MARTIN, AND METEOROLOGIST BRAD
SOWDER.
MARKIE: I WANT TO TAKE YOU BACK
TO DECEMBER OF 2016.
WHEN A LINCOLN COUNTY CHILD DIED
AFTER THE PARENTS REFUSED
MEDICAL CARE AND PULLED HER OUT
OF THE HOSPITAL CITING RELIGIOUS
REASONS.
MANY OF THE MEDICAL DETAILS
SURROUNDING THE CASE REMAIN
PRIVATE.
AN OKLAHOMA SENATOR IS
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO PUT A
STOP TO THIS PARENTAL OPTION, A
BILL HE SAYS COULD SAVE THAT
CHILD'S LIFE.
WITH IS NOW A SENATOR JASON
SMALLEY WITH THAT IT WILL 93.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF
YOUR SCHEDULE.
AS I STATED, A LOT OF THE
DETAILS SURROUNDING THAT CASE
REMAIN CLOUDED AND
CONFIDENTIALITY.
YOU PROBABLY DON'T NEED A LOT OF
FACTS TO FEEL ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER ABOUT THIS BILL YOU'RE
PROPOSING.
YOU'VE ALREADY SAID IT WILL BE
MET WITH A LOT OF CONTROVERSY.
JASON: I DON'T THINK SO.
YET THE LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL
INTENT.
THAT'S TO SAY SAVING A CHILD'S
LIFE WHATSOEVER.
THE SITUATION HAPPENED WAS
NOTHING MORE THAN A PROCESS
ITSELF WORKING OUT AND THAT'S
DHS RECEIVI THE CHECKUPS,
GOING THROUGH THEIR MOTIONS AND
REMOVING THE CHILD FROM THE HOME
IN A MEDICAL EMERGENCY
SITUATION.
AT THAT POINT THE WAY THE SYSTEM
IS SET UP, THE PARENTS CAME,
CLAIMED RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION
CLAUSE TO THE LOCAL JUDGE AND DA
IN WHICH THEY USUALLY RULE ON
THAT.
WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, NOT
TRYING TO TAKE AWAY PARENTAL
RIGHTS OR THEM EVEN CLAIM THAT
EXEMPTION, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS
GIVE A LINES THAT CHILD.
WHO BETTER TO BE ADVOCATING THAN
JUST GIVING THE JUDGE AND DA IN
LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON
SAYING LISTEN, THIS IS THE
POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THESE ARE THE POSSIBLE
CIRCUMSTANCES IF THE CHILD
STAYS.
BUT NOT RULING -- OVERRULING THE
PARENTS AT ALL.
MARKIE I WANT YOU TO ELABORATE
ON THE RELIGIOUS REASONING HERE.
I WILL COME OUT AND SAM NOT
APPARENT SO I CAN'T, AT THIS --,
AT THIS --COME AT THIS FROM A
RELIGIOUS -- PARENTEAU
PERSPECTIVE.
I'M WONDERING WHY A PARENT COULD
DENY THAT -- WOULD DENY THAT
LIFE-SAVING.
COULD YOU FIND YOU RELIGIOUS
PURPOSES?
JASO WITH OKLAHOMA BEING A
VERY RED STATE, ANYTHING THAT'S
A PARENTAL DECISION OR RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY WILL ALWAYS GET HELD UP.
I'VE ALWAYS SUPPORTED RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY AND THE CHOICE FOR
PARENTS EVEN WITH VACCINATIONS.
I'M A SOUTHERN BAPTIST AND AM
NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON WHAT OF
THE DENOMINATIONS DO, BUT I CAN
VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND.
I DON'T KNOW OF I COULD SIT BACK
AND WATCH OR MAKE THOSE KIND OF
DECISIONS.
THAT'S WHAT THE FAMILY HIS
DECIDED TO DO.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A
MEDICAL -- IS THESE MEDICAL
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.
IN THESE SITUATIONS, WHEN THAT
CHILD'S LIFE IS ON THE LINE, WE
WANT AN ADVOCATE OR THEM
REGARDLESS OF THE EXEMPTION OR
WHAT PARENTS WANT TO SAY.
WE NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE
ADVOCATING FOR THE CHILD.
SINCE I STOOD IN THE LEGISLATURE
WE'VE ALWAYS SPOT FOR THE LIFE
OF THE UNBORN.
WE'VE ALWAYS FELT LIKE THE
UNBORN NEED THOSE RIGHTS AND THE
RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED.
I WANT TO EXTEND THAT TO
CHILDREN AND MINORS EVEN KNOW
THEY HAVE PARENTS.
