Child limits in U.S., We are becoming China-Lite

For years citizens have been warning against the dangers of big government, claiming that we were going down the same road as China. These citizens have often been denounced as “tea-baggers” or even “tin foil hat wearers”. It seems their claim has verified their warning is credible, at least in regard to the U.S. allowing child limits.

“That could never happen here.”, an acquaintance once responded to this claim. I informed her, “excuse me? It already has.”

Thats right, there at least 4 cases where U.S. citizens have been ordered to cease having children. These cases are not where a child predator was forcefully sterilized.

Case #1:  Judge Marilyn O’Connor orders that a couple could no longer have children. This case dates all the way back to 2004.

Case #2: Judge Tim Boyle sentenced a man to three years of probation with the condition he is not to procreate. 12/2012

President Obamas Science Czar, John Holdren co-authored a book with Paul and Annie Ehrlich more than three decades ago called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment . In a section on “Involuntary Fertility Control,” Holdren and the other authors discuss various “coercive” means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water:

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”However, one has to ask does that interpretation really jive with their current ideology of “war on women”?
Lets hit Case #3 : Judge Ernest Jones Jr offered a Florida mother probation on the condition she cannot get pregnant in the next 13 years. This case is from 2012, which means she has 11 more years left under this law, where are the liberals? How can they let this judge wage a “war” on this “woman”? To be clear of whats at stake here, the Florida penalty for those who violate probation is 5 years in prison, which means if the mother has another kid she goes to prison for 5 years.Then theres the ideology, that you can’t force a woman to keep a baby. Yet we can make a man have a vasectomy?
Case #4: A Virgina man made a plea deal which mandated he be sterilized, and that for the remainder of his probation he could not have the vasectomy reversed. This case to was in 2012.

After covering all these with my acquaintance, she came to the conclusion that these orders would not last because they’re unconstitutional. Yes that logic does sound reasonable, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 , the Court, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, stated:
“While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also [for example,] the right . . . to marry, establish a home and bring up children . . . .”

So it would seem that these orders are unconstitutional…. until you see Case #5: where an appellate court supported the ruling of the lower court where an Ohio man was ordered not to have any more kids. When did that appellate ruling come down? MAY OF THIS YEAR!

Why are these cases so concerning?
1) because very few citizens know of their existence
2) because some argue that the government has the power to do this, just like China has 
3) because some who might argue agianst such government overreach are okay with these precedents because these orders are on “scum bags” or “lousy parents”. But thats not important, what is important is precedents are being set here, once set, the government will have this power and those and charge of the government can then choose who they view as “scum bags” and can sterilize them as well.
4) Probably the biggest reason to be concerned is, THIS IS WRONG, we, all of us know, deep down, that it is a natural right to procreate if we choose and that the government has no authority to suppress such a right.

Please heed these warnings before we do begin receiving “child limits”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s