Gavin Newsom is pushing policies that strip parents of their rights over their own children — handing control to 12-year-olds instead.
On the phone with my 11-year-old’s doctor’s office… and they basically told me I’m no longer allowed to know what’s going on with my child.
I don’t even agree with it.
This is insane. This is dangerous. This is California under Gavin Newsom — and now he wants to bring it to the entire country…
This is just foreplay legislation. Making fertile ground for the 2nd stage... that makes sex a decision legally made by a 10 year old. They might as well call the next bill the "Pedophiles Rejoice" bill.
This will create so many hassles for Pediatricians, that a lot of young medical students will avoid that specialty. Every law of this kind backfires bigly.
Doctor here…. In my jurisdiction minors can’t consent to medical treatment. If I touch a minor it is with the consent of the parent or caregiver. I’d have to think pretty hard about this but I don’t think my ethics would allow me to provide medical care for these kids until they are 18. I’d have to dismiss all the adolescents from my practice.
Doc…looks like you have a level head on your shoulders. I think a call to my local Children’s Hospital Foundation is in order. That check we agreed to just went up in smoke based how they respond to this.
California illegitimate governor ignores the fundamental rights of parents to provide for and guide their minor children, which is up until the age of 18.
Supreme Court cases upholding the fundamental rights of appearance and showing that one exceptions are made. They are exceptions not the norm.
Parham v. J. R. (1979): This is the landmark case specifically addressing medical decision-making. The Court ruled that parents have the right, coupled with the high duty, to make medical decisions for their minor children—in this instance, the commitment of a child to a mental health institution. The Court acknowledged the traditional presumption that parents act in the best interests of their children.
Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): The Court famously stated that the "custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents". While the Court upheld state intervention in this case regarding child labor laws, it reinforced the foundational rights of parents to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children, provided it does not cause severe harm.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): While centered on education, this case significantly reinforced the long-standing right of parents to guide the religious and physical future and upbringing of their children.o
Does that mean the child goes into the examination room alone? Does the child go to the pharmacy by themselves and administer their own medicine? Does this mean they clean up their vomit, change their bedding? Imagine if the child has a chronic illness. Imagine a 12 year old paying their own bill.
This is pure evil and the first parent who is refused those records needs to sue. All the way to the Supreme Court.
Sadly, I think we need a federal law against pedophilia.
Gavin Newsom is pushing policies that strip parents of their rights over their own children — handing control to 12-year-olds instead. On the phone with my 11-year-old’s doctor’s office… and they basically told me I’m no longer allowed to know what’s going on with my child.
I don’t even agree with it. This is insane. This is dangerous. This is California under Gavin Newsom — and now he wants to bring it to the entire country…
I would find an out-of-state doctor for appointments. It's worth the 4-hour drive to another state for reliable family medical care.
So - I guess Maine will be next.
This is just foreplay legislation. Making fertile ground for the 2nd stage... that makes sex a decision legally made by a 10 year old. They might as well call the next bill the "Pedophiles Rejoice" bill.
They can't be more obvious. Truly insane.
This will create so many hassles for Pediatricians, that a lot of young medical students will avoid that specialty. Every law of this kind backfires bigly.
Presumably the bills for the teens' health care will be paid by the state, as the parents have no involvement in the process.
Hmmm, you might have a point here
Doctor here…. In my jurisdiction minors can’t consent to medical treatment. If I touch a minor it is with the consent of the parent or caregiver. I’d have to think pretty hard about this but I don’t think my ethics would allow me to provide medical care for these kids until they are 18. I’d have to dismiss all the adolescents from my practice.
Doc…looks like you have a level head on your shoulders. I think a call to my local Children’s Hospital Foundation is in order. That check we agreed to just went up in smoke based how they respond to this.
California illegitimate governor ignores the fundamental rights of parents to provide for and guide their minor children, which is up until the age of 18.
Supreme Court cases upholding the fundamental rights of appearance and showing that one exceptions are made. They are exceptions not the norm.
Parham v. J. R. (1979): This is the landmark case specifically addressing medical decision-making. The Court ruled that parents have the right, coupled with the high duty, to make medical decisions for their minor children—in this instance, the commitment of a child to a mental health institution. The Court acknowledged the traditional presumption that parents act in the best interests of their children.
Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): The Court famously stated that the "custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents". While the Court upheld state intervention in this case regarding child labor laws, it reinforced the foundational rights of parents to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children, provided it does not cause severe harm.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): While centered on education, this case significantly reinforced the long-standing right of parents to guide the religious and physical future and upbringing of their children.o
from a 2020 based friend of the court brief:
“This Court has determined that parents have a fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children. This Court also has determined that the government shall not interfere with this right unless and until a parent is proven unfit.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-618/162853/20201207145434898_20-616%20Amicus%20Brief%20The%20Justice%20Foundation%20cert%20stage.pdf
My state has done it, too. And it's a stupid rule, because you have to set up the access for the kid.
Meanwhile, children cannot consent to anything until they are 18. There are going to be so many lawsuits because of this....
WTF?
Does that mean the child goes into the examination room alone? Does the child go to the pharmacy by themselves and administer their own medicine? Does this mean they clean up their vomit, change their bedding? Imagine if the child has a chronic illness. Imagine a 12 year old paying their own bill.
This is pure evil and the first parent who is refused those records needs to sue. All the way to the Supreme Court.
Sadly, I think we need a federal law against pedophilia.