate.[/color]
[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]At this point, Scott left the hospital to tend to their older children who were staying with friends[/color][color=#000000].[/color]

[b] Ordering Tests[/b]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]Jodi simply said, “Please can’t this wait until my husband gets back.”[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[b] Thrown Out[/b]

[color=#000000]And then the story turns ugly.[/color]
[color=#000000]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.[/color]
[color=#000000]The social worker consented to the administration of the Hepatitis B shot even though no blood test had been done.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.”[/color]

[color=#000000]Scott met her at the entrance to the hospital. The police escorted them both off of the grounds of the hospital.[/color]

[color=#000000]Jodi was told that she would be allowed to return every three hours to nurse the baby through the night.[/color]
[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]To add insult to injury, Jodi was given access to Annie only sporadically and not every three hours.[/color]

[b] Baby Returned[/b]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]Both the medical personnel and the social worker engaged in outrageous behavior toward this family.[/color]
[color=#000000]And we believe that they violated their rights under the Constitution of the United States. And we are going to court to prove it.[/color]

[color=#000000]Why is HSLDA fighting for parental rights in this context? It is not a homeschooling case.[/color]

[b] Parental Rights at Risk[/b]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]And the hospital was clearly not concerned that Annie had a medical issue—they were just trying to avoid being sued for medical malpractice.[/color]

[color=#000000]When government workers run over parents in cases like this, the lesson that needs to be taught is to the government.[/color]

[color=#000000]This case will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Your tax-deductible gifts to the [url="http://www.hslda.org/elink.asp?id=14183"]Homeschool Freedom Fund[/url] 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.[/color]

[color=#000000]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.[/color]

[color=#000000]Thanks for giving as the Lord leads you. And pray for us. This is not an easy case. We really need your ongoing prayers.[/color]
[/quote]

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1332904807' post='2409503']
Unbelievable, but real. This is what the government does to those who they envision stand in their way of thinking.
[/quote]

Citations? Proof? Actual press report? Anything beyond some dude with a blog?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332907840' post='2409525']
Citations? Proof? Actual press report? Anything beyond some dude with a blog?
[/quote]

Not a blog.

From the website which is linked in the first post.
[quote][b]Home School Legal Defense Association[/b][color=#000000] is a nonprofit advocacy organization established to defend and advance the constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children and to protect family freedoms.[/color][/quote]

The wiki page of the group which is

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_School_Legal_Defense_Association"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_School_Legal_Defense_Association[/url]

As this details, this is more than "some dude with a blog."


A little googling on your part also would have turned up

[url="http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/state-confiscates-newborn-over-vaccinations/"]http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/state-confiscates-newborn-over-vaccinations/[/url]

The social worker [color=#000000][url="http://beta.healthgrades.com/provider/angelica-lopez-heagy-ymy3d?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCgQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.healthgrades.com%252Fhealth-professionals-directory%252Fangelica-lopez-heagy-msw-7227e937%26ei%3DQpFyT4KwN8Wl2AWV9rT7Dg%26usg%3DAFQjCNHJK9qpuYSVu0ASOPr9K7GOzPRUTw%26sig2%3Dp6TdBLSwQ0H3cXS7BPHcdA"]Angelica Lopez-Heagy[/url] [/color]also exists.

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1332908498' post='2409531']
Not a blog.

From the website which is linked in the first post.


The wiki page of the group which is

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_School_Legal_Defense_Association"]http://en.wikipedia....nse_Association[/url]

As this details, this is more than "some dude with a blog."


A little googling on your part also would have turned up

[url="http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/state-confiscates-newborn-over-vaccinations/"]http://www.wnd.com/2...r-vaccinations/[/url]

The social worker [color=#000000][url="http://beta.healthgrades.com/provider/angelica-lopez-heagy-ymy3d?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCgQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.healthgrades.com%252Fhealth-professionals-directory%252Fangelica-lopez-heagy-msw-7227e937%26ei%3DQpFyT4KwN8Wl2AWV9rT7Dg%26usg%3DAFQjCNHJK9qpuYSVu0ASOPr9K7GOzPRUTw%26sig2%3Dp6TdBLSwQ0H3cXS7BPHcdA"]Angelica Lopez-Heagy[/url] [/color]also exists.
[/quote]

Oh. WND reported it. It must be true.

[Brother Adam]

I've had worse treatment in a hospital in the same state under the watchful eye of Big Brother. If that is all that happened it seems they got off rather easy. I know one couple who lost custody of their child because the social worker called a toy on the floor a hazard. If wnd were the only source, that would be one thing, but lawyers are usually more careful to avoid libel as they know they are likely to be immediately sued.

[4588686]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1332909802' post='2409535']
I've had worse treatment in a hospital in the same state under the watchful eye of Big Brother. If that is all that happened it seems they got off rather easy. I know one couple who lost custody of their child because the social worker called a toy on the floor a hazard. If wnd were the only source, that would be one thing, but lawyers are usually more careful to avoid libel as they know they are likely to be immediately sued.
[/quote]

That's a good point, but skimming through the article I didn't see any actual attorney referenced, just the intent to consult a lawyer. My skepticism here isn't partisan. This is a story made for local news but you only have activist groups of a uniform political orientation being reporting that these events happened (and recycling the story). That should set off alarms for anybody.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332908666' post='2409532']
Oh. WND reported it. It must be true.
[/quote]

Oh CNN reported it. It must be true.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332911078' post='2409544']
That's a good point, but skimming through the article I didn't see any actual attorney referenced, just the intent to consult a lawyer. My skepticism here isn't partisan. This is a story made for local news but you only have activist groups of a uniform political orientation being reporting that these events happened (and recycling the story). That should set off alarms for anybody.
[/quote]

So O great decider of what constitutes local news and national news, is that all you have to say?

Edit: Added below portion.

Since the vast majority of the news media leans left and is known to be fairly biased in how they report, it is of course reasonable to only believe if they say so. This should alarm anyone.

Edited March 28, 2012 by eagle_eye222001

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1332912404' post='2409549']
Oh CNN reported it. It must be true.
[/quote]

Not what I said. Maybe you should go back and read it again.


[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1332912520' post='2409550']
So O great decider of what constitutes local news and national news, is that all you have to say?
[/quote]



Yep.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Hasan

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332913494' post='2409552']
Not what I said. Maybe you should go back and read it again.

To you?

Yep.
[/quote]

Exactly the message you said. Maybe you should go back and rephrase it so you send a clear message.

Since your finished, I expect no further posts from you. But you'll likely post again because you are on a mission to defend bad government. Because HSLDA couldn't possibly be telling the truth.

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1332913815' post='2409554']
Exactly the message you said. [/QUOTE]

I will give you $1,000 if you can show me where I ever said, explicitly or by logical implication, that if CNN reports 'x' then 'x' must be true.

[QUOTE] Maybe you should go back and rephrase it so you send a clear message. [/QUOTE]

No. I do sometimes fire off posts without reading or thinking of them. But in this instance I am not the problem. The problem is your seeming ineptitude in basic critical reading skills.

[QUOTE] Since your finished, I expect no further posts from you. [/QUOTE]



[QUOTE] But you'll likely post again because you are on a mission to defend bad government. [/QUOTE]

If I didn't think you were serious, I'd be in awe of your trolling skills.

[QUOTE] Because HSLDA couldn't possibly be telling the truth.
[/quote]

Also not what I said. Ever.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

I am saying that I find this story suspect. I find it suspect because the only sources that you seem to be able to find for it are activist groups rather than any actual news agencies. And it seems that all instance of the sources you cite actually go back to one source. Am I saying that they made this story up whole-cloth? Probably not. But I would wait to accept this story until you have a wider diversity of sources and reporting agencies.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332914275' post='2409556']
I will give you $1,000 if you can show me where I ever said, explicitly or by logical implication, that if CNN reports 'x' then 'x' must be true.

[/quote]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332908666' post='2409532']
Oh. WND reported it. It must be true.
[/quote]

Oh dang....you say WND....not CNN...... Biiiiiiiiig difference!.....right?



