The definition of Child Abuse has been changed by leftists to mean almost anything. Not letting a child take puberty blockers at 9 yo or refusing a 12yo to get an abortion without telling her parents are both abuse now.
The definition of Child Abuse has been changed by leftists to mean almost anything
Please provide some examples where the county child protection authorities have opened a case file on parents who have not let their child take puberty blockers or refused their 12 year old an abortion.
It's considered child abuse for example to not want your child injected with lipid nanoparticles.
Please provide some examples where the county child protection authorities have opened a case file on parents who have not had their children vaccinated for covid.
From 2 years ago. There were 13 sets of rules for children in Canada. Depending on where they live the parents may or may not have had the right to determine if the child is vaccinated.
The term vaccination was modified to align gene therapy and lipid nanoparticles to be considered a vaccine. Ergo now relevant to case law for vaccination and thus child custody cases align with those that are preceded and targeted to parents who don't vaccinate.
It's you who are trying to obfuscate and it's obvious you are attempting to redirect to align your cause.
I'm simply saying it you choose to reject a forced injection through coercion or mandates there is case law that supports the crown case to take your child.
What are you attempting to do? Fool people into believing that the medical system is not planning for this? Since it's the national institute for health tracking the cases it's obvious they are planning to enstate the practice at some point, otherwise why track?
And I don't think in law it matters if there are nine or seven cases. Nine were opened and seven judged. All you need is one for precedence.
The ambiguity article is to show the fact that case law can be muddy water and lead to conviction for unwarranted cases.
I think you are attempting to fool the general audience into believing that no one will take a child for vaccination resistance when it has been done before.
Why are you doing that? You seem panicked that I have the evidence of my statement possibly because it comes across as you are spreading misinformation.
The word vaccine is from the latin word for cow: vacca, because it originally - in the late 1800s - meant being injected with cowpox. A lot has happened since then. This is not the first time the definition has been broadened.
those that are preceded
As your link illustrates: 7 convictions in 111 years in the US. So a conviction is theoretically possible but only just.
I'm simply saying it you choose to reject a forced injection through coercion or mandates there is case law that supports the crown case to take your child.
There is nothing in your link about the seven cases where the child was "deemed neglected" to indicate that any of the children were removed from the home. The link doesn't support your argument.
national institute for health
Among its myriad other programs it runs a library of research papers. It did not direct or sponsor the research you linked. Claiming it's responsible in any way is like saying you local library directs the National Geographic authors just because it has copies of the magazines on its shelves.
All you need is one for precedence.
Having a precedent does not guarantee a win. Especially not 7 instances in 111 years. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of cases tried every year, and the losing side quotes a lot of precedents.
I think you are attempting to fool the general audience into believing that no one will take a child for vaccination resistance when it has been done before.
You have provided no proof that a chid has been taken for lack of vaccination.
The ambiguity article
Does not show that any children have been taken for lack of vaccination.
You have not provided a single instance in 111 years where a child has been removed from the home for lack of vaccination of any kind, let alone a covid vaccine.
You're claiming people should be worried about something that has never happened. It's just your opinion that it might, and you aren't supporting it very well.
You have provided no proof that a child has been taken for lack of vaccination.
Where is your proof they weren't?
That's not the way it works. "That which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You have provided no evidence that any child has ever been removed from a home simply for not being vaccinated.
You're claiming people should be worried about something that has never happened. It's just your opinion that it might, and you aren't supporting it very well.
If you have greater detail of what constitutes child abuse in this chart please supply it otherwise my conjecture is as valid as any other.
Red states by nature are often denied financial support that blue states are given because of political blowback. That's well known. This can lead to financial hardship which is often the cause of negligence cases.
Red states do not get public support from taxes that blue states do. This leads to all kinds of social issues and child poverty. Federally the blue run fed gov in the us abuses red states to ensure poverty. It's a form of get in line politics.
When you over tax gas and various systems it is mostly felt by the poor. The rich could care less. So federally adding a carbon tax makes the poor feel pain.
When federal policies cause the price of fuel to rise it's an attack on the poor. That affects everything from groceries to rent.
Michael Hendrix works at a right-wing think tank. He's entitled to his opinion but he'd be out of a job if he supported Biden. And an extraordinary response to a global pandemic does not fit into the routine nature of your claim that "Red states by nature are often denied financial support". Let's have some day-to-day examples to justify the use of "often".
You didn't read that book, did you? The subtitle is "How Red State Leaders Have Failed Their Citizens and Undermined America". Go back and have another look.
Nothing to do with the transfer payments to the states that I can see: "The goal of this paper is to adjudicate between these three diverse explanations of regional variation in divorce, using county level information obtained from public data sources and appropriate statistical models."
Red states do not get public support from taxes that blue states do
Your book link explains that: "The red states follow the conservative bent of less is better. Less government, less taxation, less money for education, health, road repairs and pollution controls make for a Republican paradise."
Your post reads like AI having an inability to reconcile complex thoughts.
Dismissing the NY Post, one of the oldest newspapers in the US is very telling. By not addressing the facts of the story but attacking the messenger you are producing propaganda.
By disconnecting the thread you are dismissing that the argument as a whole leads to a thesis outcome.
By sending tax money to blue states blue leaders are robbing the poor of red states through taxes to feed the rich of blue states. The rest of the links support the thesis that red states are systematically robbed by blue leaders to punish them. The book on how red states fail their constituents is to show how blue state propaganda is used to blame the victims of federal theft.
The overall argument regarding why red states are denied services to address poverty can lead to additional financial hardship leads to the article that discusses poverty as the primary source of child abuse claims.
In the end it's the fault of blue fed gov policies that end up causing excessive child abuse claims in red states because poverty is considered a form of neglect.
I repeat: "an extraordinary response to a global pandemic does not fit into the routine nature of your claim that "Red states by nature are often denied financial support". Let's have some day-to-day examples to justify the use of "often"."
By sending tax money to blue states blue leaders are robbing the poor of red states
See above. Let's have some day-to-day examples to justify the claim that "Red states by nature are often denied financial support".
The overall argument regarding why red states are denied services to address poverty
That's explained in the book you referenced: "The red states follow the conservative bent of less is better. Less government, less taxation, less money for education, health, road repairs and pollution controls make for a Republican paradise."
In the end it's the fault of blue fed gov policies that end up causing excessive child abuse claims in red states
By causing gas prices to rise it is an attack on the poor. The federal governments should address this inequity.
Pierre Trudeau - a "blue" politician - set up Petro-Canada as a crown corporation in 1975 in an attempt to do just that. A "red" government under Brian Mulroney started the process of returning it to private industry in 1991. Look it up. And in the States the idea of government interference in the free market is seen as socialism by most and communist by some.
But now the State considers the following punishments "abuse":
spanking (assault)
confining to ones bedroom (isolation)
scolding (verbal abuse)
Conservatives punish their children so they won't do detrimental things again. Liberals let them smoke dope, go to pill parties, don't vet their "friends", drink alcohol, have sex in their homes with no regard for pregnancy or STD protection.
The definition of Child Abuse has been changed by leftists to mean almost anything. Not letting a child take puberty blockers at 9 yo or refusing a 12yo to get an abortion without telling her parents are both abuse now.
This is true. Almost no "punishment" toward deterring future bad behavior can be give now. And so, kids run wild.
Please provide some examples where the county child protection authorities have opened a case file on parents who have not let their child take puberty blockers or refused their 12 year old an abortion.
Folks, please downvote misinformation 👆
Downvotes make the impostor uncomfortable folks.
She needs validation from the cult's echo chamber. Be sure to upvote the poor thing.
This is a measure of beaurocrats taking people's children. Generally the liberal laws punish conservatives using these tools as political blowback.
It's considered child abuse for example to not want your child injected with lipid nanoparticles.
