New Oregon Bill Would Allow For In-Home Surveillance of Newborn Babies

READ MORE AT PREP FOR THAT

Oregon Governor Kate Brown introduced a new bill that will allow in-home surveillance on the families of newborn babies.

Brown introduced Senate Bill 526 to the Oregon Legislative Assembly as part of her budget package. The budget allows Oregon Health Authority personnel to look into or “study home visiting by licensed health care providers.” Lawmakers are calling SB 526 an “emergency measure.” Meaning, the bill could be rushed to approval by year’s end.

The Oregon Health Authority shall study home visiting by licensed health care providers in this state. The authority shall submit findings and recommendations for legislation to an interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to health care not later than December 31, 2019.

There are an astounding 18 sponsors to the bill who collectively state that its “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety,” and therefore “an emergency is declared to exist.”

If you aren’t concerned yet, it is probably too late. Senate Bill 526 is the very definition of egregious government overreach fostered by a dangerous big brother mentality.

And while you might hope that such a bill would flounder in the face of common sense, the bill is instead garnering decent support. Oregon Health Authority’s director, Patrick Allen, stated via Beaverton Valley Times that he’s super happy over the idea. “This isn’t something for people in trouble. This is stuff all kids need. Stuff my kids needed,” he said.

More from the same piece.

“When the program is complete, every new parent — this includes adoptions — would receive a series of two or three visits by someone like a nurse or other health care practitioner. The visits could include basic health screenings for babies; hooking parents up with primary care physicians; linking them to other services; and coordinating the myriad childhood immunizations that babies need.”

Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (D-Beaverton) is also excited to support the bill. Worse more, Oregon isn’t an anomaly in blatantly launching citizen surveillance initiatives. Here’s Washington Governor Jay Inslee pushing for the exact same surveillance legislation.

There is nothing written into the bill that cites it would be a mandatory event, but it doesn’t say it won’t be, either. It states it is “universal,” which in socialist terms, is never a comforting descriptor of any government program. Again, you’re being pitched increased safety and security; you’re getting surveillance. Hopefully, that’s clear.

Many states have pushed for increased surveillance on homeschool children, but this is a first blatant attempt to monitor all kids. Either case is bad, but the “universal” aspect is horrendous.

If you think such laws are impossible to pass, think again.

This excerpt from  ParentalRights.org explains how Supreme Court ruling from 2000 seemingly vacated parental rights over such issues.

The liberty interest at issue in this case — the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children — is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.

In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

The big brother state doesn’t happen overnight, it happens in small, undetectable increments whereas the people think the government is saving them.

Author: Jim Satney

PrepForThat’s Editor and lead writer for political, survival, and weather categories.

Source: https://prepforthat.com/oregon-sb-526-surveillance-newborn-babies/

 

2 thoughts on “New Oregon Bill Would Allow For In-Home Surveillance of Newborn Babies

  1. Alarm Bells Are Ringing Loud & Clear:-

    In the interests of keeping the child safe from harm – more & more females are choosing not to have children or a second or third child.
    No one is stupid here.

  2. I would think the “unreasonable search and seizure” clause in the 4th and 14th amendment would strike that one down. You need “probable cause”.

Leave a Reply to R. Hilson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *