For decades, Idaho laws have allowed parents who belong to the Followers of Christ and other faith-healing sects to pray rather than seek medical care. Since 2015, at least 15 children have died of treatable conditions.
It would lose an election for any politician saying it, but sometimes the child’s rights supersede a parents right to do whatever they want with their kids.
You shouldn’t be able to do things like refuse to feed your child, refuse to give your child medical care, or refuse to educate your child.
I’ve never agreed with the idea that a child is the property of the parent. The kid has rights, and those should supersede a religious parent who thinks they can replace medicine with prayer.
They’d lose if it were a local position within Idaho. Those same people who didn’t wear masks, refuse to vaccinate, refuses care for their child? All those same people are the same people VOTING.
It would be different if it weren’t an election in the most brain dead state.
Yeah, it’s impressive to find a new low BELOW Florida. At least Florida knows how to pull in tourists. Who the fuck wants to willingly go to Idaho???
You don’t run on it you just enforce at a federal level. Republicans love state rights until they’re in power then they love telling states what they can and can’t do.
Democrats need to force this down their fng throat
It gets a little trickier when you start talking about things like teaching evolution and sex ed, or not allowing minors to be indoctrinated by religions.
Want to really see the fur fly? Try banning genital mutilation. There is no defensible logic for chopping up a baby’s genitals even if your god told you to do so. That’s some barbaric, bronze age shit that should in no way be legal in any nation that wants to call itself “civilized”. It’s as logical as slicing a baby’s eyelids off at birth. Without anesthesia, I might add.
I would argue children have limited agency depending on their level of development. For example, child custody courts take the wishes of the child into consideration when determining custody of the child is old enough to express their preferences.
It would lose an election for any politician saying it, but sometimes the child’s rights supersede a parents right to do whatever they want with their kids.
You shouldn’t be able to do things like refuse to feed your child, refuse to give your child medical care, or refuse to educate your child.
I’ve never agreed with the idea that a child is the property of the parent. The kid has rights, and those should supersede a religious parent who thinks they can replace medicine with prayer.
Children have no rights :(
No. a presidential candidate should absolutely run on that. Child abuse charges for the parents for failure to seek medical help
They’d lose if it were a local position within Idaho. Those same people who didn’t wear masks, refuse to vaccinate, refuses care for their child? All those same people are the same people VOTING.
It would be different if it weren’t an election in the most brain dead state.
Yeah, it’s impressive to find a new low BELOW Florida. At least Florida knows how to pull in tourists. Who the fuck wants to willingly go to Idaho???
You don’t run on it you just enforce at a federal level. Republicans love state rights until they’re in power then they love telling states what they can and can’t do.
Democrats need to force this down their fng throat
Can confirm spent a yr living there, hated every second would take death before even driving through it
It gets a little trickier when you start talking about things like teaching evolution and sex ed, or not allowing minors to be indoctrinated by religions.
@ChonkyOwlbear @KC_Royalz
Want to really see the fur fly? Try banning genital mutilation. There is no defensible logic for chopping up a baby’s genitals even if your god told you to do so. That’s some barbaric, bronze age shit that should in no way be legal in any nation that wants to call itself “civilized”. It’s as logical as slicing a baby’s eyelids off at birth. Without anesthesia, I might add.
It’s pedantic but children have no agency, what is being done in Idaho is being done to children.
I would argue children have limited agency depending on their level of development. For example, child custody courts take the wishes of the child into consideration when determining custody of the child is old enough to express their preferences.
If this treatment is legal in Idaho then they do not have agency.