01/12/2017 / By Vicki Batts
California is no stranger to controversy. In February of 2016, Natural News reported on The Golden State’s highly debatable approach to enforcing vaccination. California’s strict mandatory vaccination laws have been a subject of contention for quite some time now, and it seems that the state is only seeking to grow its power over parents and families.
A new bill, SB-18, has been introduced by Senator Richard Pan, seeking to give the government the right to seize children from their parents if they are making medical decisions that the state feels are “not in the child’s best interests.” (RELATED: Read more news about evil bureaucrats at Evil.news)
Dr. Pan, of course, was also behind the state’s current mandatory vaccination bill, SB-277. When taking both bills into consideration, one cannot help but wonder if they will be targeting parents who have unvaccinated children, or perhaps those who homeschool their kids. One thing is clear: The state of California is all but trying to outlaw dissent.
SB-18 is still in its early stages and will not be enacted until 2022, if it somehow manages to pass. While that may seem far off in the future, it is only a few short years away.
One of the more puzzling aspects of SB-18 is its blatant acknowledgement of existing laws to protect children. The bill itself acknowledges that there are already laws to provide for the “care and welfare of children and youth in various contexts, including, but not limited to, child welfare services, foster care, health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, and education.”
In what some might call rather unsettling language, the bill declares that the state of California will be seeking to “achieve specified goals to create an optimal environment” for the children’s “healthy development.”
Critics say that the language of the bill is really what is most concerning. Under the guise of doing what is best for the child, Section 1(a) of Pan’s bill outlines a seven-point list of rights children ought to have:
(1) The right to parents, guardians, or caregivers who act in their best interest.
(2) The right to form healthy attachments with adults responsible for their care and well-being.
(3) The right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
(4) The right to social and emotional well-being.
(5) The right to opportunities to attain optimal cognitive, physical, and social development.
(6) The right to appropriate, quality education and life skills leading to self-sufficiency in adulthood.
(7) The right to appropriate, quality health care.
This list may seem innocuous, but it is also incredibly vague. These are all basic things that children should indeed have. The problem is that the state is also seeking to grant itself the right to determine what does and does not meet its own arbitrary standards.
The bill is also seeking “to establish a comprehensive framework that governs the rights of all children and youth in California, outlines the research-based essential needs of California’s children, and establishes standards relating to the health, safety, well-being, early childhood and educational opportunities, and familial supports necessary for all children to succeed.”
The vagueness of this bill is truly what is most concerning, as it almost doesn’t really say anything at all – leaving plenty of room to the imagination of whoever is deigned to enforce it. For example, the rights to “appropriate, quality education” and “social development” could be said to be infringed upon by homeschooling your child. Not vaccinating your kid, of course, is also likely to be considered a violation of several of these rights. (Read more about government assaults on your liberty at Liberty.news)
As Modern Alternative Health notes, the bill could also pave the way for more new laws, programs, taxes and other such government tripe.
Allowing a small group of people to decide what is “best” for the rest of population is never a good idea – especially when they all but give themselves carte blanche to do so. One must also wonder, how will any independent thought survive under such circumstances?