Nightmare for Families


State to Force Homeschoolers to Submit to Warrantless Home Inspections, Trampling Rights

Maryland — Under the guise of preventing child abuse, lawmakers in Maryland have introduced a bill that will allow the state to intrude in the lives of innocent families, keeping tabs on them, and destroying their right to privacy.

The bill, HB 1798 – County Boards of Education – Home Instruction Program – Observation of Instruction and Reporting of Abuse and Neglect, lays out some fairly ominous requirements that will persecute otherwise entirely innocent families for doing nothing other than teaching their children at home.

According to the bill’s text, it will establish grounds for parents to essentially register with the state and be subject to some of the same constraints as the public education system. But that is only the beginning. This bill also lays out the framework for involuntary home inspections in which state agents will enter a family’s home multiple times a year—likely unannounced—and observe and inspect the homeschooling process.

This bill would require parents to annually inform their county school boards of their homeschool child’s primary instructor and of the primary location where homeschooling is taking place each year. Furthermore, in order to legally homeschool in the state of Maryland, parents would be required to allow a representative of the county board to observe instruction at the family’s primary homeschooling location at least twice a year. Finally, this bill would require county school board employees who observe a family’s instruction and who believe a homeschool child has been subjected to abuse or neglect to report their suspicion to the proper authorities.

This bill, like the similar one proposed in California last month, was a reaction to the horrific scene that unfolded in mainstream media in the case of David and Louise Turpin. The couple is facing 12 counts of torture after police learned that their 13 children were severely malnourished, forced to stay chained to their beds, and living in horrific conditions, among other forms of torture that have been ongoing for several years.

Because they were registered homeschoolers, the state is now blaming all homeschoolers.

Instead of realizing the problem of child abuse has nothing at all to do with homeschooling, lawmakers across the country are using this moment to demonize parents who wish to teach their children outside of the state.

When asked why he proposed the bill, HB 1798’s cosponsor, Delegate Frant Turner said it was in response to “recent news about homeschoolers,” indicating that he is also exploiting this tragedy to push for more government control.

As TFTP reported last month, lawmakers in the state of California are now pushing for families who homeschool their children to be subject to involuntary home visits from state employees—treating those parents with the same oversight and involvement that they would give parents who have abused their children—just like Maryland wants to do.

The new regulations could consist of forced meetings with child protective services and other government agencies, which would leave the burden on the parents to prove to the government that they are fit to be parents who homeschool their children, according to the state’s guidelines.

The audacity of the state to require that your children be inspected by them to prove that you are not guilty of child abuse is stunning and speaks to the nature of the cradle to grave mentality of the almighty controllers.

As the Washington Examiner reported, if this increase in government oversight becomes law, it would “reduce the valid legal option of homeschooling from a fundamental parental right, to direct the education and school choice for children, to compelled consent to government intrusion upon the sanctity and privacy of the home and school choice.”

Currently, only about 3.4% of children ages 5 – 17 are homeschooled in the United States. Also, studies have shown that homeschooled children typically outperform their peers from both private and public schools.

Homeschooling allows for a child to maximize their potential to become creative, adaptive, free thinkers. This, in turn, creates people who are not conditioned to think within the limited confines of an archaic and crumbling system, but who are capable of adapting and applying new thoughts, ideas, and solutions to any situation encountered.

The flexibility of being able to cater education to a particular learning style, as well as a child’s particular interests, enables valuable insight.

This insight and creativity, however, is a danger to the status quo. If the state is unable to indoctrinate the entire population into believing in a certain system, people begin questioning that system. When people question the system—instead of simply blaming it on the other party—the state loses its control. When the state loses its control, they lose their power, their ability to extract wealth from masses, and their support for spreading empire.

Freethinkers are a danger to the empire. And whether or not the lawmakers in California and Maryland will admit it, violating the rights of homeschoolers is not in the interest of public safety. It is in the interest of self-preservation.





Chilling: Police investigate stay-at-home mom for
tweets against transgenderism


During the first phone call to Keen-Minshull, the police officer who spoke with her actually
took it upon himself to defend transgender ideology, informing her that the trans movement
was comparable to the movements that struggled to attain rights for blacks, as well as the gay
rights movement. He then followed up and informed her that a face-to-face interview would be necessary and told her that this interview was compulsory—if she declined to show up, the police would consider her to be a “wanted” person. Keen-Minshull asked the officer what it would
mean for her to be “wanted,” and the officer informed her that “should she attempt to leave
the country she would be arrested, and that if she happened to be pulled over while driving s
he would be arrested.”

March 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – I’ve written often in this space that the trans movement will countenance no dissent in their attempts to remake our culture and implement their agenda in schools, universities, and beyond—but even I was stunned when the Christian Post broke the story of a stay-at-home mother of four being contacted by the police for making comments critical of transgender ideology on Twitter—a story that has received very little attention so far. Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, it is important to note, is not a conservative Christian or even a political right-winger—when I emailed her, she noted in her response that she is “a feminist and pro-choice.”

Keen-Minshull’s story is positively chilling. She was contacted last month, apparently because Susie Green, the CEO of a UK organization called Mermaids which “supports transgender persons,” had decided to report Keen-Minshull to the police, who then got her details from Twitter. According to the Post, “the officer told her she was a ‘test case’ in a new ‘human rights’ fight they were undertaking.” Keen-Minshull had been tweeting about transgenderism and had been publicly critical of Green’s decision to fly her son to Thailand to “have his genitals removed when he was 16.” According to the Post:

He was reportedly the youngest person in the world to undergo sex reassignment surgery. Green's son is
said to have been prescribed puberty blockers by a doctor in Boston at age 12, and Jackie Green — who
was born Jack — told the
Daily Mail in 2012 that he has always been and never doubted he was a girl.

During the first phone call to Keen-Minshull, the police officer who spoke with her actually took it upon himself to defend transgender ideology, informing her that the trans movement was comparable to the movements that struggled to attain rights for blacks, as well as the gay rights movement. He then followed up and informed her that a face-to-face interview would be necessary and told her that this interview was compulsory—if she declined to show up, the police would consider her to be a “wanted” person. Keen-Minshull asked the officer what it would mean for her to be “wanted,” and the officer informed her that “should she attempt to leave the country she would be arrested, and that if she happened to be pulled over while driving she would be arrested.”

Keep in mind here that we are talking about a stay-at-home mother who tweeted her opinions—opinions that are widely held by many other people, including many other feminists. In a country that repeatedly says that they lack the law enforcement resources to track terrorism suspects, a mom of four who made statements on social media got a phone call from the cops followed up by a face-to-face interview, where she was interrogated about her views and informed that her own point of view was not valid. In fact, the Post reported, the police had actually kept records of her offending tweets:

Keen-Minshull was summarily forwarded a disclosure containing eight of her tweets spanning from October
2016 to August 2017, six of which mentioned the Mermaids charity. Susie Green's major complaint was that
Keen-Minshull had referred to "castration" in tweets about her son, something that occurs in sex reassignment surgery. Green had also complained about others on Twitter but Keen-Minshull was the only one in England
so she was the one police targeted.

She was the only one targeted—for now. As the police themselves said, Keen-Minshull is a test case, which presumably means that they are gearing up for a wider crackdown:

Police formally questioned Keen-Minshull on Feb. 23 and her case has been referred to the Crown
Prosecution Service where it remains to be determined whether or not charges, and therefore a
prosecution, will be brought. She told CP she is presently awaiting their decision and that this is a
“how long is a piece of string” timeframe, when asked where everything now stands. Reports say
that the Crown Prosecution Service has taken direction from the Mermaids charity when developing
its transgender policies, and the group’s helpline has been distributed to school students all across the U.K.

During her interrogation, a police officer and a civilian hate crime officer peppered her with all sorts of questions to which she replied a defiant "no comment" each time. At one point, the civilian hate crime officer asserted that she was "factually incorrect" when she had expressed that sex reassignment surgery involves castration.

I’m sure I’m not the only one wondering—what in the world are they going to charge this mother with for tweeting her opinion about sex reassignment surgery? And if she is a “test case,” what does formal policy look like? Is it going to be “hate speech” to disagree with gender ideologues presenting a worldview incompatible with biological reality, and unthinkable only a decade ago? The implications of this cannot be overstated. This is, simply put, the beginning of the criminalization of dissent in a way that even many hysterical alarmists would not have thought possible.

Mark Steyn once noted that the West has become so ridiculous that “we’ll all be arguing about transgender pronouns when the mullahs nuke us.” The criminalization of certain opinions is terrifying enough—but when you contrast the opinions of stay-at-home moms on trans issues with the real issues facing the nations like the United Kingdom and consider that the authorities seem to act far more decisively in their persecution of a mom with Twitter than, for example, screening returning jihadists—you start to get an idea of what the term “decadence” truly means.




Police block Alfie Evans’ parents from taking him out of hospital
Pavel Stroilov has informed the father that he has the right to remove his son from the hospital. Nevertheless, police are there now to stop him. Friends are live-streaming the tense scene at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool.

An hour ago, Tom Evans filmed himself in his son’s room, saying, “So anyone joining in, I’m live in the baby’s room. There he is. Look at him. There he is. I’m here now with Alfie James.”

