Now
Fair
79°
High
86°
Low
65°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Nebraska
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Deputies seize baby so state can test blood

Comments 61 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By ANNA JO BRATTON / The Associated Press

Friday, Oct 19, 2007 - 10:46:00 pm CDT

OMAHA — A nearly 7-week-old baby is home after sheriff’s deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy’s parents object to on religious grounds.

Mary and Josue Anaya of Omaha say their due process rights were violated and they’re considering legal action against the state and county, which decided to “grab the baby and ask questions later,” said their attorney, Jeff Downing of Lincoln.

The Douglas County attorney’s office says it only did what was necessary to protect the baby’s health. The blood test — usually performed within 48 hours of birth — screens for dozens of rare diseases, some of which can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.

Story Photo
Mary Anaya holds her 6-week-old son Joel in Omaha Wednesday. The baby is home after sheriff's deputies seized him from his parents so doctors could perform a mandatory blood test that the boy's parents object to on religious grounds. (AP)

“Our job is to uphold the law and provide for the safety of a child that’s at risk,” said Nicole Brundo Goaley, a deputy Douglas County Attorney. “We wanted to make sure the testing was going to get done.”

It’s the first time in Nebraska a child was taken from parents to draw the drops of blood from the baby’s heel for the screening, said Marla Augustine, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Human Services. Nebraska is one of four states — South Dakota, Michigan and Montana are the others — that doesn’t offer a religious exemption for parents who don’t want the test performed.

Health officials say the newborn screening is one of the state’s most cost-effective public health programs. Last year, out of 26,819 babies tested, 537 tested positive for one of the dozens of diseases, and 43 of those results were confirmed, according to the state’s Newborn Screening Program.

The Anayas and some other families say the screening is not only unnecessary for them, it may be dangerous to their children’s physical and spiritual well-being.

The Anayas believe that the Bible instructs against deliberately drawing blood and that ignoring that directive may shorten a person’s life.

Mary Anaya gave birth to Joel on Sept. 2 at home. She filed a birth certificate with the state, and state workers noted that the child had not been tested. They sent a certified letter to the Anayas, then called, Augustine said.

Mary Anaya told a health worker they would not have Joel tested, and health officials told the county attorney’s office, which got an order from a juvenile court judge, saying the child was in “imminent danger.” With the order came permission to place the baby in foster care while the test was performed.

Deputies came Oct. 11 to take the baby.

“The fact that they could grab custody apparently by making him a ward of the state, that was beyond my imagination,” Mary Anaya said. “They were claiming immediate danger when there was no immediate danger.”

On Oct. 12 a judge ordered that the baby remain in foster care until the preliminary results came back and confirmed further testing wasn’t needed.

In the meantime, social workers let Mary Anaya nurse her son several times a day, and he was returned to her Tuesday when the tests came back negative.

“It was all for nothing,” Mary Anaya said. “He didn’t have anything. ... There was no immediate danger.”

The county attorney dropped the case, and no criminal charges were filed.

The Anayas have been through this before. In 2005, the state Supreme Court ruled against them when the state said they had to test their eighth child, but the baby was 2 years old by then and was never tested.

The county could have pressed the issue and asked a judge to hold the Anayas in contempt of court, but the parents still could have prevented the testing by going to jail themselves, said Kristin Lynch, a deputy Douglas County attorney.

A different county attorney was in office then, and the people who worked on that case aren’t with the office, Lynch said.

“The follow-through wasn’t there,” Goaley said. “This time it was.”

Mary Anaya gave birth to their ninth child in Iowa, which offers a religious exemption.

Earlier this year, state Sen. John Synowiecki of Omaha introduced a measure in the state Legislature to provide for a religious exemption, but the bill didn’t make it out of committee.

Goaley said the boy was taken from his parents because “each day made a difference.” The diseases tested for are easier to treat the earlier they’re caught.

“We had to use the most efficient way to take care of this child,” Goaley said.

Downing said that if state and county officials believe that, they would have taken the boy much sooner.

“They did not even send any letter to this family until several weeks after this birth,” Downing said. “With each passing day, it became clear he was not exhibiting symptoms of these rare diseases.”

Augustine said a letter was sent soon after the birth certificate was filed, and Goaley said the county took action as quickly as possible.

“We were making sure we did it right,” Goaley said.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Nebraska > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
EAH wrote on October 19, 2007 3:53 pm:
" How dare they! Its not like these tests are done for a reason, this is just frivolous government! Testing for rare diseases, preposterous! These parents were very religious people and god would want the baby to have these disease! So what if he is disabled for the rest of his life, he has god! "

 JR wrote on October 19, 2007 4:06 pm:
" Not that I agree with these parents, but I don't believe the risk warrants the Douglas County attorney's office in claiming immediate danger and neglect so as to be able to call in the calvary to "rescue" this child. Seems a far greater percentage of children are at risk for a lifetime of health problems because a parent plops them in front of the TV, feeds them plenty of junk food, and smokes in their presence. Why doesn't the government send deputies in to remove those children? Guess it must be an easier sell when it involves those pesky religious "freaks." "

 Marky Mark wrote on October 19, 2007 4:34 pm:
" An innocent child's health should always trump the mythology of religion! "

 Rick wrote on October 19, 2007 8:34 pm:
" I think the state did the right think, just think how much money it might be saving us in the long run. And the state knows what is best for everyone. And just imagine what the future will hold for us, with genetic testing they will tell us who can have kids and who can't, looking at all the money that will save us, we might be able to do away with the special olympics. "

 Bob wrote on October 20, 2007 1:56 am:
" I wonder if there was a different method available to test this baby other than to draw blood? There are so many out dated laws on our books today in Nebraska that our do nothing State Senators will not address. All they want to do is make a name for themselves by passing laws that do nothing for the State. Maybe they need to start reviewing the laws each year to see if they still have a valid purpose today. If not then update these laws as needed or get rid of them all together. "

 Vern wrote on October 20, 2007 5:52 am:
" It looks to me like the law needs to be changed (something about freedom of religion in the constitution)(yes, even the belief in the mythology of religion is also a religion and equally protected). Next time it might be your rights or beliefs that are not respected, and then the rest of us can sit back and make comments about your 'stupidity!' "

 Doug wrote on October 20, 2007 6:57 am:
" Wake up people. This isn't only about this child's health. We want all kids as healthy and non-contagious as modern medicine will allow. JR is telling us TV and junkfood are more important things to worry about. I submit to you that there are much worse things to worry about like preventable diseases that some child is carrying around infecting our children. Does that not qualify as good parenting? "

 Daniel Kinsman wrote on October 20, 2007 7:19 am:
" You know, God honors the physician. Luke who wrote the third gospel in the new testament was a doctor. "

 Greg wrote on October 20, 2007 7:42 am:
" This scares me... I'm not overly religious, but I do not think that the "immediate danger" clause should hold up here. It would be one thing if the child exhibited some sign of illness, but he wasn't. Why don't they focus their energy on children who are in real danger, not potential danger. People!! you need to be aware that government is slowly working it's way more and more into your personal decisions and how you live! I'm not a paranoid conspiracy theory type at all, but the trend we're setting in this counrty should be disturbing to anyone who likes their privacy. "

 It's not a Clown Car wrote on October 20, 2007 8:37 am:
" While I'm somewhat horrified at the idea of the police barging into someone's home and confiscating their child for such a questionable reason (couldn't they have just taken a nurse along and taken a blood sample there??) I have to say that these people have _far_ too many children already for the current world situation. If every family had 9 or 10 children, our natural resources would be exhausted at an even more devastating rate than is already occurring. If the government is going to get intimately involved in people's reproductive lives, they should start issuing licenses for pregnancy after a couple already has two children, and parents should face jail time if they continue breeding without a license. And no, I'm not kidding. "

 kate wrote on October 20, 2007 8:38 am:
" JR, now that you brought it up, I'm sure they will come in and take the children for any health risks the parents are placing on their children. Can you say NANNY! nanny nanny nanny, nanny nanny nanny, nanny nanny nanny! "

 M wrote on October 20, 2007 8:50 am:
" People need to stop hiding behind religion. Its pathetic. Religion is the cause for all the world's problems and they are risking their childs well being by using religion as a crutch for trying to justify their lack of concern. "

 Nazi Govt wrote on October 20, 2007 10:38 am:
" On your doorstep. Let the child decide. "

 JK wrote on October 20, 2007 11:45 am:
" I fear the government that seizes babies from loving caring homes more than I do rare diseases "

 pam wrote on October 20, 2007 12:01 pm:
" if the family is going to live in NE, then they should have to abide by the laws in place. If not, they should have stayed in IA. Also, do they have the financial means to support 9 kids or is the state footing the bill?? God doesn't intend for women to keep on giving birth if the kids can't be well cared for. Get this woman some birth control! "

 Agree with the state wrote on October 20, 2007 3:08 pm:
" I don't normally agree with the State but in this case what they did was absolutly RIGHT! I'm a very religious person but I don't believe God wants me to purposely put my child at risk like these parents were doing. God also created the doctors and the minds that created the medicines and testing etc...soooo long story short GOD HAS THE TESTING FOR A REASON! "

 Mixed feelings wrote on October 20, 2007 3:36 pm:
" While I don't necessarily agree with the law, I have a hard time feeling bad for this family since they willingly broke it. Why didn't she have the rest of her kids in Iowa? Laws are laws, like them or not. Do something pro-active to change them, not conduct obnoxious behavior. I think 18 year olds should be able to buy alcohol, since they can die for our country. Does that mean I"m going to let my 18 year old try to buy and get in trouble? Also, can someone point me to where in the bible it says not to draw blood? I've logged a lot of Sunday school hours and cannot remember that. "

 Oh, the Irony wrote on October 20, 2007 4:37 pm:
" Note that parents can exempt their children from lifesaving procedures such as blood transfusions for religious reasons. So while the state can mandate that the child be tested for diseases up the wazoo, they don't have the authority to require the parents to take any action if the child actually does have the diseases. Exempting people from this test would not negatively affect anything. "

 andy wrote on October 20, 2007 6:29 pm:
" wow. so much for religious freedom. It just shows you whom the state thinks you belong to. If ANYONE TRIES TO TAKE MY KIDS THEY FORFEIT THEIR LIFE. My guns are ready. "

 CS wrote on October 20, 2007 6:32 pm:
" That's catchy. Deny open access to abortion and decry safe haven laws on the basis of religion, but ignore this families religious beliefs because its good for the state. Which is it, NE? SUBMIT CITIZEN! "

 Ummm.... wrote on October 20, 2007 7:33 pm:
" Nebraska is one of 2 state that doesn't have a safe haven law, but it's one of 4 that doesn't allow religious exemptions? If they care so much for the children, you'd think they'd have the safe haven law. I don't get it. "

 HPG wrote on October 20, 2007 7:34 pm:
" It is not the fact that the parents have this religous belief that is wrong, but how the Peoples Republic of Nebraska forced them the violate that belief by taking a child that was not in any immediate danger. Unless of course there is a disease I am unaware of that if left untested for suddenly consumes the child. Religous freedom is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Just as freedom of speech is there to protect us not from the speech we agree with, but to speech that we find disagreeable. May God bless this family. "

 NL wrote on October 20, 2007 9:58 pm:
" If you notice the time frame, the deputies took the baby from the mother on the 11th but didn't return the child until Tuesday (which would have been the 16th). Maybe they had the law on their side to have the testing done, they probably don't have the legal right to take the child for 5 days. I'll bet there will be a legal test on this one. I honestly would be very upset if the state took my newborn baby for 5 days and placed him/her in a foster care environment. As for these people having far too many children, we don't know their circumstances. They might be quite able financially and mentally to take very good care of their children. I happen to know several good catholic families that have had 9+ kids (here in Lincoln) and they have the nicest families/kids around. "

 Things Change wrote on October 20, 2007 9:59 pm:
" God would not have given us the knowledge to develop such technology if he did not intend for us to use it. However, I do think that the Anaya's should have been give religious freedom. I think they should have a religious exemption on medical procedures, etc. Legal papers should be signed at this time which releases the Government (namely taxpayers) from any financial responsibilities in providing medical treatment to this child in the future. With that said I'm glad this baby didn't any of the diseases tested. "

 Tmon wrote on October 20, 2007 11:08 pm:
" One thing....did you notice the judge said 'imminent danger'..... not immediate danger..... think about it... "

 too much power wrote on October 21, 2007 3:35 am:
" Where do we live? Why does the state claim there is imminent danger to this child and take him away? This is not right and very scary. At any moment they can step in without an investigation and claim your child is in danger. They could have heard this in court and rendered a verdict and then required the test and/or taken the child. Someone is abusing their authority and we need to find out why!!! "

 Buzz Gator wrote on October 21, 2007 6:21 am:
" By this reasoning, they should go round up all people over 50 who have not had colonoscopies. "

 Doctor wrote on October 21, 2007 7:41 am:
" Wow, what a bunch of narrow minded individuals. Yes, there are obviously many diseases you are not aware of if you write that testing is not important. These tests are not only required to protect the health of this child. They are in place to protect all the rest of us. Diseases have been erradicated in this world because of this testing and innoculations. Polio was an aweful disease that many still suffer from the affects of today. It was irradicated in the 60s because laws were passed to test and innoculate people. Full compliance is the only thing that helps us get rid of these diseases and it is the only thing that keeps them from coming back. Yes, people have rights. We have the right to make sure the rest of the world is complying and not infecting us and our families. "

