For decades, Idaho laws have allowed parents who belong to the Followers of Christ and other faith-healing sects to pray rather than seek medical care. Since 2015, at least 15 children have died of treatable conditions.
It would lose an election for any politician saying it, but sometimes the child’s rights supersede a parents right to do whatever they want with their kids.
You shouldn’t be able to do things like refuse to feed your child, refuse to give your child medical care, or refuse to educate your child.
Yes but under our current model, I don’t know if you want the state owning all the kids. I’m not sure if Trump or nestlé or whatever lobbying firm would decide their future really has their best interest at heart.
They’d lose if it were a local position within Idaho. Those same people who didn’t wear masks, refuse to vaccinate, refuses care for their child? All those same people are the same people VOTING.
It would be different if it weren’t an election in the most brain dead state.
Yeah, it’s impressive to find a new low BELOW Florida. At least Florida knows how to pull in tourists. Who the fuck wants to willingly go to Idaho???
Idaho features beautiful nature and really interesting geology, so there’s plenty of tourism potential. If it weren’t for the people it would make for a lovely destination.
You don’t run on it you just enforce at a federal level. Republicans love state rights until they’re in power then they love telling states what they can and can’t do.
Democrats need to force this down their fng throat
I would hope that after two years of this insanity and blatant federal abuse of states, Democrats would be more supportive of states rights and reluctant to continue the decades long trend of expanding executive power.
No. Don’t misunderstand, I fucking hate this. This is disgusting. But the article points to the problem explicitly. It’s a bullet point at the top.
No Legal Pressure: Oregon officials say after the state put legal boundaries on faith healing, more parents sought care for kids. Idaho, by contrast, has kept its faith-healing protections.
I just don’t see the necessity to reach for the largest most powerful tool to solve a problem that is up to the citizens of Idaho to solve.
The federal government has literally executed citizens without trial in the streets. I’ve lost my appetite for the federal government having power. Perhaps, if the fed was weaker and states had more mechanisms of resisting or standing up for their own principles, we’d be better off.
I’m not advocating for nothing to be done. I’m just asking why must it be the federal government and not the Idaho government? Why invite a protracted supreme court battle over parents rights / religious protections? Do you think we’d win that right now? Genuinely?
There are more important things to push on at a federal level. Expand supreme court. Expand the house of representatives. Move to proportional representation instead of first past the post. All of this returns power to people so they can actually enact what they want. Things like climate change. LGBTG rights.
It’s tragic kids are dieing in Idaho. Kids are dieing in federal concentration camps. Who knows many have died, actually? How many people deported are dead now? How many people will die when their asylum status is revoked and are deported? The federal government is tampering with elections. Pushing states to redraw maps. And the supreme court does nothing.
What those cultists are doing to children and their families is deranged. Something must be done. By the people of Idaho. Because the federal government is too fucked to help. Maybe next year it’ll be better. We can only hope for a great midterm and more DSA wins.
It gets a little trickier when you start talking about things like teaching evolution and sex ed, or not allowing minors to be indoctrinated by religions.
Want to really see the fur fly? Try banning genital mutilation. There is no defensible logic for chopping up a baby’s genitals even if your god told you to do so. That’s some barbaric, bronze age shit that should in no way be legal in any nation that wants to call itself “civilized”. It’s as logical as slicing a baby’s eyelids off at birth. Without anesthesia, I might add.
Ok this is going to make my head spin. But im Guessing the religious nutjobs who think kids are a having gender reassignment surgery and get outraged about it are also the same people who are ok with genital mutilation, mostly on women, due to religious beliefs.
Edit. This should be able to be used to turn more people’s religion against each other
IIRC female genital mutilation became federally legal in the US due to a Michigan court case decided by a Trump district judge. That was during the first term and I haven’t kept track to see if they made it illegal again.
I’ve never agreed with the idea that a child is the property of the parent. The kid has rights, and those should supersede a religious parent who thinks they can replace medicine with prayer.
I would argue children have limited agency depending on their level of development. For example, child custody courts take the wishes of the child into consideration when determining custody of the child is old enough to express their preferences.
Does it really? Sure seems like the highest court in the land disagrees.
And before you start arguing that’s only been under Trump go all the way back to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to African Americans, and Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.
Both of those are great examples of SCOTUS ruling in opposition to the Constitution.
It would lose an election for any politician saying it, but sometimes the child’s rights supersede a parents right to do whatever they want with their kids.
You shouldn’t be able to do things like refuse to feed your child, refuse to give your child medical care, or refuse to educate your child.
Medical care is optional and premium in the US for everyone.
The nuclear family model, the parents have absolute rights over the child, is as nonsensical as it sounds.
It takes a village and the village should be able to intervene when parents put their child at risk.
Yes but under our current model, I don’t know if you want the state owning all the kids. I’m not sure if Trump or nestlé or whatever lobbying firm would decide their future really has their best interest at heart.
