Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » ON THE LAM

    Filed at 5:42 am under by dcobranchi

    This is really sad. Daniel Hauser, the boy whose parents are “treating” his cancer with voodoo (so to speak), is missing along with his mother. He’s going to die because he has idiots for parents.

    UPDATE: He’s an HEK.

    5 Responses to “ON THE LAM”

    Comment by
    May 20th, 2009
    at 9:23 am

    Yeah, that sucks. Hodgkin’s lymphoma has a 90+% survival rate.

    Comment by
    May 20th, 2009
    at 12:37 pm

    He’s 13 and can’t read, supposedly due to a leaning disability. I guess the roots and herbs haven’t helped that either.

    Comment by
    May 20th, 2009
    at 3:10 pm

    And this is why we need to get past all the giggling about Farris’ Parental Rights Amendment. We need to get this amendment passed, but – the way things are now – people just laugh about Farris and his Folly because it’s Farris.

    BUT if you read the proposal, and look carefully at Section 2, it clearly says that the “governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.” In other words, the government would have the right to step in if they can prove it’s ‘of the highest order (and saving a child’s life should surely fall under that heading) and “not otherwise served” (no other way to force the parents to get medical treatment for their child).

    Passing the PRA would enable government to take children who are gravely ill from their parents who insist prayer or roots & berries or whatever will cure them and save those children’s lives. It gives the government a compelling interest (and saving a child’s life by forcing medical treatment would surely qualify) to interfere in the family when that family’s decisions are detrimental to their own child.

    Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children; they should not have the right to deny them lifesaving medical treatment and kill them. The PRA would enable government to legally step in and save those children.

    Comment by
    May 20th, 2009
    at 7:52 pm


    You have this completely backwards. The State currently has the power to do exactly as you propose. Farris’ amendment would limit the State’s ability to do just that.

    Think about it for a minute. Do you really believe that Farris would propose a constitutional amendment that gave the State more authority to intervene than it already has?

    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    May 21st, 2009
    at 9:41 am

    Daryl’s got the law right. And I haven’t heard anyone laughing this off.