August 12, 2009 5:17 PM
Obama health plan threatens parents' rights
O&Co calling those of us who dissent from his health care takeover an Angry Mob is a deliberate lie - unfortunately repeated throughout the Government Media and by liberal commentators.
We are actually reading the health care proposals and referring to them when we criticize. Unlike Our Glorious Leader, who tgries to soothe us with platitudes and lies, we are trying to put America in touch with the actual language used by Congress to describe a system of intrusion and oppression - one which threatens our freedom as American citizens.
Chuck norris zeroes in on the threat to parental rights - citing specific passages. Pass this one on to your friends and family:
Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare
Chuck Norris
Tuesday, August 11, 2009Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.
While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.
Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.
It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.
The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?
Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?
One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."
Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?
Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
Government needs less of a role in running our children's lives and more of a role in supporting parents' decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right -- and government support -- to parent them without the fed's mandates, education or intervention in our homes.
Kids are very important to my wife, Gena, and me. That's why we've spent the past 17 years developing our nonprofit KICKSTART program in public schools in Texas. It builds up their self-esteem and teaches them respect and discipline. Of course, whether or not they participate in the program is their and their parents' choice.
How contrary is Obamacare's home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?
Government's real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens.
HT: Amy
Posted in Obama Nation, Parental Rights | Permalink
Comments
Ah, just one more reason I really like Chuck Norris.
Posted by: Courageous Grace | August 12, 2009 5:49 PM
Just so you know, I read that part of the bill to see if perhaps the inspection of people's homes were connected somehow with a welfare program. For example, someone applies for a govt program and is told they have to have a house inspection. That is not the case here. They give NO REASON for the house inspections. The closest they come is when they say it's for a low-income area or one where child abuse is more prevalent.
Here it is: (page 838)
‘‘(A) in supporting home visitation pro
grams using funds provided under this section,
the State shall identify and prioritize serving
communities that are in high need of such serv
ices, especially communities with a high propor
tion of low-income families or a high incidence
of child maltreatment;
The devil is in the details, folks. Where are the details for this plan?
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | August 12, 2009 6:00 PM
Thanks for your work in tracking down these issues so close to our mothers' hearts, Barbara. It is simple: outright lies are what we are fighting and I, for one, have felt the need to be more aggressive in this, as our culture and our children's futures obviously depend on defeating the socialist agenda being pushed through the mainstream media.
Susan
Posted by: Susan Franklin | August 12, 2009 7:12 PM
Barbara,
I just read Chuck Norris's article last night on Townhall. Important reading. Thanks for posting it.
This Deathcare bill has the unthinkable spread throughout 1200 pages of convoluted lawyerspeak that leaves more questions than answers.
It will effectively wipe out America as we know it.
There is hardly anything in there that has to do with healthcare!
Medical identity cards? Government access to private bank accounts? Limiting physician care? Euthanasia counseling?
...and now government workers sent to your home to tell you how to parent the "state's way".
What does any of this have to do with getting health insurance to the uninsured?
Isn't that what the bleeding hearts voted for?
I hope they wake up in time to realize what they've been sold.
The fairytale continues...
Posted by: redink | August 12, 2009 9:28 PM
Was it here that I first read about the possibility of home visits related to vaccinations? Now it's home visits to teach us to parent THEIR way. They just keep ratcheting it up. I feel like it's a race to see how far they can push their liberal agenda while they still have the power to do so.
Posted by: Michelle Potter | August 12, 2009 10:48 PM
One more reason to support the Parental Rights Amendment. Whether the threat comes from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, or our own legislators at home, the only way to permanently protect parental rights is to recognize and establish them in the constitution.
www.parentalrights.org
Posted by: Rachel | August 12, 2009 11:37 PM
Thank you another much appreciated post Barbara!! It is so scary what they are trying to do here. It really concerns me as a mother who is now struggling now and again to make all those ends meet. So do I now fall into that bracket?? And if so, in the examples before about showing up with vaccinations. We have chosen not to vaccinate for some things.... SO does this give them the right to just come in and do it??? I just am worried... SIGH.....Thank you again for posting this and the other important issues Barbra!