[quote]


No. I do sometimes fire off posts without reading or thinking of them. But in this instance I am not the problem. The problem is your seeming ineptitude in basic critical reading skills.
[/quote]



[quote]
Also not what I said. Ever.
[/quote]

Correct. You never say things. You just "say" things. Hide behind the implication and obvious tone, it's safe. ;>

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332914952' post='2409558']
I am saying that I find this story suspect. I find it suspect because the only sources that you seem to be able to find for it are activist groups rather than any actual news agencies. And it seems that all instance of the sources you cite actually go back to one source. Am I saying that they made this story up whole-cloth? Probably not. But I would wait to accept this story until you have a wider diversity of sources and reporting agencies.
[/quote]

Probably not.....you say? Okay. And you recognize that logically a source does not determine the validity of it's output.

However your waging a war that is much more than "probably not." If your opinion was really probably not, you would post once, and let it go. But it's not good enough for you. By engaging in many posts in a determined manner, you seek to erase any legitimacy of this claim by this well established group.

This activist group has lied on so many occasions that it is likely we can't trust it....oh wait....that's right. We can't logically determine the outcome by the source itself logically. So EVEN if this group has never lied before...which I would bet, with such claims as a hospital unjustly seizing a newborn baby for no apparent reason, we still can't trust it 100%.



This goes both ways Hasan. Just because several diverse media outlets report something, doesn't logically make it true.

The question is, will a left leaning news source report on big bad government, or will they twist it or even ignore it?

Why do certain news outlets ignore (or at least heavily downplay) protests involving hundreds of thousands of people, but will raise a ruckus when tens of people protest on a different issue? Is not big media blatantly discriminatory when it comes to reporting?

Why will the media kill George W on gas prices, but when Obama has high gas, we are treated to surveys and analysis on how gas prices don't actually affect consumer behavior?






[b]By the way Hasan, I challenge you to find me a case by Home School Legal Defense, where they blatantly and extravagantly lie that would be similar to this case as you imply.[/b]

Then you'll have the beginning of a case to make against this claim by this activist group and your war on this story will be justified. Until then, your illogical implicit remarks are worth nothing but more proof of your tirade against things that flow against your ideology.

For one spending a lot of posts trying to emphasize of a remote possibility that a well established activist group is blatantly lying, one can't help but wonder why.

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1332915049' post='2409559']
Oh dang....you say WND....not CNN...... Biiiiiiiiig difference!.....right?









Correct. You never say things. You just "say" things. Hide behind the implication and obvious tone, it's safe. ;>
[/quote][quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1332916879' post='2409563']
Probably not.....you say? Okay. And you recognize that logically a source does not determine the validity of it's output.

However your waging a war that is much more than "probably not." If your opinion was really probably not, you would post once, and let it go. But it's not good enough for you. By engaging in many posts in a determined manner, you seek to erase any legitimacy of this claim by this well established group.

This activist group has lied on so many occasions that it is likely we can't trust it....oh wait....that's right. We can't logically determine the outcome by the source itself logically. So EVEN if this group has never lied before...which I would bet, with such claims as a hospital unjustly seizing a newborn baby for no apparent reason, we still can't trust it 100%.



This goes both ways Hasan. Just because several diverse media outlets report something, doesn't logically make it true.

The question is, will a left leaning news source report on big bad government, or will they twist it or even ignore it?

Why do certain news outlets ignore (or at least heavily downplay) protests involving hundreds of thousands of people, but will raise a ruckus when tens of people protest on a different issue? Is not big media blatantly discriminatory when it comes to reporting?

Why will the media kill George W on gas prices, but when Obama has high gas, we are treated to surveys and analysis on how gas prices don't actually affect consumer behavior?






[b]By the way Hasan, I challenge you to find me a case by Home School Legal Defense, where they blatantly and extravagantly lie that would be similar to this case as you imply.[/b]

Then you'll have the beginning of a case to make against this claim by this activist group and your war on this story will be justified. Until then, your illogical implicit remarks are worth nothing but more proof of your tirade against things that flow against your ideology.

For one spending a lot of posts trying to emphasize of a remote possibility that a well established activist group is blatantly lying, one can't help but wonder why.
[/quote]


Ok. Well. I stopped reading when you started babbling about the news media and President Bush. I think it's safe to say that this is my fault. I should have known better than to try to have a reasonable discussion with you. For my personal obstinacy, in thinking despite past experience that such a feat was possible, and for wasting both of our time by engaging you in conversation, I apologize.

Have a nice day.