- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Oregon Could Become the First State to Require In-Home Surveillance of Newborn Babies
Posted on 1/17/19 at 8:43 am to Jake_LaMotta
Posted on 1/17/19 at 8:43 am to Jake_LaMotta
The west coast is going nuts. Is it in the water?
Posted on 1/17/19 at 8:45 am to Boatshoes
They could just ask Apple what everybody is up to
Posted on 1/17/19 at 9:42 am to Boatshoes
I did some reading and I don't think this is compulsory...I think this is more in line with a universal healthcare proposal and will be a service the state will make available to all parents. This is already occurring in North Carolina. I think this should be criticized as more of a cost issue than the "nanny state". I'm nearly certain compulsory inspections would be unconstitutional.
This post was edited on 1/17/19 at 9:47 am
Posted on 1/17/19 at 9:51 am to Boatshoes
IF this bill actually does what the OP claims, those 18 sponsors likely constitute a significant majority of the sum total of support for this stupid bill.
This post was edited on 1/17/19 at 9:52 am
Posted on 1/17/19 at 9:55 am to cwill
Are you implying that Boatshoes read a headline, did no research and went immediately into Skyscream mode?


Posted on 1/17/19 at 10:02 am to cwill
quote:
I did some reading and I don't think this is compulsory...I think this is more in line with a universal healthcare proposal and will be a service the state will make available to all parents.
This is how I read it as well. If you read farther in to the PJ Media article the author admits he doesn't know if it will be mandatory or not.
Honestly I'm disappointed with PJ Media for running this. They're usually much better about running bait articles with misleading headlines.
This post was edited on 1/17/19 at 10:02 am
Posted on 1/17/19 at 10:15 am to Boatshoes
quote:
Lawmakers went so far as to declare that SB 526 is an "emergency" measure...
wow - just wow - raising children like is has been done since the dawn of time is now an "emergency" situation?
But 22 million illegal aliens with 100s of thousands more on the way is ho-hum.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 10:20 am to geauxnavybeatbama
quote:
Could cut down on child abuse
It IS child abuse.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 10:24 am to Boatshoes
So are they going to actually take away kids from dead beat parents that are living off the government? This would be a good thing for people on welfare if we actually took their kids and benefits away for not using the benefits to take care of their kids . If they didn’t like us checking on their kids then they can give up their welfare benefits.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 10:26 am to themunch
quote:
Or, create more government expenditure for over loaded case workers that currently claim they cannot keep up with the child cases they have.
And it's a good way to have gov employees scope out you house for signs of things they find offensive, and use the "Do it for the children" shtick. Signs of anti government..a few "subversive" magazines on the table...hunting paraphernalia or gun advocacy? You're a bad parent.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 10:34 am to themunch
quote:
The west coast is going nuts. Is it in the water?
No...it's in their schools.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 11:26 am to geauxnavybeatbama
quote:
Could cut down on child abuse
Let’s give up all liberty in the name of security. Big Brother will be there to protect us
Posted on 1/17/19 at 11:29 am to deltaland
quote:
Sounds unconstitutional
It would be if it were compulsory, which it is not.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 11:33 am to geauxnavybeatbama
quote:
Could cut down on child abuse
STFU
Posted on 1/17/19 at 11:41 am to hogminer
There is nothing unconstitutional about a study. Which is what this bill is. A study. And, there is ZERO mention of the word "required" in the bill. That is a fabrication by the author to scare the anti-gov't types. I'm shocked that it worked.
But yeah - go ahead and start a revolution over this. Makes perfect sense.
But yeah - go ahead and start a revolution over this. Makes perfect sense.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 11:50 am to Boatshoes
From a Constitutional standpoint, I'm not sure this bill could ever be enacted. It violates 4th Amendment protections as well as 5th Amendment protections just for starters.
To come into a private residence, the state would have to show tat something illegal and dangerous is being done there and the threshold for the probable cause would have to be high such as credible reports of child abuse or illegal activity. If you were to be forced to accept this, then 5th amendment protections would kick in
Why have a study on something like this.....it's a boondoggle
To come into a private residence, the state would have to show tat something illegal and dangerous is being done there and the threshold for the probable cause would have to be high such as credible reports of child abuse or illegal activity. If you were to be forced to accept this, then 5th amendment protections would kick in
Why have a study on something like this.....it's a boondoggle
This post was edited on 1/17/19 at 11:53 am
Posted on 1/17/19 at 11:59 am to Boatshoes
are there any liberals left that care about decency? or personal liberty?
I am not even surprised by the left wing lunacy anymore, but the stories and ideas coming from the left just keep getting scarier and more pernicious
I am not even surprised by the left wing lunacy anymore, but the stories and ideas coming from the left just keep getting scarier and more pernicious
Popular
Back to top



1






