Strollerderby : government

FEMA Coloring Book Features 9/11 Image

Brett Singer — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Maybe it doesn't matter which party is in charge. FEMA is just clueless no matter what.

The latest head-scratcher from the agency that brought you the Hurricane Katrina fiasco is a coloring book that features the following image.

Yes. That is a plane flying into two buildings that are side by side. Twin Towers. Remember them?

After an outcry (translation: someone noticed), FEMA took the image off of their web site and issued the following statement, according to MomLogic:

"We removed the content from our website after reviewing www.FEMA.gov for appropriate material. FEMA for kids assists children in understanding disasters and we will continue to post appropriate material that supports its mission."

Does that mean that they usually don't review their materials before they get posted online? Wouldn't that be a better method?

This isn't the first weird kid-related thing FEMA has given the world. My personal favorite is the "FEMA for Kidz Rap," which features the following flow: "Disaster prep is your responsibility / And mitigation is important to our agency." This little ditty makes Vanilla Ice sound like Ice Cube.

Over at MomLogic, two commenters don't see what all the fuss is about. "I like it. How else are kids going to learn about 9/11?" Well, let's see. For one thing, they could learn about it from their parents. Or their teachers. Or are government-issued coloring books the preferred scholastic method in some communities?

I'm not saying that 9/11 has to be kept a secret. But what purpose does a coloring book like this serve?

What do you think? Should FEMA put the page back on their web site? Or should it not have been there in the first place?

Source: MomLogic

Woman Will Go Free If Son Comes Back To Life

Moms Taking Drugs to Stop Lactation

Sidwell Parents Say Obamas are Cheapskates

7 Year Old Boy Forcibly Tattooed By Father

Boy Accidentally Shoots Self With Forgotten Gun

Family Awarded Millions For Circumcision Mistake

Choose Life License Plates Debate Heats Up

JeanneSager — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:32:00 GMT

If you're a pregnant woman, do you want to get stuck in traffic behind a car sporting a "Choose Life" bumper sticker? What if it wasn't a bumper sticker but a license plate, supported in essence by the taxes you pay and the state government by virtue of their oversight of the department of motor vehicles?

It's a fight raging in the North Carolina House of Representatives right now, and one that's been cropping up in other states. Are choose life license plates allowing the religious right to get its hooks too far into government?

Judges in Illinois, Arizona and South Carolina have summarily dismissed the proposal to add them to the fund-raising options in the department of motor vehicles' repertoire, citing the topic too controversial. In North Carolina, the current debate is over whether "choose life" is a political issue because civic groups are eligible for special plates but political issues are specifically not allowed.

Its proponents, of course, say it's political in the sense that it is free speech. That's why the pro-life Children First Foundation has taken the State of New Jersey to court over the plates - citing the state for denying them their Constitutionally protected rights. They've pointed out that individuals pay for the right to have the special emblems on their plates, an extra fee that goes to help support the department of motor vehicles as a whole - so pro-choice people aren't technically funding a pro-lifer's message. If anything, they'd be benefitting from it with the funds raised that offset our taxes.

But it's hard to separate license plates, issued by a government entity, from the emblems printed on them. Even if a pro-lifer paid for that emblem to be there, it still stands that the government allowed them to put it there, even took their money to do so. What's next? Nazi symbols printed on license plates? If this is a matter of free speech, than why not? Although I am very decidedly pro-choice, I am not equating the general pro-lifer with Nazis.

But I would ask whether pro-lifers are ready to have the government supporting pro-choice emblems printed onto their license plates, at the behest of the state. A bumper sticker bears the opinion of the driver, a license plate is representative of government.

And my baby, my body don't belong there.

Image: WRAL

Family Planning Services Save Taxpayers Billions of Dollars

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:25:00 GMT

You might be shocked to learn that family planning makes much more sense than telling unmarried poor women not to have sex. A new report from the well-respected Guttmacher Institute has discovered that publicly funded family planning services save the government billions of dollars a year. According to a report co-author, “every dollar spent on [family planning] saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to mothers eligible for Medicaid-funded natal care.”

Apparently, this is old news to the majority of policymakers, since 27 states have already opted to extend family planning services to low-income women who don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

Unfortunately, Democrats stripped the stimulus bill of a section that would have expanded family planning services to poor women, caving to Republican opposition. Anti-abortion activist Troy Newman of Operation Rescue called the proposal a "shameful population control program that targeted low-income families." How exactly does giving women the option of choosing when to have kids constitute population control?

This guy might have a point if the program was going to make abortions for poor women mandatory. Actually, government-funded family planning programs substantially (and entirely predictably) reduce the number of abortions. According to MSNBC, “Without publicly funded family planning, it [the report] said, the U.S. abortion rate would be nearly two-thirds higher, and nearly twice as high among poor women.”

Apparently, taxpayers like Newman would prefer to pay for abortions than to allow a young woman the option of waiting until she's ready for kids before becoming pregnant. No doubt Newman would argue that women should not be having sex until they are ready for kids. But considering that evangelical teens have far more unsafe sex than the rest of their peers, it’s clear that abstinence-only sexual education is no match for the innate biological impulse to have sex.

Photo: Jezebel

Indian Child Welfare Act: Bad for Parents?

JeanneSager — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:45:00 GMT

The debate over whether Baby Talon belongs with his birth mother's Native American tribe or the family who thought they'd followed all laws in attempting to adopt him - only to lose him - has loomed large here on Babble.

Both sides have honed in on some startling truths (and that includes fellow 'Derby writer Shannon LC Cate, who took a walk in the shoes of the birth mother), but one argument has really bothered me:

The idea that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) gives a Native American tribe the power to make the "best" choice for a child, a choice that supersedes one made by that child's parents. I'm even more confused by the fact that parents who have posted on here seem to think that this is a good idea.

As one commenter put it: "This is just the way it is under the law, which was needed in order to prevent further generations of disruption and cultural genocide."

As I've said many times on posts related to issues of Native Americans, I recognize the atrocities visited upon them. I think we need to educate our children, and I think we need to make more concerted efforts as a country to help the poorest on some of these reservations. I definitely wouldn't call myself a supporter of "cultural genocide."

BUT, I find the idea that any nation, even a sovereign nation, should have this sort of power over a parent's choices. This seems to cross a line of the type that we as Americans wouldn't support outside of our borders. So why does federal law protect it here?

As a mother, it's up to me to decide what is best for my daughter. Short of a decision to mistreat her (one I wouldn't make), it's a power that I'm granted by my status as an American. If, God forbid, something were to happen to me or my husband, my decision of who I want my child to live with should be legally binding. I am, after all, her mother. The same goes for my husband - his decision should hold weight too. But you're not Native American, you can say. True, I am white. I am Catholic. I am a dozen other things that I hold dear, including being an American. That is my culture, and it's one I can decide to have my daughter follow. I should - and do - have that right. So why doesn't a fellow American citizen, a mother or a father who just so happens to have a baby with enough Native American blood to qualify as part of a tribe?

I am unschooled, I admit, on the exact parameters of the ICWA. But the debate on the site has made me look into my own family, including a relative who is (happily) married to a full-blooded Native American man. He and her children are both enrolled in a reservation. I would hope nothing would ever befall either of these children's parents, they are, after all, family. But what if it did? Were my relative to lose her husband (God forbid), would the ICWA give her Native American in-laws the power to make choices for her babies? Would it deny her, their mother, rights afforded her by the US Constitution?

I am extremely uncomfortable with readers who have said they simply "trust the tribe" to make the right decision for babies (setting aside the case of Baby Talon). Perhaps they are in the right in this case, and I sincerely hope so. But we have the right and the obligation as Americans to question our government. The inability to do so, to have to hand over those decisions nearest and dearest to our hearts? That is oppression.

Image: KUTV

Parents Must Give Adopted Son Back to Native American Mother

Parents Must Give Adopted Son Back: Another Side of the Story

Mom Gets Hate Mail for Ending Kids Thanksgiving Party

La. Legislator Says: Let's Pay the Poor to Stop Making Babies

JeanneSager — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:34:00 GMT

Think you're done having kids? How about moving down to the Big Easy - where they're considering a plan to make it a little easier to really put a stop to childbearing.

A Republican (natch) State Legislator in Louisiana is mullling a move to offer $1,000 to every woman who will tie her tubes or to men who will undergo a vasectomy. His reason? The economy. "We're on a train headed to the future and there's a bridge out, " Rep. John LaBruzzo told the Times Picayune. Excuse this liberal mama her line crossing moment, but some of his ideas for a "bridge to somewhere" (sorry, I just had to) have merit.

No really. We constantly kvetch about poor people popping out babies that then live off the system (us), but has anyone offered up a means for them to STOP? Tubal ligations, vasectomies . . .they don't come cheap. Even those of us who have health insurance often end up paying a few hundred dollars between the co-pay for ambulatory surgery, the pain pills, the co-pays for the before and after visits with the doctor.

It's also one of the few measures that puts the onus on both sides of the zygote. It's all well and good to tie a woman's tubes, but if he's still got swimmers, that means babies can still be made - just not with her. It makes it harder to say that the government is being sexist when they're willing to pony up the same cash to snip him as they would to tie up her childbearing days.

And coming from a politician who is pro-life, it's a reminder that there wouldn't be nearly as many abortions if women weren't having unwanted pregnancies to begin with. An ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose, I can still acknowledge that for all the women who seek an abortion because it's the right choice for them, there are abortions done because a woman either chose not to use birth control and had an "oops" or her form of birth control failed. A tubal ligation has a pretty high success rate - one in 200 women may become pregnant after the procedure - while the vasectomy has even better numbers - 1 or 2 in 1,000 women get pregnant after having sex with a man who's gone under the scalpel. Sounds better than a thin layer of very breakable latex to me . . .

Yes, this is what they call sterilization, folks. But instead of lining people up and putting the proverbial gun to their heads, this would be for volunteers only. Which makes it hard for me to understand how this could be termed "racist," "Nazi" or any of the other epithets hurled LaBruzzo's way since he threw out the idea.

It's offering people a choice - for once.

Image: Feminist Women's Health Center

Texas Judge Orders Woman to Stop Bearing Children

Can a Mom be 'Too Dumb' to Parent?

Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

Preventing Teen Pregnancy, One Tick at a Time

Muppet Op-Art

Brett Singer — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:20:00 GMT

In a piece in the NY Times today called "Puppet Government", beloved balcony boys Statler and Waldorf trade quips about the Presidential debates. The jokes, written by Hugh Fink, Scott Ganz and Andrew Samson, were obviously written before McCain threatened not to show up, so I'll add one: "John McCain says he won't show up for the debate until Democrats and Republicans stop arguing." "Guess there won't be a debate!"

I wonder if this is part of Disney's Muppet Master Plan. I would say no because it's a political topic. But the jokes are non-partisan and The Mouse House doesn't exactly have a track record of allowing writers to do whatever they like with Disney-owned properties.

Source: NYTimes
Image: Muppet Wiki

More stuff my 3 year old broke

Disney trying to revive The Muppets

Disturbing Origins of 5 Nursery Rhymes

The Babble List: 25 Great Children's TV Shows That Aren't On DVD

Dora the Conservative

Clay Aiken Comes Out

Big Brother Meets Big Bird

SunnyChanel — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:02:00 GMT

As any good empire knows, propaganda should start early, and often. The Department of Homeland Security has partnered with none other than the cast of Sesame Street to, as Gawker put it “indoctrinate America's littlest citizens in the nuances of societal distrust and paranoia.” Big Bird, Grover and Elmo will soon be educating and instilling fear in our offspring with their lessons in emergency preparedness with the “Let’s Get Ready! Planning Together for Emergencies” which is aimed at children 2 to 5. The partnership was announced yesterday at John Tyler Elementary in a ceremony presided over by Meryl Chertoff, wife of the Homeland Security Secretary Michale Chertoff.

Actually, we really should educate our kids about what to do in worst case scenarios, I just wish it wasn’t something they needed to know. Leave the worry to us adults. At least the folks of Sesame Street are trying to make emergencies fun, right? In the pamphlet entitled Let’s Get Ready Grover says:

“I, your furry, blue friend Grover, have a story to share. Are you wondering what it is about? I will give you an itty-bitty hint: It is about getting ready for emergencies! Oh boy, that was a big hint. Do you want to get ready, too? You do? Oh, I am so pleased. Then read this story with me, and let us get ready together!”

About 150,000 of the Let’s Get Ready! kits will be distributed. Oh the fun.

For all the info direct from the U.S. Department of Defense go to their article on it here.

Should Moms Be Paid to Stay Home with their Kids?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:45:00 GMT

Australia’s senior child policy official is convinced the answer is yes. Gillian Calvert is encouraging the Rudd government to pay women to stay home for the first two years of their baby’s life.

Calvert argues that babies’ brain development can be impaired if their mothers work early in their lives, disrupting the normal connections between mother and baby. For instance, Calvert argues, “Because a baby finds the stimulus of its mother’s voice pleasurable, it turns towards the sound; if the experience is aversive, the baby will avoid the experience.”

Sounds to me like that’s an argument against leaving your children with abusive caretakers. I would hope that babies enjoys more voices than just their mother’s—say, oh I don’t know, maybe their dad’s? Or grandparents'? It’s even possible that the voice of a loving babysitter does not make babies turn away in disgust.

Still, I can think of quite a few mothers who would love to get paid to stay home with their children. But I can think of quite a few fathers who would like the exact same thing.

Photo: Mercola

Protesters and journalists arrested in China (video)

Brett Singer — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT

While we wonder whether or not the Chinese gymnasts are the age the government says they are, there's some other stuff happening over in China.

First up, British protesters were arrested for unfurling a "Free Tibet" banner (video below):

Second, and perhaps more disturbing, is this video of a British journalist being detained for covering said protest (video below):

But hey, what about that Michael Phelps? He won another medal, right?

Source/image: Daily Telegraph

It all started when Mary needed a laxative

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

Volleyball hasn’t come a long way, baby

Shawn Johnson more mature than her coach

Should Countries be Allowed to Ban Women from the Olympics?

Jon Stewart Tackles Olympic Controversies

Olympics Opening Uses One Girl's Voice, Another Girl's Face

Bored games

Greenhouse: Tuning Out "Green Noise"

Amy Kuras — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:02:00 GMT

You've probably experienced at least one of these things:

1) You use plastic cups at a picnic (your friend brought them) and bring them home, fully intending to wash them out and recycle them. But you're tired, it's been a long day, and the idea of washing one more damn dish makes you want to lay your head on the counter and weep. So, screw it, you think, as you toss them in the trash.

2) You spend precious minutes at the grocery store or farmer's market agonizing over which produce is better: locally grown but on an industrial farm, or organically grown but trucked from God knows where. Again, the "screw it" reaction kicks in, and/or the weeping.

3) You are trying to: decide whether to dump the Nalgene, buy a new car, use the dishwasher, or just surf the damn internet, and all the conflicting information out there makes you want to crawl under your bed. And weep. Or say "Screw it."

"Green noise" is the name for this phenomenon, which happens when there's so much information, much of it conflicting and all of it intense, out there. The New York Times delved into the idea, and discovered that possibly at fault are activist groups who are constantly shouting messages of doom into people's ears, as well as companies trying to greenwash themselves.

My idea? Do what works for your budget, life and green sensibilities. We can't do everything, nor should we – government and corporations play a role here too. Everything with a green upside also has a downside, and learning to sift through the crap to find what matters to you is a good skill to have, green or no.

Politician drives drunk, has child with mistress, is big jerk

Brett Singer — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:45:00 GMT

Is every guy in New York politics an adulterer? Vito Fossella, a Congressman from Staten Island, has now admitted to fathering a "love child" with a mistress that he carried on an affair with for several years. This news came to light after Fossella was charged with a DWI after leaving a D.C. bar where he was drinking with a friend who was so wasted he "passed out in front of the men's room."

The other woman is Laura Fay, a former colonel in the United States Air Force. The Post, clever wags that they are, call her "Fay Lay" because of dalliances during her previous two marriages. The affair with Fossella probably began in 2001; their out-of-wedlock daughter is now 3 years old. Fossella was elected to House of Representatives in 1997. So he lasted maybe 4 years before he started to stray – unless there are more of his "other women" out there.

Aside: Why is a baby conceived through an extra-marital affair referred to as a "love child"? Is a kid born to a married couple a "tax-deduction child"? (Thank you! Tip your waitress!)

The best line is actually from Fossella's Wikipedia page: "his confession on May 8, 2008 that he had fathered a (now) three-year-old child out of wedlock…could seriously jeopardize Fossella's bid for re-election." Gee, ya think?

That said, many politicians have weathered serious personal failings and remained popular with the people; some were even re-elected. So I'm curious: do people here think that sexual dalliances are relevant when it comes to a politician's ability to do their job?

image: NYPost

Government to Mother: Sorry you had to give birth in the bathroom

Brett Singer — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:30:00 GMT

Reuters has a report on a couple in Chile that was forced to deliver their newborn in the bathroom after waiting for 2 hours to see a doctor at a public hospital.

What's nice (well, relatively nice) is that the government apologized. "We are very sad about what has happened and worried about this incredible incident, and we are going to take the appropriate measures," Health Minister Maria Soledad Barria told Radio Cooperativa. I could be wrong but I can't imagine hospital officials in the U.S. admitting that they made a mistake quite this easily. Of course, they still had to deliver the kid in the freakin' bathroom. Maybe next time they'll try a home birth.

image: theborg.info

Welcome to New York. If you have children, please leave.

Brett Singer — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:00:00 GMT

New York Magazine has an item about a change in how children are accepted into the gifted and talented programs in the Big Apple (G&T, in the parlance). In addition to a gigantic increase in the number of applicants, the notification letters for these special public schools now come at the end of March. Why does this matter? Because by then all the private schools will have sent their letters and demanded that you turn over your ATM password - er, I mean ask for a deposit - to hold a spot. Of course, that's assuming that your child got in to private school and you have that choice to make.

If you're unfamiliar with the kindergarten application process in Manhattan, let me break it down for you. IT SUCKS. If, for whatever reason, you don't want to send your little one to the local public school, you need to start requesting applications several months in advance from the various alternative learning venues: the independent (private) schools, and also the public schools that are either above average (G&T programs) or are public and free yet exist outside of the influence of the city bureaucracy (Hunter). No matter what route you choose, there are tests, a different one for independent schools than for the others. Then you have to spend many hours going to tours and interviews. If you forgo the independent schools, you don't have to spend as much time interviewing and touring but you are also putting all your eggs in one basket.

That basket has gotten much, much smaller while the number of eggs has grown by - wait for it - more than 25 percent since the year 2000, according to the article. (An official at a local child services organization at a meeting I went to recently backed up this frightening stat. And I apologize for working the egg/basket metaphor so hard, but Easter was this week.) Why are there so many kids in NYC? Mostly it's the economy, stupid, or at least, it was. The economy was doing well, so people had more kids and rather than move those kids to the suburbs, they stayed in town and bought bigger apartments. So when the economy declines they'll move, right? Not really. Think about it: you spent a fortune on a huge apartment, and now the value of that apartment isn't as high because of a sagging economy. You can't sell, so you stay. (That particular line of reasoning I can't back up with outside opinions; it's just my speculation.)

At the moment, we have one kid who is already attending an independent school and another who we deeply hope will be accepted to the same place when the time comes, which isn't for another couple of years. The idea of the application process being more frustrating than it was when we did it a couple of years ago is hard to fathom. Everything worked out for the best for us, and therefore all the time we spent was worth it (cough, cough). Maybe by the time we need to do it again everyone will have moved to Scarsdale. But I kinda doubt it.

image: AlbertMohler.com

Canadians Soon to be Even Happier

Madeline Holler — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:48:00 GMT

When you're Canadian, do you wake up every morning happy ... cold, but happy? I ask because it seems to me that Canadians get it when it comes to families -- healthcare, maternity leave, education. Canadians are just so together, cold but together.

Take this as an example: national lawmakers there are seriously considering an overhaul of their lawmaking schedule in order to make it more family friendly. The goal? Getting more parents of young children involved in public office.

Now, I don't know the workings of the Canadian legislature, but basically they're ending a requirement to be there on Fridays, cutting out evening and late-night sessions and taking advantage of Blackberrys and other technology so that they can be present while also being absent. The rescheduling, proponents claim, simply packs more work in to a shorter amount of office time. Sounds good to me.