 T wrote on October 21, 2007 9:28 am:
" This disease does not suddenly "consume" you baby, but it can kill your baby, and thankfully, it is one the state tests for. MCAD stands for Medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency What it is: Inherited lack of an enzyme required to convert fat into energy; babies may suddenly go into seizures, respiratory failure, or a coma, or die. Treatment: Steady food or glucose intake and meds to help her body dispose of waste. Due to testing required by her state, my friend's baby was diagnosed with MCAD and was able to start treatment right away. Without the test, they may not have known what was wrong until too late. Thankfully, nothing was wrong with the baby in this article, but these tests do save lives. "

 Hope you all have your SS patches ready wrote on October 21, 2007 10:07 am:
" Wow, now the government has spun themselves into a position where we as a people are supporting them in sending the SStorm troopers into our homes and making our decisions as parents for us. I sure hope the next election ALL of these conservative people are remembered and voted out so we might have a chance to get back to a government OF the people instead of a dictator over the people. I cannot believe how easily swayed the "general public" is by all these fear tactics we have crammed down our throats everyday. Kinda reminds me of a certain mustached Iraqi leader whom we claimed was evil for making his people live in a state of fear constantly. Our leaders may make up different boogeymen but I am sorry, they are still making the fear tactics stick just so they can justify taking away more freedoms that a true democratic society is supposed to have. Even the former Mexican president Fox questioned how close the U.S was to communism earlier this week in an interview. I wish our citizens would question more about the truth instead of just living in fear, therefore making all our soldiers go into war in vane! "

 Vanessa, a Mother wrote on October 21, 2007 11:40 am:
" Disgusting! How horrible is it that the State can just take a child to draw blood! What the hell is Nebraska coming to? Isn't it creepy that these kinds of things happen and nothing is done to prevent such stupidity! Where is the line? When does the law go to far, and start getting in the way of the rights of Americans? "

 I agree wrote on October 23, 2007 3:40 pm:
" We need to watch out. Our government officials are in it for themselves, not for us. They tell us, it is ok to have an abortion, it is not ok to refuse a blood test, it is ok to refuse immunizations, it is not ok to commit suicide. And if they don't like what you do, they WILL take your child. They have taken to playing God rather than representing the people. "

 MomofMany wrote on October 25, 2007 12:10 pm:
" Facts: None of the diseases tested for in the newborn screening program are contagious, so they are not endangering others. More people die or are seriously injured playing tackle football than by any of these diseases. So by the logic here the state should outlaw tackle football. Patrick Henry said "Different men often see the same subject in different lights." He also said, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" This family takes good care of their children and do not receive any government assistance. I know. Their oldest child was on television as the youngest graduate ever from Bellevue University. The anti-large family comments here should not be tolerated. "

 Carl wrote on October 30, 2007 6:22 am:
" Amazing! The state shouldn't worry about diseases' in newborns,-it should worry about educating the state's inhabitants. You people don't get it! The issue is much bigger than a possible disease,-the issue is the state's rights over a parent's rights. Good thing stupidity is not a disease,-or the whole state would be under quarantine. "

 Jeff wrote on October 30, 2007 8:12 am:
" Again, a classic example of the "government" dictating what is best for a child instead of the parents. By all means, the faceless government knows all about taking care of infants. They can do a much better job of raising infants than the parents can. Did anyone stop and think about the trauma this caused the siblings? The parents? Send in the goose-steppers and rip the baby from the mother. Wow, I never thought I would see the day where the government has carte blanche over our civil liberties. This has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with freedom! Note, at the end of the article it said the government came after the baby after they issued the birth certificate. All this encourages people to do is refuse to get a birth certificate to ensure the government doesn't meddle in people's affairs. Typical example of the government exercising their "mighty hand". "

 AB wrote on October 30, 2007 12:30 pm:
" I'm so incredibly disappointed and saddened that the tiny chance of a disease could so easily trump a parents rights. Health at what expense? It was probably a greater danger to this child's health to keep him from his lactating mother for so long. "

 Nicholas Canuso wrote on October 30, 2007 1:10 pm:
" I can't believe how uninformed some of these comments are. First off as a PROUD Father of 7 I don't HAVE to agree with the parents. That is not the point. What is the point is that we are slowly becoming a Socialistic Country while ignorant people stand by and applaud. How anyone can approve this action and still claim to have Midwest "Common Sense" is beyond my comprehension. And politicians, Judges and law enforcement wonder why good hard working people don't trust them anymore? "

 ED wrote on October 30, 2007 2:15 pm:
" "Health officials say the newborn screening is one of the state’s most cost-effective public health programs. Out of 26,819 babies tested, 43 of those results were confirmed" --- That's 4/25 of one percent with a problem. Does not sound like imminent danger to me. "

 T.Harkness wrote on October 30, 2007 5:41 pm:
" "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." - Judge Alex Kozinsky "

 Bob B - Michigan wrote on October 30, 2007 6:50 pm:
" This is what happens when people who believe that the state has more rights than its citizens have positions of authority. They have no more right to go into that home and take away that child than you or I have, ethically speaking. America's voters need to stay informed, remain vigilant, and elect people who uphold the freedom of individuals, who will appoint & hire others who will do the same. That is one way to prevent these kinds of things from occurring. God help us all if our health care system becomes any more socialized than it already is. "

 Astounded wrote on October 31, 2007 12:04 am:
" Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. So many of the provisions and safeguards they put in the Constitution and the Amendments have been whittled away slowly by endless laws which disempower THE PEOPLE. This is supposed to be a capitalistic democracy but it's slowly turning into a socialist commune. Wake up! Where did freedom of religion go? Where is freedom of speech? The right to bear arms? Unreasonable search and seizure? Our right to privacy? Hmm....why is liquor legal if it kills as many people as died September 11 every 10 days (100,000 alcohol related deaths per year, accounts for half of all car related deaths, and is 4th leading cause of death)? if smoking causes cancer and kills people, why isn't it outlawed completely (cancer is second leading cause of death)? Why is it ok to kill 46 million people since 1973 just because it is the mom's decision? If the states allow all these things which are LEADING causes of death, how is it possible they do not allow for the RARE 1/3 of 1% chance? The government will wave many banners, in the name of "health", in the name of "safety", in the name of "security"...and in the end we will belong to the state and not to ourselves. This will no longer be the Land of the FREE, it will be the land of the slave. The way things are headed all US cattle will be required to have a national ID card and cash will become obselete so all transactions can be tracked. All abuse starts with small allowances...these grow into gross violations. Stand for your rights. Stand for your freedoms. "

 Robert Young wrote on October 31, 2007 7:40 am:
" Our Constitution guarantees us freedom of Religion and STATE LAW cannot overrule it. I hope their lawsuit is successful and that the punitive damages are high enough that the State won't do this again. "

 Rose wrote on October 31, 2007 8:20 am:
" If her children go to school with other children or daycare then they need to be tested, why put our children at risk also. I know that there are religious beliefs but my children should be protected too. Eventually this child will be around other kids. "

 Laura Wagoner wrote on October 31, 2007 9:44 am:
" First, the government mandating the test is unconstitutional. If a child is born with a disease, there is rarely anything that could be done to save them that couldn't be done once symptoms of the disease occurred -- which would most likely be in early infancy or immediately, at birth. Mandating the test is absolutely a violation of our rights and is a perfect example of the government abusing their power. Secondly, taking the baby from his nursing mother and putting him in foster care for SIX days is a further abuse of power. They didn't just get the test and be done with it, they punished the parents for not complying. We are in real trouble here people! If the government can take our children for this reason, what's next?! The government was never created for this kind of invasion into our homes and our lives. They have no right to dictate our personal lives. The purpose of the government that WE PAY FOR, is to manage our streets, our police, our taxes and such. These are states that legalize abortion but require a test for uncontrollable diseases at birth. What a contradiction! Our government is seriously abusing it's power. Write your legislatures and your representatives to express your views, I know I will be. "

 I wrote on October 31, 2007 10:38 am:
" I guess if the parents don't want their babies screened, they shouldn't have to. As long as I don't have to pay for them to get treatment if later they appear to have something that could've been prevented from the start. "

 NHU wrote on October 31, 2007 10:59 am:
" Wow the world is really changing for the worst. Who can say that I can take your baby away from you to test. That is the parents right not the government! "

 Parents would change their tune wrote on October 31, 2007 12:10 pm:
" if the kid did indeed get sick. Then they're realize that, well, maybe...their religion does allow treatment. All on the taxpayer's dollar, of course...*wink wink* "