(((((((Hugs))))))
Amy
Posted by: Amy | August 13, 2009 2:25 AM
There is already a VOLUNTARY program in place that does just this, so there is no need to make it mandatory.
The Parents As Teachers program (at least that's what it's called in Kansas) is a great idea for being a support network for new parents, especially those who don't have family around. I looked forward to the monthly home visits, where they would do an activity with my son and then discuss with me what expected development would be coming next, and give me ideas for activities to do with him. They had weekly playgroups and occasional parenting classes. I was leery at first with the idea of someone from the school district coming into my home, even discussed spanking with them right up front. While they disagreed with spanking, they assured me that they would respect our decisions as parents, and they did.
However, that is my experience with MY school district. My district is family-friendly, even welcoming my special-needs son on a part-time basis while I was homeschooling, and working with me as a team in his education. Obviously not all school districts should be trusted to come into your home and become almost like family.
Posted by: Susan | August 13, 2009 11:05 AM
Barbara - in the past two days I have received a long email from David Axelrod (The White House) dismissing the criticism of Obamacare that is making the email rounds, and also a comment on my blog from "Bernie" telling how she had breast cancer treatment in Canada FREE and how wonderful it was. Is this just the beginning of payback for the viral emails and rantings of the right bashing Obamacare?
P.S. You are a blessing to the rest of us who have neither your time nor talent!
Posted by: Dorothy | August 13, 2009 2:34 PM
I can't believe this is actually on the table and our government doesn't see that this is completly wrong and a total violation of our rights as American's. What is this country coming to? Don't the American people get to vote on this because it doesn't look like the people we voted to speak for us are doing their jobs. I'm scared for the future of this country.
Posted by: Melissa | August 13, 2009 3:43 PM
This is an excellent piece, and I am not surprised.
I am sitting in the waiting room waiting for my 70 year old mother to come out of surgery. This week we have been on a roller coaster ride of effort to give my mom the best chance at a better and longer life. The commitment that these doctors and the rest of the staff show to the art of Medicine, and their patients is just amazing.
In an Obama world, she would have already gone home with her pain pills and had her "counseling" session.
Living on the East Coast, near a large city I have already experienced some of this govt. reach into our homes. Home visits by nurses after a baby comes, etc. They have the clip board with the list of items that they have to check off. Cleanliness, attitude, etc.
They don't trust us. They have to have control of the children especially, because that is how they will maintain control. They can't have parents preaching conservatism.
Gird your loins or move to Texas!
Posted by: Jennifer | August 13, 2009 6:54 PM
I just can't get over how if this were Bush or any Republican the media would be up in arms over this. The MSM is ignoring this as a way to protect a fellow liberal. I watch the news with one of my teen age sons and I can't believe this is going on in my lifetime in the USA. My son goes to school and "schools" his friends on how it really should be!
Posted by: Kasee | August 13, 2009 11:54 PM
Having lived in Australia, England and Ireland where it's common for new mothers to receive visits from a government, I can promise you it's something most young mothers really appreciate. Every mother wants to do the best by their chid, and to have free access to a service that provides support and advice in your own home is very reassuring. I find it bizarre that this offer is viewed with such suspicion...
Posted by: SheilaK | August 14, 2009 6:56 PM
SheilaK and Susan,
I would love to have a program like the one that Susan described near me, however I am NOT interested in having it run by the government -- voluntary or not. Whenever the government is involved there is an element of coercion. What happens if you don't go along with their "advice"? What, Susan, might have happened if they did not agree that spanking your kids was your right?
Can you imagine if Barbara came to your home for a visit, saw that your parenting style didn't line up with the many helpful suggestions she has given over the years on this blog, and subsequently decided you to be "unfit" and took your children away? Of course not -- she might be wise and experienced but she has no governmental authority over our lives.
Now. Can you imagine CPS doing it?
Posted by: Michelle Potter | August 14, 2009 9:25 PM
I came to your blog because I'm interested (yes, really) in the point of view of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I did not come here to jab at your or poke fun or snark, but to listen.
I will be a lot more impressed, however, when you post a policy dissection from someone other than Walker, Texas Ranger. Norris' analysis makes a lot of vague accusations about government intrusion into citizens' private lives and backs it ups with astonishingly little. He counts on his readers' general distrust of the government to fill the logical gaps in his arguments.
For instance, I notice that while he pats himself on the back for the KICKSTART Program -- a publicly available, voluntary program for kids -- he is very much against the quoted bill's proposal regarding the home visit scheme, another publicly available, voluntary program whose primary beneficiaries would be kids.
And just to clarify: the home visits are, as far as I am aware, voluntary. They're modeled on the same programs in the UK and other European countries, where they are extremely popular among, for instance, new mothers who appreciate a visit from a nurse or social worker to see that they're settling in well.
My point is that I can recognize a lot of ideological reasons for opposing healthcare reform. I just haven't seen any cogent arguments for that opposition on your site. I'll be watching and reading in the hopes that some appear.
[Megan, I'm not interested in "impressing" you. I am very concerned about government intrusion into our personal lives. Always have been - even when I was a member of the radical left. Sorry you haven't seen any "cogent" arguments on my site. Maybe you're not "listening" as much as you claim - just trying another type of put-down approach.]
Posted by: Megan | August 14, 2009 11:25 PM
Dear Barbara: Please check out gateway pundit site, from Missouri. Look at the one about Nancy Pelosi.
She goes from talking about "do not question anyone's patriotism because they disagree" to really nasty comments about the healthcare protesters.
Posted by: Karen | August 15, 2009 8:49 AM
When I was pregnant with my first child I was a college student. One day someone called me from the state and offered to come visit to give some prenatal advice. It was "voluntary" but it didn't really seem like I had much of an option. When I said I didn't really need the service, the issue was pressed.
Anyway, I agreed to meet with the woman. She came to my dorm, but said I could just come down to her car to talk. Looking back, I can't believe I got into some random person's car! For all I knew she was some sort of crazy kidnapper of pregnant women.
She just gave me some materials on planning a healthy birth and sent me on my way. I moved out of the state before we had any further visits.
I can't say she gave me anything useful, and I now wonder how I was choosen to partake in this particular program. What was the goal? I had insurance and was receiving prenatal care. I was married and stable.
What exactly was the state accomplishing by sending out this woman to give me flyers from her car?
I think that's the important question to ask about these visits. What's in it for the government? They're spending money for some reason. If their goal is to help people be better parents, what would they do if they found someone not parenting in a way they consider appropriate?
Posted by: Lauren | August 15, 2009 1:10 PM
Megan, did you actually read that part of the bill?? I did. I didn't like what I saw. A lot of gaps there to be "filled in later." Your dismissal of Chuck Norris says more about you than it does about him. He has as much right as anyone else to give his opinion. If you haven't seen any "cogent arguments" it's because you haven't been looking.
Open your eyes, girl.
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | August 15, 2009 3:22 PM
Why are some of you happy to have visits from a non-government organization run by who-knows-who for who-knows-what reason, pushing who-knows-what agenda (and products) but not a government sponsored nurse or social worker? You can vote for your government and hold them accountable, and you know they have to listen. The Chuck Norris program sounds like a great thing – imagine how much less work it would be to help these kids if their parents had access to parenting advice and support before they even got to school! This isn't about the government trying to take children away from good or even struggling parents. There are already laws allowing children to be removed from abusive, negligent or incompetent parents. If this program is modelled on similar ones overseas, it's just about offering advice backed up by an organisation (your government) that has access to current information and the resources to come to you rather than have you seek them out and pay for their services. If it turns out to be the thin end of some terrible socialist wedge that so many fear, VOTE THE GOVERNMENT OUT.
[Sheila - not sure what you mean "why are some of you happy with. . . . " It's illogical and manipulative for you to begin your opinion that way since you don't know any of us or what we are comfortable with.
You've mentioned before that you do not live in the US. May I suggest that you don't understand the independent individualistic spirit at the core of a very diverse population? While we might like to solicit help from a program, we want the freedom to pick and choose what help we receive.
There have been many abuses within our system from overzealous social workers who have taken children from homes when they should not have been taken. Many social workers in the US are prejudiced against strong Christian families or homeschooling families. That is a matter of record.
Our Constitution does not grant our government power to provide these types of programs. Many of us who are still sympatico with the ideals on which are country was founded want to avoid any further encroachment.
I am in the middle of researching - and will report on next week - hundreds of instances of unwarranted intrusion into the family already taking place in US hospitals which have social workers come in to assess the mental health of mothers who've just delivered babies. Many are being sent home with unnecessary and dangerous anti-depressants. Some families have claimed it is these drugs which are the result of postpartum suicides. And women themselves are claiming that they were greatly harmed by this Nanny State intrusion into their lives and the natural process of giving birth.
The Democrats - now in control of the country - have done an Animal Farm switch and embraced Big Pharma and the big bucks coming their way as a result. Therefore, any government support of new mental health initiatives is highly suspect. I don't know about Australia - where I think you once said you live - but the US is a desperately over-medicated population. People are getting their kids prescribed drugs for learning disorders - this is also a way to get their kids monthly SSI payments for alleged disabilities.
As a former leftist, I have remained true to my convictions of Questioning Authority. As The Who sang - "Meet the new boss - the same as the old boss." Think Orwell. Also remember the old slogan "Keep the government out of my womb"? Well, we certainly would like to keep them out of our homes, where some overzealous social worker or nurse with a political or personal axe to grind might misuse her power for harm.
I am curious about why you seem unable to listen to the reasoning of mothers here and respect what they have to say - particularly since you do not live in the US and since you haven't commented on any other topic at this site? Would you care to share more about yourself and what has shaped your personal/political convictions?]
Posted by: SheilaK | August 16, 2009 7:22 AM
Why are some of you happy to have visits from a non-government organization run by who-knows-who for who-knows-what reason, pushing who-knows-what agenda (and products) but not a government sponsored nurse or social worker?
It's a question that answers itself. What power does an NGO run by anyone have over you? None. The government, in contrast, has immense power. I'd rather keep its power out of my house.
Posted by: Amy K. | August 17, 2009 12:34 AM
Why are elected Republican politicians entitled to a goverment run health care plan that is the best in the country, while the people who elected them cant afford health care. What is the diffrece between the Govt. or an HMO. deciding on weather you need a treatment? In 2007 the CEO from the company Humana was paid 1.7 billion. I would rather deal with the Gov. instead of a health care company who is only intrested in there bottom line. I an elected politician will vote against a Gov. healthcare plan then they should give up the Gov. paid health care plan they are against...
Posted by: John | August 27, 2009 8:44 AM
John, I didn't understand your last line. Would you clarify, please?
Also, you said: "Why are elected Republican politicians entitled to a goverment run health care plan that is the best in the country, while the people who elected them cant afford health care"
Why do you say "Republican politicians?" ALL politicians will have their own health care plan, completely different than ours. Republican and Democrat politicians are BOTH exempt from any health care plan we get. If the govt plan for us "peasants" is so good, then it should be good enough for the politicians. Obviously, they (Republican and Democrat politicians) don't think so.
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | August 27, 2009 11:46 AM
The only problem is – in socialist USSR such monsters as Child Protective Services (aka CPS) did not exist. I myself 5 years ago was not aware of their existence. Needless to say that neither my family nor any other family I knew back in Soviet Union was a victim of the CPS – by the reason, as I already said, that these services did not exist there. As to indoctrination in USSR – it was on so primitive level that, as you may see yourself, it was a total failure. But here – is another case. Here we all are in real danger. My family has been attacked by the CPS 3 (!) times – in 2005 and 2007 (casual or domestic neglect) and in 2009 (educational neglect – in reality a home schooling of my two kids). All three times I won (I, because I had no money for attorney anyway). But if the visitation will be made mandatory and people like me will lose the loophole to slip out of danger – then, speaking frankly, we have only one mean to protect our privacy, integrity and freedom – to seek a political asylum. It is so painful for me to write these words – because 20 years ago I myself came here as a political refugee and now I am contemplating about being a political refugee from here! What an irony, what a shame!
Posted by: Irina | December 5, 2009 5:37 AM
