Oregon governor supports mandatory gov’t visits for all newborns and their parents

They aren't necessarily studying whether it's necessary, just the feasibility and the logistics.



In the cities, they probably said that about parking meters too.

Some place around scabby baby in a cardboard box I’d think. They don’t care about cloths on the floor or dust there are laws for that. I am thinking they are just gunna follow the pre existing laws pertaining to childhood well being.

a reply to: ketsuko

a reply to: Athetos

Sorry, no. I don't want strangers in my house.

I wouldn’t be opening my door to anyone from the government without a warrant. I can’t comprehend why anyone would want someone from government in their home.

That’s fine to here if you would rather you can bring the child in. But they do have to see the child one way or the others.
I live in a remote area and others around here even more so. To us it’s actually a service because you don’t have to drive hours for the check up. Many communities around here have no hospital just little aid stations. Just giving you back ground I guess on why it seems acceptable to me at least.

a reply to: ketsuko

This is a big, giant mess that's going to end up worse for the people that vote it in than the ones that vote against it. I'm only 39 years old but in my lifetime I have not seen CPS actually do any good whatsoever. I'm sure there are examples of them doing right, but I haven't seen them personally. In the places I've lived I've seen good parents lose their children because of stupid reasons, yet people who are really bad parents seem to be able to keep theirs. Much of that reason seems to be that the bad parents just have to put on a good show for the "inspectors", while the good parents feel they're doing fine.........until they find out they're not.

Questions that come to mind are what will they do to parents who have MMJ licenses?? Is that an automatic no-no for parents so they'll lose their children?? What if one parent has a headache and goes outside to smoke while the other parent remains sober to care for the child, is the fact that one parent is high around the child going to be a strike against them??

What if a family is just having a really bad day while the "inspector" comes to visit?? The Simpsons have a really good episode about that where they lose their kids all because of false assumptions based on a bad day. What if someone is an outspoken political person who goes against the grain of the progressive movement?? Will this give them the ability to look for any reason to punish this person for having different viewpoints?? Take away a MAGA parents baby, that'll teach them to want to MAGA!!!

I feel this is another way of using children as a way to manipulate and spy on people. Even if everything is good in your household this gives them a chance to see your internal workings, things I personally feel they don't need to know. It's just one more step to losing privacy, and I know some people love to point out how we don't have much left anyways, but even so that doesn't mean we should be ok with losing more.

Here is the text.

It implements nothing except for a study. And the it would end the study in 2020.

So to all the Chicken Littles. The sky isn't falling.

Directs Oregon Health Authority to study home visiting by licensed health care providers. Re- quires report to interim committee of Legislative Assembly related to health care. Sunsets January 2, 2020. Declares emergency, effective on passage.

a reply to: Joneselius

The problem is the US isnt the UK. In the US, each State has a Child Protective Services that is operated like a racket. Their goal is to find an excuse to rip a kid out of the home. Then they outsource the kid to a crappy foster care home. Then they prosecute the birth family for child support paid monthly.

Like everything else in the US, its all about the money anthe prison pipeline.

This plan has to be expensive, 40,000 children 80 to 120 thousand visits. Where does the money come from? Does Oregon have a huge budget surplus?

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Seriously, this kind of visits LOWERED the number of child-neglections, endangering children, child abuse and so on here!

Canada does it too...I don’t think they’re mandatory, but for decades, after someone has left the hospital, a nurse might call, just to make sure that you’re coping ok, and to see if help is needed in any way.
Even if it’s not a birth, but after an operation too, just to check up on a patient. I even had my dentist call one night, concerned about how much freezings he put in there.

It’s never been a bad thing here, but in the USA these days.....from what I read on social media these days.....

a reply to: grey580

Yes a study... leading to implementation state wide in every house..... big brother gets to walk into your home look around and notes are taken, reports are being made and submitted ....

Ever wonder why sites like this exist in the first place?? it does absolutely nothing but take a snapshot of your opinions (aka mental Health/leanings toward Conformity/uprising Just take a look at China's Social Credit system)and it does benefit Gov analysts & law enforcement- Not you...

Only now laws are being "studied" for your benefit, your health and safety to come into your home and look around how many Registered Nurses qualify or want to actually do pediatric check ups ?? for everyone ? nope Numbers are not even close so more regulation to ease the burden and now you have someone with a 1 week crash course checking the health and welfare of your situation.... and reports are being made and submitted

Big Brother no longer has YOUR interests at heart We're cows and sheep to them to be corralled and moved along nothing to see here ... while your Constitutional Rights (4th amendment look it up and read it) are slowly striped away... Wake up

a reply to: Joneselius
Sounds expensive. Maybe if you terminated the program your country would have more money for a signifigant number of other issues. Tell your Royal government to take its elitist noses out of yalls personal matters and go control the borders.

a reply to: TheJesuit

I can't imagine that, if mandatory, this isn't unconstitutional (illegal). The 4th amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

a reply to: Necrobile

I am afraid I have to agree with you.

My personal contact with CPS and DCF through my job, makes me hold back my vote of confidence in these programs.

Too many children, too few hours in a day, too few staff, and very little money, makes for a an inefficient system rife for abuse, and disaster.

Fix the system that is already in place then they can talk about expanding it. I wish them luck, but all I see is just another attempt for a failing system to attempt to whitewash their failures.

a reply to: snowspirit

Makes no sense in a country that provides little or no medical care for those without insurance or money.

People with chronic or terminal illness are dismissed for lack of funds, yet they have money for a program like this?

If the U.S. had universal healthcare, it would look a bit more legitimate, but as it stands it looks a bit shady.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: snowspirit

Makes no sense in a country that provides little or no medical care for those without insurance or money.

People with chronic or terminal illness are dismissed for lack of funds, yet they have money for a program like this?

If the U.S. had universal healthcare, it would look a bit more legitimate, but as it stands it looks a bit shady.

Yeah, you’re probably right. Up here, it’s in the government’s best economic interest to keep healthcare down, by keeping the general public, as healthy as possible...
In the US, it’s a totally different payment system.

I can see this being alright as an optional service available for people who may need it. As another commenter mentioned, maybe for people who don't have close family support. But, that's not what this sounds like. I'm not sure what american CPS is like, but if they're anything like child services here, the kids who are actually in #ty situations will be left there and parents won't get the help they need and people who are doing alright with their kids will be picked out for little things at the whims of the social worker.

It really seems to come down to who you're lucky(or unlucky) enough to happen to be working with.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Seriously, this kind of visits LOWERED the number of child-neglections, endangering children, child abuse and so on here!

Channelling Monty Python:

"You there, peasants.. err I mean parents. We, the law, do not trust you as the guardians of this child. Which, by the way, you had every opportunity to abort or indeed to have it, in which case it becomes our property. Open your doors and let us in, or else."

le sigh...

originally posted by: Joneselius
This is already common practice in the UK (they're called health visitors) and it's not what you're describing. It's not some Orwellian dystopic child grab. They simply sit down with the parents and see how they're doing, especially helpful if the parents don't have a big social circle to fall back on. They give the mother information regarding child development goals and if the child is struggling with speech or age goals, they can council the parents on how to get help.

Why would you be against that?

that ugly chain around the necks of a brand new family, MANDATORY.

It sounds like a literal “getting their foot in the door” to me...