Please provide some examples where the county child protection authorities have opened a case file on parents who have not had their children vaccinated for covid.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/
There have been nine cases in this article where vaccination led to neglect jugdements.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-s-covid-19-rules-fraught-with-ambiguity-judge-in-child-custody-case
Where there is ambiguity there is a threat to child custody.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-and-minors-where-does-canadian-law-stand-on-consent-1.5623287
Do you have anything relevant to the topic?
From 7 years ago. Only 7 convictions - not 9 - in the US in 111 years ending in 2016. Nothing to do with covid.
From 3 years ago. It's a child custody case. Nothing about vaccination.
From 2 years ago. There were 13 sets of rules for children in Canada. Depending on where they live the parents may or may not have had the right to determine if the child is vaccinated.
The term vaccination was modified to align gene therapy and lipid nanoparticles to be considered a vaccine. Ergo now relevant to case law for vaccination and thus child custody cases align with those that are preceded and targeted to parents who don't vaccinate.
It's you who are trying to obfuscate and it's obvious you are attempting to redirect to align your cause.
I'm simply saying it you choose to reject a forced injection through coercion or mandates there is case law that supports the crown case to take your child.
What are you attempting to do? Fool people into believing that the medical system is not planning for this? Since it's the national institute for health tracking the cases it's obvious they are planning to enstate the practice at some point, otherwise why track?
And I don't think in law it matters if there are nine or seven cases. Nine were opened and seven judged. All you need is one for precedence.
The ambiguity article is to show the fact that case law can be muddy water and lead to conviction for unwarranted cases.
I think you are attempting to fool the general audience into believing that no one will take a child for vaccination resistance when it has been done before.
Why are you doing that? You seem panicked that I have the evidence of my statement possibly because it comes across as you are spreading misinformation.
The word vaccine is from the latin word for cow: vacca, because it originally - in the late 1800s - meant being injected with cowpox. A lot has happened since then. This is not the first time the definition has been broadened.
As your link illustrates: 7 convictions in 111 years in the US. So a conviction is theoretically possible but only just.
There is nothing in your link about the seven cases where the child was "deemed neglected" to indicate that any of the children were removed from the home. The link doesn't support your argument.
Among its myriad other programs it runs a library of research papers. It did not direct or sponsor the research you linked. Claiming it's responsible in any way is like saying you local library directs the National Geographic authors just because it has copies of the magazines on its shelves.
Having a precedent does not guarantee a win. Especially not 7 instances in 111 years. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of cases tried every year, and the losing side quotes a lot of precedents.
You have provided no proof that a chid has been taken for lack of vaccination.
Does not show that any children have been taken for lack of vaccination.
You do not. You are pretending that you do.
Why are you doing that?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/
The article said that the parents were deemed negligent for vaccine resistance.
https://www.propublica.org/article/some-constitutional-rights-dont-apply-in-child-welfare
You can have your children removed if deemed negligent.
Nothing about removing children from the family.
Nothing about vaccination.
Your original claim was "It's considered child abuse for example to not want your child injected with lipid nanoparticles." You have expressed the opinion that if "you choose to reject a forced injection through coercion or mandates there is case law that supports the crown case to take your child..
You have not provided a single instance in 111 years where a child has been removed from the home for lack of vaccination of any kind, let alone a covid vaccine.
You're claiming people should be worried about something that has never happened. It's just your opinion that it might, and you aren't supporting it very well.
Where is your proof they weren't?
That's not the way it works. "That which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You have provided no evidence that any child has ever been removed from a home simply for not being vaccinated.
You're claiming people should be worried about something that has never happened. It's just your opinion that it might, and you aren't supporting it very well.
You dropped this
She might be one of the few who could possibly care folks.
Add it to your collection
Do you have more downvotes or boosters?
Don't know. Don't care.
But apparently this is important to her folks, so please upvote everything she posts so the poor thing can feel validated.
Sounds like she has a sad life if she has to come here for support.
In that case wouldn't the blue counties have a higher rate?
If you have greater detail of what constitutes child abuse in this chart please supply it otherwise my conjecture is as valid as any other.
