self sufficient parenting, keeping gov out of our homes

[bornthrifty]

http://overruledmovie.com/


self sufficient parenting 101, keeping (protecting) the right to raise our children as we choose, not how big brother chooses for us at the whim of whomever may happen to be in charge that day...

if they can tell us how to raise our kids, what can't they tell us to do?



I found this interesting, thought I would share it here since many of you prefer to do things on your own "self sufficiently" in our parenting, as well as other parts of our life, (with out the "kind" (intrusive) help of Uncle Sam)

 

[MorelCabin]

Went through a nightmare with my daughter who was 19 and having a baby 2 years ago

 

[Wannabefree]

I can't view the whole thing, just the first three minutes :/

 

[kstaven]

I saw this posted on a parenting site. It's a hot topic that turned into a forum bloodbath.

 

[Wannabefree]

I saw this posted on a parenting site. It's a hot topic that turned into a forum bloodbath.

Uhhhhh.....we don't really need one of those

 

[kstaven]

Didn't surprise me at all. The forum I speak of has regular blood letting sessions. They don't have mods. They have on-call paramedics.

 

[Leta]

LOL! That sounds like the parenting forum I used to belong to... wait, no, that sounds like all parenting forums.

 

[mandieg4]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, can someone explain the other side of the argument? The movie scared the crap out of me when I saw it last week. I don't see how parents could not be bothered by it.

 

[Leta]

I am anti-authoritarian, pro-homeschool, very much am concerned about the erosion of parental rights (as I am ALL personal freedoms) but I was pretty unimpressed with the movie. IIf you Google the names of the talking heads featured in the movie, they are primarily involved in far right and/or Christianist causes, who have been railing against everything having to do with the UN for ages. The production values of the movie indicate to me that it is trying hard to scare its audience, which makes me not take it very seriously.

Specifically, the families profiled were really done halfway.

For example, the kid who got drug tested at the doctor- they discussed how the parents thought that the boy was having a negative response to his medications, and the doctor sounded like a quack. Then, when the issue became that of drug testing, that's where they stormed out. The reason that children's medical privacy is a matter of law is primarily because of birth control- if a teen girl gets on birth control, she needs an rx. Parents aren't required to give their permission for birth control. This is a kind of a logical extension- under the law, a child that is under 18 but over the age of consent doesn't need parental permission to have sex, so why should a girl need permission to get birth control? Plus, if a girl does get pregnant, she doesn't need parental permission to give the baby up for adoption. Abortion parental consent issues vary by state. The reason that children have explicit medical privacy is largely tied to sexuality and birth control issues, as well as fairness under the law. A boy who goes to a clinic for reversible birth control is just picking up condoms and doesn't need an rx. A girl has a different set of hoops to jump through. There is also the issue of being a mandated reporter. A doc who is afraid that the parents would abuse/assault a child due to medical results- for example, a failed drug test, or birth control use indicating sexual activity that the parents object to- this doctor is protected by the law regarding children and medical privacy. It's thorny, legally, and not nearly as straightforward as the video made it out be. Children's medical privacy doesn't begin at any specific age, and is largely dependent on they type of procedure or rx, and the type of health insurance as well as the doctor/nurse's malpractice insurance.

Another family, the family that requested an opt-out for their kindergartener- what the heck was that? If that did happen the way it was portrayed, then the dad should sue the crap out of not just the school district but the police. My gut feeling is that the dad got upset with the administrators, who called the police as a overreacting "security measure", and then the dad got mouthy with the cop. Police don't care why the get called- neither should they, their job is to show up when requested- but they very much do care when someone doesn't defer to authority. Assaulting an officer can be as simple as yelling- you just have to make someone afraid, legally, for it to be assault. (That's why it's "assault and battery"- battery is physical, assault is mental.)

I have to say that I feel that both these families did not have proportionate or appropriate reactions to their situations. Switch doctors. Call a lawyer. Threaten to yank your kid from school if the district won't let you opt out. Homeschooling is legal in every state, and schools who are threatened with a loss of their state stipend for that pupil usually rush to fix the situation. These are legally somewhat sticky areas, not at all cut and dried. The doctor and principal in this video behaved badly, but there is not law that just because someone works with children means that they will be good at his or her job.

Again, I am not saying that I am unconcerned with erosion of personal freedoms in this country- I very, very much am. I just didn't think this video did much for the cause.

 

[Lady Henevere]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, can someone explain the other side of the argument. The movie scared the crap out of me when I saw it last week. I don't see how patents could not be bothered by it.

I am a parent, I only watched about half of it, but I was not bothered by it. I saw the sections about drug testing and the books brought home from school. Regarding drug testing, the kid had to give consent for his parents to see the results of the drug test. Why didn't they just ask the kid for consent? Why did they freak out and call their state representatives instead? For families who have good parent-child relationships, consent shouldn't be a problem, and the law has no effect on them. So why freak out? For families in which there could be bad consequences for the kid (beatings if a parent finds out a kid has stepped out of line, etc.) let the teenager handle his or her own medical care. It's better to let them get the care they need without parental involvement if they are at risk otherwise.

Regarding the school books the kindergartener brought home, this did not seem like a big deal to me. Not all families are the same, and families who are in denial of that fact need diversity training the most. So a kid with two dads or two moms comes to school, and what is the school supposed to do -- let the student get harassed and bullied because his/her family doesn't match up with what the other kids usually see? Or should it help kids learn that families are all different, so administrators can run a school with less behavior problems based on that kind of lack of understanding? It's no different than educating children to avoid other stereotypes based on race or other characteristics kids have no control over. Students don't choose the family they are born into, just like you don't choose your own race, and I don't see a problem with the school letting kids know that families are different and the school accepts kids of all types. As for the father refusing to leave until his kid got special treatment, I think calling the cops was arguably justified although it may not have been the best course of action.

I agree with what Leta said generally. I respect the right of everyone to raise their family in the way they see fit, and I am not an advocate of governmental intrusion into the home in most instances (really, who is?). mandieg4 asked why some parents aren't bothered by the film, and that's my reasoning. It seems like alarmist propaganda that doesn't warrant much concern.

ETA: I watched the rest. Still not bothered by it. Even assuming the 1982 church case is true (and there appeared to be some pretty heavy spin on it), the film says they have already changed the law that allowed the whole thing to happen. To me, three anecdotes of situations handled poorly don't make a very strong case for widespread abuses of power against parents.