Here in the U.S., we certainly talk about making work, government and society family friendly. But we're very short on action. We're someone to mention this in the U.S., we'd have to have a totally polarizing argument that shamed working parents, belittled stay-at-home parents, called into question the motives of those who didn't want to be around on Fridays while ignoring/unduly burdening the chosen lives of the child-free -- and calling into question the productivity of public officials who may actually like hanging out with their kids.

It's as if the best we get down here, even from the Democratic presidential candidates who seem positively pro-pro-family with their healthcare plans, is a vague mention of universal pre-K. Which is fine. Just not enough, it seems to me.

But those Canadians! They just overhaul their outdated Victorian ways and call it a family-friendly night. A cold but family-friendly night.

Free Money!

Madeline Holler — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:28:00 GMT

Congressional leaders and the White House hammered out an agreement for a plan to send cold, hard cash to millions of American families sometime this year. The free money, which amounts to billions of dollars, is an effort to stimulate the economy and get American taxpayers to start shopping again.

Some details:

Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those with children an additional $300 per child under the agreement. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get $300 rebates.

But there is a limit.

The rebates would phase out gradually for individuals whose income exceeds $75,000 and couples with incomes above $150,000, aides said. Individuals with incomes up to $87,000 and couples up to $174,000 would get partial rebates. The caps are higher for those with children.

Many experts attribute this recession/"recession" to a crashing housing market and imploding mortgage industry. So the leaders are trying to rig a fix in that area too, as a part of today's stimulus plan.

To address the mortgage crisis, the package also raises the limits on Federal Housing Administration loans and home mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase to as high as $725,000 in high-cost areas. Those are considerable boosts over the current FHA limit of $362,000 and the $417,000 cap for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's loan purchases.

Back to the free money. Under these terms, are you getting any? What are you going to buy? Or are you just paying off bills? Can you make it until June, which is the earliest, many suspect, the money could possibly be distributed?

States Turn Down Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funds In Favor of Teaching, You Know, Actual Sex Ed

Kelly Mills — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:33:00 GMT

Federal money for Cold Showers 101 may someday be a thing of the past. More and more states are declaring they will not apply for federal funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, and a couple others have applied but stated they will not stick with the abstinence-only curriculum, therefore rendering themselves ineligible. If you don't think this is a big deal, remember, these states are turning down MONEY--your tax dollars, in fact. That says something. Now why would states say they won't try and get the funds? "The jump in states opting out follows a series of reports questioning the effectiveness of the approach, including one commissioned by Congress that was released earlier this year. In addition, federal health officials reported last week that a 14-year drop in teenage pregnancy rates appeared to have reversed." Great.

Oh, but I absolutely loooove the response of supporters of "just say no" sex ed. Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services says "My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It's the youths in these states who are missing out." Youths who really, really need to sit in a classroom and be told all about the evils of sex without any information that could actually benefit them. Yeah, totally missing out. And Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association says the abstinence programs don't just waggle fingers and tsk tsk, but "They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception." Kids, this is a condom. It might help protect you from STDs, but since you won't be having sex, you don't need to know how it works. This, however, is what syphillis looks like, and you don't want that, do you?

I must confess this is one of those issues that gets me more irate than almost anything else, so I'm giddy that states are taking a stand. Now perhaps the money I send to the federal government could be used for education programs that aren't utter crap? Really, abstinence-only policy makers who ignore research and reality can kiss my ass without protection.

Keep Your Laws Off My Kid: When is Government Too Intrusive?

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:31:00 GMT

Government programs designed to help children frequently succeed at providing early education (Head Start), nutrition (Free Lunch Program), and health insurance (Medicaid), but when does help become unwanted intervention? According to a Chicago Tribune op-ed, that line has already been crossed.

In the debate over required vaccination against cervical cancer, which is being hotly contested in several states, opponents feel the rights of the parents are being overrun by government interests and that ultimately parents should be able to decide what is best for their children.

The problem always rests in legislating childrearing practices for everyone. The laws that are meant to protect children in those cases where the parents are unfit or unwilling to do so provide protections that we as a society cannot live without. But at what point are these helps a hindrance to personal liberty? Personally, I prefer to err on the side of over-helping than neglecting an issue, especially where children are concerned.