Oh I totally agree. I’m an anarchist. Hence why I was careful to say the village and not the state.
No. a presidential candidate should absolutely run on that. Child abuse charges for the parents for failure to seek medical help
They’d lose if it were a local position within Idaho. Those same people who didn’t wear masks, refuse to vaccinate, refuses care for their child? All those same people are the same people VOTING.
It would be different if it weren’t an election in the most brain dead state.
Yeah, it’s impressive to find a new low BELOW Florida. At least Florida knows how to pull in tourists. Who the fuck wants to willingly go to Idaho???
Honestly, it’s breathtakingly beautiful. And there are cults fuckin everywhere.
Idaho features beautiful nature and really interesting geology, so there’s plenty of tourism potential. If it weren’t for the people it would make for a lovely destination.
Yeah it’s probably one of the most beautiful states in my opinion, but fuck no I won’t go
You don’t run on it you just enforce at a federal level. Republicans love state rights until they’re in power then they love telling states what they can and can’t do.
Democrats need to force this down their fng throat
I would hope that after two years of this insanity and blatant federal abuse of states, Democrats would be more supportive of states rights and reluctant to continue the decades long trend of expanding executive power.
Not less.
Your fucking joking right
No. Don’t misunderstand, I fucking hate this. This is disgusting. But the article points to the problem explicitly. It’s a bullet point at the top.
I just don’t see the necessity to reach for the largest most powerful tool to solve a problem that is up to the citizens of Idaho to solve.
The federal government has literally executed citizens without trial in the streets. I’ve lost my appetite for the federal government having power. Perhaps, if the fed was weaker and states had more mechanisms of resisting or standing up for their own principles, we’d be better off.
I’m not advocating for nothing to be done. I’m just asking why must it be the federal government and not the Idaho government? Why invite a protracted supreme court battle over parents rights / religious protections? Do you think we’d win that right now? Genuinely?
There are more important things to push on at a federal level. Expand supreme court. Expand the house of representatives. Move to proportional representation instead of first past the post. All of this returns power to people so they can actually enact what they want. Things like climate change. LGBTG rights.
It’s tragic kids are dieing in Idaho. Kids are dieing in federal concentration camps. Who knows many have died, actually? How many people deported are dead now? How many people will die when their asylum status is revoked and are deported? The federal government is tampering with elections. Pushing states to redraw maps. And the supreme court does nothing.
What those cultists are doing to children and their families is deranged. Something must be done. By the people of Idaho. Because the federal government is too fucked to help. Maybe next year it’ll be better. We can only hope for a great midterm and more DSA wins.
Can confirm spent a yr living there, hated every second would take death before even driving through it
It gets a little trickier when you start talking about things like teaching evolution and sex ed, or not allowing minors to be indoctrinated by religions.
@ChonkyOwlbear @KC_Royalz
Want to really see the fur fly? Try banning genital mutilation. There is no defensible logic for chopping up a baby’s genitals even if your god told you to do so. That’s some barbaric, bronze age shit that should in no way be legal in any nation that wants to call itself “civilized”. It’s as logical as slicing a baby’s eyelids off at birth. Without anesthesia, I might add.
Ok this is going to make my head spin. But im Guessing the religious nutjobs who think kids are a having gender reassignment surgery and get outraged about it are also the same people who are ok with genital mutilation, mostly on women, due to religious beliefs.
Edit. This should be able to be used to turn more people’s religion against each other
IIRC female genital mutilation became federally legal in the US due to a Michigan court case decided by a Trump district judge. That was during the first term and I haven’t kept track to see if they made it illegal again.
The only difference between MAGA and the Taliban is which proper nouns they use.
I’ve never agreed with the idea that a child is the property of the parent. The kid has rights, and those should supersede a religious parent who thinks they can replace medicine with prayer.
Children have no rights :(
Fetuses do though. By some weird logic.
It’s pedantic but children have no agency, what is being done in Idaho is being done to children.
If I do whatever I want with my paintbrush, that doesn’t imply the paintbrush has agency.
No, it doesn’t, but I don’t really understand your point.
Agency generally means the capacity of a living being to act independently, make choices, and influence their environment.
A minor child has little agency to begin with in an abuse situation and indifference of the legal system strips away even that little bit.
I was commenting on your incorrect pedantry correcting a perfectly correct sentence.
Thanks for clarifying that you’re not keeping up with the conversation.
I would argue children have limited agency depending on their level of development. For example, child custody courts take the wishes of the child into consideration when determining custody of the child is old enough to express their preferences.
If this treatment is legal in Idaho then they do not have agency.
The Constitution supercedes state law.
Does it really? Sure seems like the highest court in the land disagrees.
And before you start arguing that’s only been under Trump go all the way back to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to African Americans, and Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.
Both of those are great examples of SCOTUS ruling in opposition to the Constitution.