THOSE PARENTS ARE MAKING THE
BEST DECISIONS THEY FEEL FOR
THAT CHILD.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE
RIGHTS.
MARKIE: TWO, THIS FROM THE OTHER
SIDE OF THINGS, I CAN HEAR
PARENTS AT HOME SAYING HOW DARE
YOU DECIDE WHAT IS BEST MY
CHILD.
YOU KNOW MY CHILD OR MY FAMILY
AND A LOT OF FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS BUZZERS GO OFF.
HOW DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?
>> IT'S THE WAY WE STRUCTURE THE
BILL.
IF PROVIDING THAT GUARDIAN FOR
THE CHILD, NOT TAUGHT NOT -- NOT
TAKING THE WAY THE PARENTS AT
ALL.
JUST GIVING MORE INFORMATION TO
THE JUDG
THE PARENTS CAN STILL CLAIM AN
ADVOCATE AND GIVE THEIR REASONS.
IT'S NOT TAKING AWAY THEIR
RIGHTS OR RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES,
WE ARE GOING TO GO AND HAVE
SOMEONE SPEAK UP FOR THAT CHILD.
MOST OF THE TIME THE JUDGE ASKS
DO THEY WANT A GUARDIAN TO SPEAK
OUT FOR THE CHILD AND MOST OF
THE TIME THE PARENTS SAY NO.
WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE THESE
MEDICAL EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
WHERE LIFE MIGHT BE ON THE LINE
WE HAVE A THIRD-PARTY ADVOCATE
FOR THE BEST NEEDS OF THE CHILD.
MARKIE: TAKING IT BACK TO
LINCOLN COUNTY CASE WHICH KIND
OF SPURRED THIS.
I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENED
TO THE PARENTS OF THAT CASE.
I WAS READING A STUDY FROM 2009
OUT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
LAW CENTER AND CORRECT ME IF
THIS HAS CHANGED, BUT IT SAID
THERE CLEARLY NO DEFINED LIMITS
ON A PARENT'S CHOICE TO NOT SEEK
MEDICAL CARE FOR A CHILD IS
CONSIDERED NEGLIGENT.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A LAW THAT
CLAIMS NEGLIGENCE FOR ANYBODY
CHOOSING THAT TYPE OF EXEMPTION.
I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING WE
SHOULD PROPOSE THAT, WHAT
HAPPENED IN THIS CASE WAS I GREW
UP IN LINCOLN COUNTY, LISTENED
TO MY CONSTITUENTS AND HAD
CONSTITUENTS CALL.
IT BROKE THEIR HEART.
THEY SAID THEY WERE IN THE HOME
OF THE CHILD AND THEY WORKED ON
THAT CASE.
TO SIT BACK AND WATCH THAT CHILD
PASS AWAY, IT BROKE THEIR HEART.
THEY FEEL LIKE THERE IS A
LOOPHOLE AND THEY FE LIKE WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE TO CLOSE THAT
LOOPHOLE.
THAT'S WHY WERE PROPOSING THE
LEGISLATION.
MARKIE: IF THIS HAD BEEN ENACTED
BACK IN DECEMBER, YOU SAVE COULD
SAY THIS CHILD'S LIFE?
WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED IF THAT
CHILD WERE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT
RELIGION FROM HIS OR HER
PARENTS?
CAN CHILDREN HERE OKLAHOMA,
DOES OUR STATE RECOGNIZE THE
RIGHTS OF A MINOR TO ASK FOR
MEDICAL HELP DESPITE WITH THE
PARENTS BELIEVE?
THAT'S WHAT THIS WOULD BE
ABLE TO DO WOULD BE A SAY OF
THAT CHILD DISAGREED WITH THE
RELIGIOUS PORTION THAT THEIR
PARENTS RAISE THEM AND WANTED TO
SEEK THAT CARE, THAT GUARDIAN
WOULD BE LOOK TO ADVOCATE FOR
THE JUDGE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME
WOULD BE IF THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD HAVE BEEN ENACTED.
WE DO NOTE THE JUDGE OR DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO
ERR ON THE SIDE OF THE CHILD.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD HAVE
SIDED WITH THE PARENTS OR THE
CHILD.
WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE MOVING
FORWARD IS WE HAVE THOSE
ADVOCATES FOR THE CHILD AND MAKE
SURE THAT INFORMATION IS
PROPOSED AND OAKLEY WE CAN SEE
SOMEBODY'S LIFE SAVED.
MARKIE: A LOT OF PEOPLE CHIMED
IN.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét