2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Regarding the comments of the physician who called in, I feel his discussion of choice refers only to the rights of the parents and ignores the legitimate rights of the child, who in many cases is not able to independently exercise his or her will and must be supported by the state in those circumstances. For instance, a parent who believes all humans should only have nine fingers in order to get into heaven cannot with impunity lop off their childrens' tenth digits. The state would step in and sanction such a parental choice. So too should the state step in, on behalf of the child's inherent right to choose - to choose health, to choose life - when the parents' choices threaten such fundamental rights.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context