“There’s his stats,” he continued, filming the machines. “There’s his numbers. Look what I have in front of me,” he said and filmed the lawyer’s letter. “I have a documentation saying that I have the right to take my son out of … this hospital.”

Evans said that he had removed duty of care from the hospital and given it to an air ambulance company.

“Alder Hey is stopping us. Alder Hey is calling the police. To murder my son. Alder Hey has phoned the police to stop me from taking my son out of the hospital.”

“This is my son. Look at my healthy, healthy young boy who’s undiagnosed and is certainly not dying.”

“There’s the ventilator. We have all the equipment.”

Fri Apr 13, 2018 - 11:20 am EST

Alfie timeline





LifeSiteNews will continue to bring you updates on Alfie as they become available.
You can follow the stories here. Simply refresh your browser for timely updates.

Dear Alfie petition signers,

The courts seem to have refused all of Alfie's parents appeals and are forbidding Alfie's parents to take him for treatment to another hospital or even home!

Please consider yourselves now part of Alfie’s Army. In addition to praying (and fasting) for him and his family, there are a number of last minute action items that every one of you needs to do to help Alfie right now.

  1. Email British Prime Minister Theresa May demanding that Alfie - now a citizen of Italy - be released to allow for transfer to the Italian hospital which has offered him care.
  2. Email and call (020 7219 6813) the UK Health Minister Jeremy Hunt
  3. Email the UK General Medical Council so that they understand how bad all this is making the UK Health system look.


Parents keep infant alive via mouth-to-mouth resuscitation after UK court rules he cannot be flown abroad for treatment

Conservative Fighters
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 04:14 UTC

The horror out of the U.K. concerning sick 23-month-old baby Alfie Evans continues. Earlier on Tuesday, Alfie was effectively sentenced to death yet again by the U.K. court system after a judge denied the the parents' request to travel to Italy to seek further treatment.

Now, with the child off of life-support since Monday evening and battling for his life, the baby's parents have been forced to give Alfie mouth-to-mouth while sitting in a hospital.

"Evans' parents are giving him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation in a desperate bid to keep him alive after a court ruled he cannot be flown to Italy for treatment," reported The Sun on Tuesday evening. "Tom Evans tonight said he and Alfie's mum Kate are trying to help Alfie's breathing after 'his lips turned blue.'"

Evans made his heartbreaking comments outside Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool. "We were doing what a nurse should have been doing to sustain his life," he said.

"Now they are saying that he looks really good but we all know he should be in Italy right now," the father claimed.

Baby Alfie is believed to be suffering from encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. The medical staff at Alder Hey Hospital claim life-support or further treatment is not in the child's "best interest." Alfie's brave parents, however, have been fighting to get their son treatment. In a last-ditch legal effort to take Alfie to Italy for treatment, where he was granted citizenship and an offer for assistance, the parents were met with rejection:

"Alfie Evans family has lost its legal challenge to fly him to Italy for treatment in what judge calls the 'final chapter in the case of this extraordinary little boy,'" reported Josh Halliday of The Guardian.



Well-Known Member
How tragic and sad for this little family, thinking and praying for them and may Our Blessed Mother
console and shelter them under Her Mantle, and may little Alfie's Guardian Angel lead him to Paradise.


Alfie Evans was given 4 drugs just before he died: report

LIVERPOOL, May 1, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – UK toddler Alfie Evans allegedly died within hours of receiving four different drugs from a nurse at Alder Hey hospital, Italian media is reporting. The information that Alfie was given four injections has also been obtained by LifeSiteNews from two different sources with connections to the Evans family.

Alfie Evans died in Liverpool’s Alder Hey children’s hospital on Saturday morning at 2:30 AM. According to Italian newspaper La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, a nurse entered the child’s cubicle after his father Tom had been called aside and gave him four drugs. A source close to the family told LifeSiteNews that these were injections that were administered to Alfie after Tom had been summoned for an unusual middle-of-the-night meeting with the hospital. The child died two hours later.

It remains unclear why the alleged injections were given. The Evans family did not respond to LifeSiteNews’ request for comment.

Medical advisors to LifeSiteNews said they could not understand why the child would be given four separate drugs. One or two drugs could be explained as an attempt to sedate the child or administer painkillers, if he were in distress. Four, however, seemed to them mysterious. They recommend that an independent toxicology report be performed.

Alder Hey hospital doctors had previously conveyed to the Evans’ family in a legal document how they intended to use a drug cocktail that included Midazolam and Fentanyl as part of Alfie’s “end of life care plan.” Side effects of the drugs included respiratory depression. Tom Evans called it an “execution plan” for his son.

On the night of Monday, April 23, Alfie was suddenly removed from a ventilator and his life-supporting tubes. He had been on the ventilator for 15 months, and was unused to breathing on his own. He also had a lung infection, which would have required antibiotics to heal. Nevertheless, he managed to breathe independently, and continued to do so for more than 100 hours.

Tom Evans argued that the court order leading to Alfie’s extubation did not extend to depriving the child of oxygen and nutrition, and the child was permitted low levels of oxygen and, after 36 hours without nutrition, was fed.

La Nuova Bussola states that Alfie was given more life support in exchange for his father Tom’s promise not to speak any more to the press.

The day prior to Alfie’s death, Tom Evans read to the press outside the hospital what is now being called by many a “hostage letter.” In what appeared to be a forced statement, Tom read out a letter calling all the supporters of Alfie to go home and resume their lives. He thanked the hospital staff for their care of Alfie, even though just hours earlier he had attempted to have them charged with conspiracy to murder his son. He also praised the hospital staff for their dignity and professionalism, even though the day before he said they were treating his son worse than an animal and felt like he was in a jail.

“To silence the press, the hospital promised Thomas more oxygen and more life-support,” Frigerio continued. “Two hours before death, [Alfie’s] oxygen saturation was at around 98, and Alfie’s heartbeat was around 160, so Thomas was convinced that he would be allowed to go home (as the hospital administration had told him on Friday afternoon).”

However, it is alleged that the child’s health declined rapidly after a nurse gave him four injections.

“Before he died, while Tom was away for a moment, leaving Kate [Alfie’s mother] half-asleep and another family member in the room, a nurse entered and explained that she would give the child four drugs (no-one knows which) to treat him,” Frigerio wrote.

She continued: “After about 30 minutes the [oxygen] saturation had fallen to 15. After two hours Alfie was dead.”

The Nuova Bussola reporter, who was material in setting up an appointment between Tom Evans and Pope Francis, observed that she could not be sure that Alfie’s life ended only because he was removed from life-support.




Mom writes scathing letter to top UK cardinal for not supporting Alfie Evans and his parents

ENGLAND, May 3, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – “Cardinal Nichols, this is the culture of death, and you are supporting it,” a mother of three wrote in an open letter to the highest-ranking UK prelate about his response to the Alfie Evans case and the parental rights and bioethics issues that accompanied it.

Cardinal Vincent Nichols made headlines at the end of April for saying Alder Hey Children’s Hospital acted in Alfie Evans’ best interests. The toddler, despite the wishes of the parents, was removed from his ventilator and died five days later.

Nichols said the courts, not Alfie’s parents, were right to be able to decide on the toddler’s care or lack thereof: “It’s very hard to act in a child’s best interest when this isn’t always as the parents would wish – and this is why a court must decide what’s best not for the parents, but for the child.”

“This is truly one of the most disturbing things I have ever heard a Cardinal say,” vestment maker and Catholic blogger Clare Short (not to be confused with the former MP of the same name) wrote in her open letter. “How is it possible that a Catholic Cardinal can side with those who have stripped the parents of all their authority, so they can legally end their child’s life?”

“As a mother of 3 children, I can now see you have no desire to defend my rights as a parent, which are being further and further eroded away by the state,” Short continued. “It is becoming more and more apparent that you were quite happy to sacrifice Alfie Evans and his parents on the altar of political correctness rather than stand up to an increasingly totalitarian state.”

“It is time to decide where your heart really lies,” she wrote.

Short noted:

You told the Polish Bishops last week that “When we discuss the Church’s doctrine here (UK), we must often construct a dialogue on arguments about society’s common good.” Now for someone who said a few moments before, that “Unfortunately, there were also some who used the (Alfie) situation for political aims.” [T[his seems like a very political thing to say. It sounds like to me that you are trying to fit into the politically correct narrative of UK politics. Is this the case? If it is then we really are all in trouble.

Your comments seem to suggest that you felt that Alfie Evans’ death was in his best interests and the interest of society. The “experts” no doubt informed you that it was. But what do you regard as being “society’s’ common good”?

...The British medical system and courts determined that Alfie had to die because of the working assumption that death is preferable to life for disabled people. This utilitarian concept is why you felt that it was in Alfie’s best interests that he should die. I say this because you criticised those trying to save Alfie stating that they “didn’t serve the good of this child”.

It is becoming increasingly clear that you do not oppose this utilitarian ethical ideology.

Short said that vague statements from the UK Catholic bishops in 2013 about the Liverpool Care Pathway not being “inherently unethical” but just “badly implemented” show the embrace of the culture of death. The Liverpool Care Pathway was an “end-of-life protocol” that many denounced as a form of passive euthanasia.

READ: English Cardinal supports hospital’s decision to end Alfie Evans’ life

Short also detailed some of the mistreatment Alfie and his parents received from Alder Hey, the unjust removal of the Italian priest who was spiritually supporting the Evans family at the hospital, and the UK hierarchy’s failed, pro-government approach to the case.

“If you decide to continue compromising the faith in order to fit in with the modern values of secularism and utilitarianism, you will remain popular with your powerful friends but you will cause further harm to the Church and to society,” she wrote. “With respect, I must remind you that your ambition, popularity and your career come second to your vocation as servant of Christ and the Church...Forgive me for saying so, but if you are unable or unwilling to lead us in this fight, then you need to pass the baton to someone who will, because we are at crisis point.”

“We are all praying for you,” she concluded.

Editor's note: The open letter can be read in full here.




UK social services are taking away record
numbers of kids…leaving parents terrified

UNITED KINGDOM, September 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Having your children taken away by the state is one of a mom’s or dad’s worst nightmares. Unfortunately, this happens to thousands of parents in the United Kingdom every year--and not always with good cause.

According to the UK Sun, the number of children ripped from their parents through “forced care orders” rose from 7, 550 to 10, 130 in 2017: an increase of 34%. When you factor in children taken away with the parents’ say-so, the number rises to 32,810.

Anyone who reads the British newspapers or women’s magazines knows stories about children who were taken away because social workers wrongly accused the parents of abuse. One of the best known is that of Jill Goss, whose daughter Alyssa was taken from her when she was 10 weeks old.

Having seen a swelling on her daughter’s arm, Jill took Alyssa to the hospital. Doctors found tiny fractures they said could have been caused by the Vitamin D deficiency for which the baby was already being treated--but Jill was arrested all the same. Although the charges against Jill were dropped, Alyssa was taken from her and given away in adoption. When she became pregnant with her son, Jill fled to Spain. She says social workers threatened to take her baby when he was born.

There are also stories of children being taken from parents because they are overweight, or don’t brush their teeth, or even allegedly because they were not taken out for an ice-cream cone on one occasion. There’s the story of the Courtnages, parents who lost both their sons after the mother took her youngest to the hospital: he had a swelling on his head. Two doctors suggested it was a fissure, a third thought it was a fracture. The parents were not charged or convicted of any crime--but both boys were taken away and adopted by others.

Even some justices think social workers are too quick to remove kids. This past June, judge Sir Andrew McFarlane , the President of the Family Division, said that the courts were seeing too many cases that were not serious enough to excuse taking children from parents.

“It may properly be said that we have reached a stage where the threshold for obtaining a public law court order is noticeably low, whereas, no doubt as a result of the current financial climate, the threshold for a family being able to access specialist support services in the community is conversely, very high,” he said.

But it’s not just poor families that are at risk of having their children taken by the state. Jill Goss is a hairdresser. The Courtnages were an engineer and an accountant when their sons were taken. Now they run a charity for parents of other “forced adopted” children. The theft of children by the state is something that could happen to any parent in the UK, and thus something for all UK parents to worry about.





Mandatory Home Visits Coming to Oregon?
January 23, 2019

Dear Champion of Parental Rights,

Are the headlines true? Are universal mandatory home visits coming to Oregon in the near future?
At first read, it appears Oregon Governor Kate Brown’s latest budget proposal would introduce over the next six years a program of mandatory in-home visits for every family with a newborn child. Not just adoptive homes, or foster homes, or homes under investigation. Every home.
Every New Parent

“This isn’t something for people in trouble. This is stuff all kids need. Stuff my kids needed,” says Patrick Allen, director of the Oregon Health Authority, in an interview with the Beaverton (Oregon) Valley Times published January 3.

Should the plan be adopted—and should it be universally mandatory—it would call for every new parent in the state to “receive a series of two or three visits by someone like a nurse or other health care practitioner,” according to the Times article.

Some 40,000 babies are born in Oregon annually, though certainly not all of these are to new (or “first-time”) parents.
The big question, though, is whether the visits would be mandatory. Providing universal home visits for all who want them is a far cry from requiring universal home visits of every family celebrating the birth of their firstborn.

Cause for Confusion
The confusion seems to arise from page 42 of the budget proposal, which states that the budget includes funds for “universal home visiting.” The idea is expanded on pages 56-57:

Universal Home Visiting — Home visiting programs are a proven way of creating a safe and healthy environment for children​
by supporting parents and families with information and services that provide the foundation for a lifetime of physical and menta​
l well-being. The Governor’s Budget recognizes this through an $8.7 million investment for a Universal Home Visiting program to​
complement existing home visiting services by helping families enter into their community system of care.”​
So, does “universal” mean “universally available?” Or does it mean “for every family without exception?” The latter is the literal meaning of the word, and thus the cause for much alarm. But is that as the governor’s office intends?

