First, the punchline: The Department of Children and Family Services in Cuyahoga County in Ohio has kidnapped a third grader from his mom, and put him into foster care. (Story here.)
Was she beating him? No.
Shooting him up with meth? Nope.
Keeping him in a dog crate? Uh-uh.
He was obese. 200 lbs. obese.
Here is the reason this case is significant:
Earlier this year, JAMA published a paper in which Harvard scholars recommended that the state* intervene in cases where kids are morbidly obese. The scholars' idea of state intervention was to take such children from their parents. (The paper was covered in several places, but you can find brief overviews here and here.)
I argued here that the paper was important because this type of "research" starts the machine that ultimately leads to laws. Frankly, I haven't a clue whether any laws have since been passed at the fed, state, or local levels. However, I do know that a third-grader was recently kidnapped by the state for reasons expressed in the JAMA paper. Note that the Cleveland.com story about the case mentions the paper and one of its authors.
It is worth revisiting this topic since we can now observe where it has led. It is also reasonable to assume that the state will continue to expand its definition of cases that warrant intervention (i.e. kidnapping the kids). Think of ways in which government agencies (federal, state, local) will one day justify taking your kids from you. Surely, you do not believe for a moment that such action will be limited to cases of morbid obesity.
I assume everyone here knows how this works, even some of you younger folks who haven't seen it played out over and over in the past. When I posted here about this process, I offered no new insight. However, it is still a useful reminder that placing others in authority (i.e. voting**) can produce horrible consequences.
* I believe the authors are using "state" to refer to state and local government agencies as opposed to federal agencies. Given how much of state funding comes from the federal level with conditions, the line that separates them is blurred.
** Worth reading ---> The Ethics of Voting - Parts I, II, and III
Was she beating him? No.
Shooting him up with meth? Nope.
Keeping him in a dog crate? Uh-uh.
He was obese. 200 lbs. obese.
Here is the reason this case is significant:
Earlier this year, JAMA published a paper in which Harvard scholars recommended that the state* intervene in cases where kids are morbidly obese. The scholars' idea of state intervention was to take such children from their parents. (The paper was covered in several places, but you can find brief overviews here and here.)
I argued here that the paper was important because this type of "research" starts the machine that ultimately leads to laws. Frankly, I haven't a clue whether any laws have since been passed at the fed, state, or local levels. However, I do know that a third-grader was recently kidnapped by the state for reasons expressed in the JAMA paper. Note that the Cleveland.com story about the case mentions the paper and one of its authors.
It is worth revisiting this topic since we can now observe where it has led. It is also reasonable to assume that the state will continue to expand its definition of cases that warrant intervention (i.e. kidnapping the kids). Think of ways in which government agencies (federal, state, local) will one day justify taking your kids from you. Surely, you do not believe for a moment that such action will be limited to cases of morbid obesity.
I assume everyone here knows how this works, even some of you younger folks who haven't seen it played out over and over in the past. When I posted here about this process, I offered no new insight. However, it is still a useful reminder that placing others in authority (i.e. voting**) can produce horrible consequences.
* I believe the authors are using "state" to refer to state and local government agencies as opposed to federal agencies. Given how much of state funding comes from the federal level with conditions, the line that separates them is blurred.
** Worth reading ---> The Ethics of Voting - Parts I, II, and III