Red states by nature are often denied financial support that blue states are given because of political blowback. That's well known. This can lead to financial hardship which is often the cause of negligence cases.
Do you have any proof for that statement?
https://money.com/covid-19-vaccination-rates-low-income/
https://nypost.com/2021/03/10/massive-1-9-trillion-bill-is-a-bailout-for-blue-states/
https://medium.com/the-straight-dope/red-states-much-worse-than-you-think-and-they-pretend-heres-the-proof-a7aa7b12c72a
https://paa2011.populationassociation.org/papers/111705
Red states do not get public support from taxes that blue states do. This leads to all kinds of social issues and child poverty. Federally the blue run fed gov in the us abuses red states to ensure poverty. It's a form of get in line politics.
When you over tax gas and various systems it is mostly felt by the poor. The rich could care less. So federally adding a carbon tax makes the poor feel pain.
When federal policies cause the price of fuel to rise it's an attack on the poor. That affects everything from groceries to rent.
Nothing about financial support in that link. It's about "lower-income Americans".
Michael Hendrix works at a right-wing think tank. He's entitled to his opinion but he'd be out of a job if he supported Biden. And an extraordinary response to a global pandemic does not fit into the routine nature of your claim that "Red states by nature are often denied financial support". Let's have some day-to-day examples to justify the use of "often".
You didn't read that book, did you? The subtitle is "How Red State Leaders Have Failed Their Citizens and Undermined America". Go back and have another look.
Nothing to do with the transfer payments to the states that I can see: "The goal of this paper is to adjudicate between these three diverse explanations of regional variation in divorce, using county level information obtained from public data sources and appropriate statistical models."
Your book link explains that: "The red states follow the conservative bent of less is better. Less government, less taxation, less money for education, health, road repairs and pollution controls make for a Republican paradise."
Your post reads like AI having an inability to reconcile complex thoughts.
Dismissing the NY Post, one of the oldest newspapers in the US is very telling. By not addressing the facts of the story but attacking the messenger you are producing propaganda.
By disconnecting the thread you are dismissing that the argument as a whole leads to a thesis outcome.
By sending tax money to blue states blue leaders are robbing the poor of red states through taxes to feed the rich of blue states. The rest of the links support the thesis that red states are systematically robbed by blue leaders to punish them. The book on how red states fail their constituents is to show how blue state propaganda is used to blame the victims of federal theft.
The overall argument regarding why red states are denied services to address poverty can lead to additional financial hardship leads to the article that discusses poverty as the primary source of child abuse claims.
In the end it's the fault of blue fed gov policies that end up causing excessive child abuse claims in red states because poverty is considered a form of neglect.
https://firstfocus.org/blog/poverty-and-child-neglect-what-we-know-and-what-we-need-to-do
By causing gas prices to rise it is an attack on the poor. The federal governments should address this inequity.
I repeat: "an extraordinary response to a global pandemic does not fit into the routine nature of your claim that "Red states by nature are often denied financial support". Let's have some day-to-day examples to justify the use of "often"."
See above. Let's have some day-to-day examples to justify the claim that "Red states by nature are often denied financial support".
That's explained in the book you referenced: "The red states follow the conservative bent of less is better. Less government, less taxation, less money for education, health, road repairs and pollution controls make for a Republican paradise."
You seem unaware of the political realities in the US. The "blue fed gov policies" provide support, and the reds want to remove it: Republicans Declare Banning Universal Free School Meals a 2024 Priority, and "Republicans have repeatedly pushed to cut, privatize, or even end Social Security"
Pierre Trudeau - a "blue" politician - set up Petro-Canada as a crown corporation in 1975 in an attempt to do just that. A "red" government under Brian Mulroney started the process of returning it to private industry in 1991. Look it up. And in the States the idea of government interference in the free market is seen as socialism by most and communist by some.
But now the State considers the following punishments "abuse":
Conservatives punish their children so they won't do detrimental things again. Liberals let them smoke dope, go to pill parties, don't vet their "friends", drink alcohol, have sex in their homes with no regard for pregnancy or STD protection.