CNN.com - State seizes cancer-stricken girl - Jun 9, 2005:

[Bark Bark Bark]

Oh my. This is going to turn out well...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/09/cancer.battle.ap/index.html

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- Child welfare officials seized a 12-year-old cancer patient from her parents, saying they were blocking radiation treatment that doctors say she needs.

During a court hearing Wednesday, Michele and Edward Wernecke asked that doctors be barred from giving radiation therapy to their daughter Katie until a hearing next week to determine whether she will stay in state custody.

They say their daughter's cancer is in remission and they object to her getting the radiation treatment after undergoing a round of chemotherapy. Katie has Hodgkin's disease, a type of cancer involving the lymph nodes.

[pstans]

1. Downing Street what?

Great, now know one will be talking about Iraq and the Downing Street stuff because 1 girl in Texas has cancer.

[othermeans]

47. Just another diversion they weren't getting the play out of Aruba

[benburch]

2. This is just wrong.

Parents have to make these choices.

[tlcandie]

4. Jup ...It happens..

know a gal in Florida who chose to treat her son with alternative therapy instead of the traditional poisons they use today and she was taken to jail and her son taken from her.

EDIT:
He has passed to the other side now.

[Redstone]

51. The kid's dead? Then maybe the "traditional poisons" might not

have been such a bad thing to use, maybe?

Redstone

[ConfuZed]

5. If the parents want this girl to die you agree with that? n/t

[benburch]

6. So consent forms are not needed any more, then?

All medical care ordered by The State is Mandatory?

Not the world I want to live in.

[expatriot]

12. If withholding this medical care gravely endangers a cognizant life, yes.

Definitely. Parents are not gods over their children and the home is not a castle that locks out the state. The state has the authority to protect its citizens, by judicial decree.

[alarimer]

15. on the news today

They said that CPS had been called on this family a number of times so there might be some history here. Or they could be completely warrantless complaints. I don't think the parents have the right to withhold needed medical treatment no matter their religion or beliefs. Every doctor involved in the case says that she needs the treatment. I think their knowledge and experience should count for something.

More on the family
http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3456841&nav=BsmgasYT

[lostnfound]

38. Perhaps some treatments are equivalent of bloodletting.

My best friend had Hodgkins at 16. Went through chemo and radiation. Died in late 20s of breast cancer. Was it the radiation? Maybe. Would some doctors/hospitals disagree with radiation plans for this particular girl? Maybe.

It's a hard situation, but I hope they know what they are doing.

On edit: isn't it ironic that medical care is deprived from so many who need and want it, yet forced on the girl in this case?

[benburch]

59. I had a friend in the same boat.

Rob wanted more than anything to live, but I am convinced that the "cure" caused his eventual relapse.

[conflictgirl]

19. They said the girl's cancer was in remission.

How exactly is she going to die by not getting radiation?

[Lars39]

20. Who is "they"? Is it qualified doctors, or her parents, or the child ?

[leesa]

49. She has a much higher probability of relapsing if she does not have

consolidation radiotherapy. Hodgkins is very curable, especially this young, but radiation is a key factor because it is a very bulky disease.

[BornLeft]

45. i do not. however when it gets down

to it it's none of my fucking business or the governments.

[expatriot]

11. No its not... the state has the power and rightly so.

Do parents have the right to withhold food from their children? The family is not above the state, everyone has the protection of the courts and the state can protect individuals from their families.

[alarimer]

16. I think the best interests of the child are to get the needed

treatment, even if they think she doesn't need it. The doctors seems to and they have more knowledge and experience in this area.

[expatriot]

24. yes. and they went to court and both sides were heard and the

state won. once again, for those here who do not agree that the state should have power to enter the home and take a child into custody, how can I put this nicely... it isn't exactly a progressive stance... i say this with much understatement. The right for the state to enter the home to protect abused women, abused children, neglected children, to make education compulsory, etc. is essential.

[LeighAnn]

29. Too bad they put them in foster care :(

where a child is 10 times more likely to be abused.

If the government had a better record with children, I might be more supportive.

[expatriot]

33. well than they need to make a better system instead of being at the mercy

of volunteer foster parents.

[LeighAnn]

34. Volunteer foster parents???

These "volunteers" are given far more money to care for their foster children than the actual parents would be given for welfare or any other kind of assistance.