 Jen wrote on October 31, 2007 1:35 pm:
" I can't believe any parent, regardless of religion, would refuse any medical procedure that is able to detect life-dimishing or fatal diseases. I am all for religious rights, but I believe the safety and well-being of children come before all. "

 Within reason... wrote on October 31, 2007 1:41 pm:
" I think this could have been handled with more tact. Cops barging into the home to take the kid, who is then put in foster care until the test results are in, is a bit extreme. These early months are the time in a child's life when bonding with the mother is extremely important so as to avoid psychological and behavioral issues later on. How much damage did they just do to this child's long term wellbeing by snatching it away from its mother for a blood test, and putting it in the home of a complete stranger? Another example of the government butting into personal beliefs where it isn't warranted. "

 Keith Elcock wrote on October 31, 2007 2:28 pm:
" George Orwell is smiling "

 Terry wrote on October 31, 2007 4:58 pm:
" Just another nudge in the direction towards armed revolt against tyranny. "

 Your Government wrote on October 31, 2007 5:02 pm:
" We love to take the children from you, force our will on you, feed you fluoride, make you take drugs, make you our slave ... we do it all without regard - but as the perfect cover - to the constitution. We know best, we decide, we have the power, we cripple you if we decide to in the name of total government, we force dependency onto you, we make you our pawn. America the free is a figure of speech and government is a self-serving, self-feeding monster penetrating all the lower layers of the poppulation and every once in a while we want you to feel it, so you know for sure who has the power "

 margaret Davis wrote on October 31, 2007 8:40 pm:
" I hope they sue the hell out of them. "

 Ian wrote on October 31, 2007 11:34 pm:
" Right. I don't want my child getting sick because some religious nut decides their bizarre interpretation of the bible says there should be no blood transfusions. "

 Common Sense wrote on November 1, 2007 8:19 am:
" Ya know there's all this fuss about the baby being taken from it's parents... This could have been prevented by the parents. (I'm not feeling sorry for ya there!) All they had to do was have the blood draw done and end of story. Don't hide behind your religious beliefs. Seems to be a common scapegoat even when parents aren't religious. Just do what every other parent in Nebraska does and have your child tested before you ever leave the hospital. Good grief, I don't want my child getting sick and or dying because you felt it was your right not to do this OR just didn't want to do it. How about using a little common sense? "

 nebraska wrote on November 1, 2007 8:19 am:
" isn't it funny how we keep seeing "Nebraska is only on of __ that don't have this law" "

 I'm a Mom too. wrote on November 1, 2007 9:07 am:
" Keep this is perspective...this couple knowingly broke a law in this state. Regardless of the actions taken by the state, they broke the law purposefully. Do I agree that the child was taken from his mother? Absolutely not. However, this family was no stranger to the courts getting involved in this very situation! Perhaps the law does need to be changed (please keep in mind that the sheriff's office was doing it's job and they are not the law makers of this state), but until that happens, what does it mean to allow people to pick and choose what laws they will or will not obey? Just to be clear...I don't think that the end justified the way in which this was handled. But maybe, just maybe, people such as this couple, who have been this route before, could join together to try to change laws such as these rather than repeatedly ignoring them. If you truly believe than fight for it...don't just sit back, do what you want anyway, then shrug your shoulders and say "oh, they're picking on me...again." Stand up and be proactive. Until then, thank God that those tests have shown your baby to be healthy! "

 Also mixed feelings... wrote on November 1, 2007 9:34 am:
" I am not religious, but think this is a terrible step into religious beliefs. Terrible. The government has stepped over the line. On the other foot, if that little boy gets my children sick because of a disease his mother could have prevented I will sue her to the day she is 6' under. Ignorance is bliss, but... "

 Soylent Green wrote on November 1, 2007 9:46 am:
" If this family does not like the laws of the State than they are free to move to a State that does not require the tests... I do think it was over the top to remove the child fromt he home until the results were back; Better that the State could have come to the home, taken the blood and left the child with the mother and got back to her with the results. "

 Leary wrote on November 2, 2007 5:55 am:
" I thought we lived in a free society void of religioius persicution. This family proves that no matter what they will accept and love each child that God has given them. So many rights were violated that I can't even believe the nerve of the state and of social services. "

 S wrote on December 14, 2007 12:11 pm:
" This is a huge wake up call - A government that removes the right for parents to decide what is best for their child should be feared. How many times have we seen politicians and the health community waffle on what is / isn't dangerous? Do you really want these confused people (who are often driven not by concern, but by the biggest paycheck) telling you how to raise your child? "

Ads by Yahoo!

More Stories In Nebraska