Ultimately, we do not know.

The Budget on pages 20-21 expresses support for “the Early Learning Council and the Early Learning System Director” whose responsibilities include “preschool, childcare licensing and regulation, and voluntary home visiting” (emphasis added), which could be a good sign. But uncertainty remains.

The Oregon Senate has recently taken up SB 526 requiring “The Oregon Health Authority [to] study home visiting by licensed health care providers in the state [and] submit findings and recommendations for legislation to an interim committee of the Legislative Assembly” by the end of the calendar year.”

This is no doubt connected to the governor’s budget, but this too does nothing to reveal the extent to which “universal” home visits are intended to be universal.

Bad Policy
The Parental Rights Foundation has found mandatory home visits of innocent families to be simply bad policy. In addition to raising Fourth Amendment and parental rights issues, they do nothing good for families. Any benefits that voluntary visits may offer are easily offset in mandatory visits by the trauma a child experiences in finding at too early an age that their parents aren’t capable of protecting them from intrusion at all.
Studies have shown that children develop their sense of trust in part from the impression they hold in their formative years that their parents are, as one mom put it to us, “Superman or Superwoman,” able to defend their child from anything bigger than the little one can handle. Children robbed of this sense of safety (delusional though it may be) are also robbed of their ability to form trust bonds and lasting relationships for years, if not for a lifetime.

And make no mistake: home visits, even by licensed medical personnel, would constitute a violation of family privacy if the visit is unwanted. Licensed medical practitioners are by law mandatory reporters; once they are inside your home they are a de facto investigative agent of the State. That may create an adversarial medical relationship and introduce a level of stress unhealthy for any family.
In conclusion, this whole matter hinges on Oregon’s definition of “universal.” Truly universal home visits, including to families who do not want them, are bad policy and will reap serious negative consequences for children. But making sure the service is available to any who want it—and only those who want it—poses no direct threat to our parental rights.

Until Governor Brown’s intentions are clear, we will monitor her proposal with great interest.
Michael T. Ramey
Executive Director : Parental Rights org.


Oregon governor supports ‘universal’ gov’t visits for all
newborns and their parents

OREGON, January 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – News from Oregon that Governor Kate Brown is on board with a bill which would establish "universal" invasive home visits by state employees to all households with newborns is causing shockwaves throughout the nation.

While the proposed legislation, known as Senate Bill 526, remains in a nascent form with very few published details, it has nonetheless generated great excitement among progressive statists while sending chills down the spines of parents and families who fear increased government interference in their private lives.

The controversial bill directs the Oregon Health Authority “to study home visiting by licensed health care providers.” It has also been given “emergency” status, meaning that action must be taken before the end of this year.

The “emergency” designation has an oddly ominous tone, stating that the measure is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety,” so “an emergency is declared to exist.”

The language of the bill that is available has some concerned that these "universal" visits could be mandatory, even though state authorities are denying it.

“What’s the big emergency?” asked Paula Bolyard in an opinion piece penned for PJ Media.
“Apparently, the state of Oregon is concerned that some parents are raising their children without the watchful eye of Big Brother monitoring their every move – a big no-no in the view of the progressive left,” continued Bolyard.

“It's frightening to think about what would happen to parents who refuse such visits,” noted Bolyard. She added:
As someone who has been involved in the homeschooling movement for more than 20 years, I have seen many attempts to increase the oversight of children taught at home by requiring home visits by a teacher or social worker. The basic premise behind these attempted power grabs is that parents cannot be trusted with the care of their own children — that an agent of the state is the only one qualified to ensure that children are being properly cared for. Without such surveillance, proponents argue, children are at risk for abuse and neglect, something they believe government agents can prevent, despite volumes of evidence to the contrary. In Oregon, in fact, children in the foster care system are abused at twice the national rate. One wonders how a state that can't handle the children currently in its care could possibly manage to surveil an additional 40,000 children per year, let alone pay for such a program (answer: it can't).
The proposed bill is a continuation of policies straight out of the Obama White House which aggressively sought to nudge Americans toward accepting ever-increasing government involvement in their private lives.

With the introduction of its Julia website, the Obama Administration demonstrated how a person could be wholly government dependent, from birth until death. The site was short-lived as Americans recoiled from its premise, with even CNN calling it the “Wrong vision for America.”

Statists do not trust parents to raise children without government’s invasive guidance
Patrick Allen, Director of the Oregon Health Authority, made it clear in a statement to the Beaverton Valley Times that this is not just about helping parents and children living on the edge, who might need recourse to government aid.

“This isn’t something for people in trouble,” said Allen.

“When the program is complete, every new parent — this includes adoptions — would receive a series of two or three visits by someone like a nurse or other health care practitioner,” noted Allen.

“Can we really trust that medical professionals employed by the government who come into our homes are going to actually benefit our children and families?” asked an essay in Health Impact News.

“Is this proposed bill for universal home visits possibly just another way for the State to collect funds, and to potentially remove children from their homes and place them into the lucrative foster care and adoption system?” the essay also asks.

Tellingly, at the head of the essay is a picture of a doctor standing in front of seated family, titled, “Government Approved Family.”

“If the program becomes reality, all families — regardless of income or area of residence — could see three visits from a nurse. They likely could come when the baby is 3 days old; 2 weeks old; and 2 months old,” said Dr. Alanna Braun of Oregon Health & Science University and member of the Oregon Pediatrics Society in an interview.

The program would also allow nurses to monitor moms for signs of postpartum depression and “check to make sure there's a safe place for the baby to sleep and to be bathed and more,” according to the outlet to which Braun spoke.

She continued:
At the three-day mark, the visit could focus on such basics as weight loss.
At two weeks, the baby’s weight again could be checked. Babies could get the “heel stick,” the pinprick drawing of blood that checks for metabolic indicators of problems which, at that point, show no outward symptoms.
At two months, nurses and families could discuss the many vaccines that [babies] face.
Health Impact News cautions that “parents today face a very real risk of losing their children to Child Protection Services if they dare to question a doctor’s advice regarding medical procedures, or even wanting to seek a second medical opinion.”

Bolyard said that the home visits aren’t just about the health of the newborns, and that the state’s representative would also be observing and making judgements about the parents.

“Government agents monitoring the homes of law-abiding parents who have not been accused of a crime without a warrant is an unconscionable violation not only of parental rights and individual liberty but also a trampling of the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution,” warned Bolyard in her PJ Media commentary.

“The bottom line is that the statists pushing these policies do not trust us with our own children,” concluded Bolyard. “It's not enough for them to have their hooks in them 180 days a year, feeding them propaganda from the first day of kindergarten through the end of high school. They now want access to them from the day they are born — and they will succeed if parents don't rise up and tell the government nannies to back off.”
As currently conceived, if the plan becomes law, it would be rolled out over the course of four years.

Correction: The original version of this article stated that the home visits would be mandatory, but that is unclear and state officials are denying it.

Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Everyone should support this organization, whether you homeschool or not.



Judge rules dad will have say in gender ‘transition’ of 7-year-old

DALLAS, Texas, October 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) The judge presiding over the case of Jeffrey Younger, the father who is trying to protect his seven-year-old son, James, from chemical castration via a gender “transition,” ruled today that the parents will have joint conservatorship over James, which includes making joint medical decisions for the child.

Judge Kim Cooks of the 255th district also put a gag order on both parents so that they cannot speak to the press about the case and decided that the father is not required to pay attorney fees. The judge’s decision means that the Save James website will have to be shut down.
Click here to sign the petition to #ProtectJamesYounger

Mr. Younger and his ex-wife, Dr. Anne Georgulas, were in court last week fighting over custody and decision-making abilities for James and his twin, Jude. Dr. Georgulas wants to continue to “transition” James “into” a girl called “Luna.” Mr. Younger wanted to take a “wait and see” approach rather than start the child on puberty blockers.

Eleven out of 12 jurors decided Monday that Mr. Younger should not be granted Sole Managing Conservatorship over his twin boys. Dr. Georgulas admitted in court she is not actually the twins’ biological mother and used in-vitro fertilization via an egg donor to gestate them.On Monday, a jury ruled 11-1 that the current Joint Managing Conservatorship should be replaced by a Sole Managing Conservatorship – and that Mr. Younger should not be that person.

Judge Cooks’ ruling was originally scheduled for Wednesday afternoon but was delayed. When a seasoned civil court journalist from the Dallas Morning News asked the court clerk for the ruling schedule and provided her with the specific case number, she confirmed the day but refused to share the time of the ruling.

Since kindergarten, Dr. Georgulas has enrolled James in school as a girl under the name “Luna.” She began telling him he’s a girl when he was just three, and testified in court that she began to believe that when he liked a McDonald’s toy meant for girls. James’ pediatrician records also indicate Dr. Georgulas has met with GENECIS, a medical “transition” clinic in Dallas and is considering “hormone suppression” when James is closer to eight or nine years old.

Watch this exclusive video with Jeffrey Younger given right before the judge issued the gag order:

Prior to this case, Dr. Georgulas had exclusive rights to make decisions regarding psychological and psychiatric care for James and Jude. She needed to inform Mr. Younger of her decisions, but he couldn’t weigh in on or change the decisions. GENECIS wouldn’t begin James on puberty blockers without Mr. Younger’s consent.

Dr. Georgulas and Mr. Younger’s messy custody dispute entailed, in part, the latter filing a counter-petition to the court requesting sole managing conservatorship in order to obtain the ability to make decisions on psychological and psychiatric care. This would have given him the ability to prevent James’ from starting puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

Mr. Odeneal told supporters that an appeal “takes about a year” and it would be very difficult to overturn a jury ruling.

There were only three news agencies present throughout the trial: LifeSiteNews, The Texan, and Channel One (a Russian News Agency). After the jury ruling, the public outcry has been immense. Blogger Matt Walsh started the hashtag #protectjamesyounger on twitter. It has been used in tweets over 41,000 times. Additionally, other conservative news agencies are beginning to pick up the story.

A petition created by LifeSiteNews in support of Jeffrey Younger’s efforts to protect his son from being transitioned into a girl has been signed by over 65,000 people.

Follow all LifeSiteNews coverage of the James Younger case here.
Family court records aren't easily accessible like those of civil court – journalists must be there or "be square." Because of the financial support from our readers, we have been able to be in the courtroom reporting on this important case. If you would like to invest more deeply in our pro-life and pro-family reporting by helping to cover the costs of sending our journalists to report on-the-ground, at a moment's notice, on important stories like this, please consider making a donation today. Click here to donate now. If you would like to support our efforts on a monthly basis to provide this kind of coverage 365 days a year, click here.




It Finally Happened: Child Taken Due to COVID-19
June 17, 2020

Well, they’ve finally done it.

We’ve been watching for it all along, hoping against hope that the System would prove us wrong and somehow behave itself. But we kept watching, because we know what the System is made of.

Sure enough, it finally happened.

“Today in dependency court madness, LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove my client’s child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.” (emphasis added)

So says a Los Angeles-area attorney in a post on Facebook last week. (We have not yet been able to confirm the case, but the lawyer’s account remains live on Facebook.)

He continues, “Let that sink in . . . DCFS is asking for children to [be] removed from their parents’ custody due to COVID-19 despite the parent making the appropriate arrangements for their child.” (emphasis added)

To be clear, right now we are talking about one child in one courtroom. The family, who we understand are working on filing a writ of habeas corpus to have their child returned, hasn’t had time yet to finish that writ, let alone file for a full appeal.

However, once there is one rotten ruling, it becomes easier for others to follow.

Some of you have been sounding alarms ever since reports came out that child welfare forms were changed to indicate COVID-19 was present in the home at the time of the child’s removal.

Our analysis at the time was, and remains, that the change in the form was not intended to make COVID-19 an excuse for separating families. It was intended as a means to warn a potential foster family or group home that an in-coming child has been exposed to the virus.

But, like so many of you, we also saw the potential for danger, and we have kept our ear to the ground. Sure enough, now an LA County judge has taken the plunge down the rabbit hole.

To state the matter plainly, the government has no authority to remove a child from their private home simply because the child or a parent has contracted COVID-19. This is especially true if, as indicated by this family’s lawyer, the parents have made appropriate arrangements to see to it the child can be taken care of somewhere away from the infected parent.

In such instances, there is absolutely no need for the court to even be involved.

This is not—this will not be—the new normal. Under no circumstances will we stand by while innocent families suffer the humiliating and life-shattering trauma of unnecessary, unconstitutional, unconscionable separation.

We are working to know more about this situation, and we will certainly stay vigilant in watching for more instances, and for tracking what happens in this case.

Thank you for joining us in this fight. Standing together, we will make sure this does not become “the new normal.” Families have a right to be together; let’s make sure that right is protected.

Michael Ramey
Executive Director

Note (June 18): Today we added to this page a link to the Facebook post so you can see for yourselves. As mentioned earlier, we have not yet been able to verify this beyond Facebook. But there are two additional points to consider regarding its reliability:

First, there is an attorney database by which attorneys can look each other up. We checked that database and verified that the original Facebook author, who claims to be an L.A.-area attorney, is in fact an L.A.-area attorney. This alone adds a lot of credibility.

Second, multiple other attorneys have weighed in among the comments on his post, saying they’re facing similar challenges. Now that you can access that through the link above, you’ll be able to see some of those comments for yourself.