One foster mom wrote a book calling foster mothers the Welfare Queens of the 21st Century. Wish I could remember the name of that book.

[LeighAnn]

35. Next you're going to say we need more privitazation (I hope not) n/t

[conflictgirl]

58. But don't you see how this is a slippery slope?

I chose not to get my children vaccinated against chickenpox. Even my kids' pediatrician (the same one strongly urging me to give the vaccine to the kids) had a sign on her door regarding after-hours calling procedures and on it, it specifically listed chickenpox as something that was NOT an emergency warranting after-hours calls. Ten years ago almost nobody got the chickenpox vaccine; now it's required for school entrance in most states. The medical community has now decided giving this vaccine to all kids is standard medical practice. Should parents lose the right to make decisions like that for their kids, because the parents are in disagreement with the medical community?

I know many, many people personally who elected to have homebirths. Statistically there is a lot of research showing that there are actually BETTER outcomes for normally healthy moms and babies when mom gives birth at home than in a hospital. But the medical community certainly doesn't agree, and homebirth is indeed illegal in many states. There's no logic to this whatsoever as far as I'm concerned, since evidence doesn't support that point of view. Women have been told they had to have C-sections and in some rare cases, women who didn't agree had the state take custody of the unborn baby and force the woman into the C-section. WHY should the state have this much power over individuals?

It sounds like there are possibly other issues at play in this particular case, so I can't say that absolutely I defend the parents if the other allegations are true. But I guess I just don't believe that the medical community is ALWAYS, absolutely correct and infallible, and therefore has earned the right to have its opinions trump those of the parents. When my children were born, the responsibility for their care fell strictly into the hands of my husband and myself. I don't recall their being any fine print that said *so long as your decisions agree with the medical community. I mean, just look at all the drugs that have been pulled off the market in the past 5 years in the US. The rotavirus vaccine they were pushing on babies when my oldest was born was removed from market in less than a year because it was actually responsible for a few deaths. Remember when using leeches was acceptable medicine? Remember when doctors actually smoked while examining patients? The medical community is prone to its fair share of mistakes, and I think it's scary when the state gives them so much power that whatever the medical dogma is of a particular time, it's enforced by the state. I think it's important that people have the right to question it, and even make different decisions for themselves and their children.

[gate of the sun]

69. yes

a voice of reason I can't believe the gibberish on here.....how can we condone the state taking a child away....a sick child. People saying that the state can make better decisions.....I don't want anybody telling me how to treat my child.......I chose to have my child at home...3 of them the last at 42. I chose not to vaccinate... If my child had cancer I would choose what would give the child the best "quality" of life. If we let parents decide they can indoctrinate their children into some religious voodoo that can effect their whole life. Why can't parents decide the best treatment for their sick children? I think this is very fragile ground we are walking on. Bush in his new initiative to have all children tested for mental illness before they can go to school and then told to take required meds is right up this alley. It's not like keeping "food" from a child that is a stupid analogy to equate the two as one previous poster said. Let the child be with her parents for god sake the separation will have more damaging effects on this child's health then the lack of radiation.

[Toots]

55. When does the line get crossed?

Jehova's Witness used to deny medical treatment because they believed whatever happened was God's will. after several children died that could have been easily cured the social system stepped in and said they could no longer deny medical attention. If it is appropriate then why is it not appropriate now? When does the line get crossed to where parents no longer have any say over treatments for their children? I have extremely mixed emotions about this. If the girl is in remission she does not need further treatment IMHO and I'm certainly no doctor. When does it become about money instead of lifge? Radiation treatments are extremely expensive and someone makes a ton of money every time those treatments are given.

[ConfuZed]

3. I doubt they have any proof she's in remission

and I wouldnt trust their opinion I applaud the DPSS for taking custody of this poor girl

[CottonBear]

8. Just wait until *, DeLay & Frist take control of your health care.

No money? Goobye cruel world. (Baby Sun from Texas)
Lots of money? All the advanced medical care that you'll ever need. (rich republican)
Brain dead but on life support? We'll keep your body here forever, if possible. (Terri Schiavo)

[madrchsod]

9. you would trust the opinion of the dpss?

well- you must have alot of trust in the state of texas`s government agencies..hell i don`t even live in texas but i have some personal knowledge of a certain agency in texas and it is really bad.

[expatriot]

17. i could argue with you about whether the agency is quality or not

but the real argument is whether the state has the powers to remove a child from the custody of a parent for something the state, through legal action through judicial channels decides is in the best interests of the child so much so that continued parental custody would endanger the life of that child.

it does not matter what state or what agency, as long as due process was followed. You might not agree with the findings of the state, but to attack the powers of the state to do so is, IMO, wrong-headed.

[conflictgirl]

22. Let me tell you my experience

A couple years ago I gave birth to a son. He was jaundiced at birth. The doctors were initially going to send him home with us with a "bili blanket", a light that would help him break down the bilirubin in his body. We were kept apprised at all times of what his bilirubin levels were. Suddenly they changed their minds and decided he HAD TO be admitted to NICU.

I sent my spouse home from the hospital to look up information about proper treatment for this because we were a little skeptical about why the story had suddenly changed, since our son's condition hadn't worsened. According to the webpage of the American Academy of Pediatrics - you know, that same organization whose protocol the hospital staff were supposedly following - based on my son's bilirubin level, the previously mentioned treatment of sending him home with the bili light and doing follow-up testing every 24 hours was appropriate. Husband printed out those pages, showing that they were American Academy of Pediatrics protocol (and not just some crackpot on the internet). Hospital totally disregarded them and we said we wanted to still follow that protocol and check the baby out of the hospital AMA. They said that if we did so, Child Protective Services would be called and our son would be taken into state custody.

Their threat worked so we let them admit the baby to NICU. They decided that what he needed was IV fluids and he kept kicking the IV out of his feet, so I watched them stick an IV in my newborn's SKULL. After 24 hours of this his bilirubin level was down 1 whole point so they decided he go home on the bili blanket.

How much did that 24 hour stay in the NICU add to the hospital bill? $14,000.

So based on that, I'd say that NO, you can't assume that hospitals always know best and that child protection agencies should be called in to enforce hospital policy.

[expatriot]

28. that is why the courts are involved.....

to hear the case against the parents and provide mediation between the parties.

[sandnsea]

42. IV's in the head is normal

Just so you know, my oldest was in the hospital for about a week after he was born. The head is the best place for a newborn IV. I don't know about the bilirubin, seems you should have been able to bring the baby in every day for treatment. That's what everybody I've ever known has done.

$14,000, yikes. My child's ICU, cardiac specialist, week long stay was $3,000 just 25 years ago.

[madrchsod]

7. jesus h christ

parents have no right to question medical treatment for their children? kids taken from there custody? no second opinions? state forced medical treatments on children without parents consent? what the fuck...thank god my wife and i never had to make these decisions but we would be dammed if we didn`t get every opinion available and would not put any of our children thru needless pain and suffering on the opinion of one doctor and the state child welfare gestapo...
welcome to the new america where our rights are now selected for us

[expatriot]

14. there was judicial process....

you wrote "no second opinions?"

What do you call the court hearing? They have the appeals process. You don't think the state, via its judicial process and police powers, has the right to take children out of the custody of their parents? I personally think that is pretty crazy.

[LeighAnn]

31. Rubber Stamp

"Doctor said so, social worker said so... (stamps)"

[Lars39]

10. Not quite enough information in the article.

Did the parents get a second opinion of treatment needed?
Who decided she was in remission?
If the parents decided on their own that she was in remission, they are fools.
I'd hate to be the doctors having to deal with some of these patients.

[rocktivity]

13. Being in remission doesn't mean you don't need treatment

The chemotheraphy may still be medically necessary. The court should get a second or third opinon. What are the parents basing THEIR diagnosis on--the mere fact that she's looking and feeling better (for now)?

:headbang:
rocknation

[expatriot]

21. I am sure there is an appeals process and agreed re: comments on remission

I am no expert and have little experience but I was under the impression that remission can be good opportunity to go on the offensive.

[Joj Bush]

18. I'm on the fence on this one.

But do the children welfare idiots always have to seize children when something's wrong, as if state custody is going make them better off? I don't why you can't force treatment on her without taking custody.

[RobinA]

54. Because...

In this country we can't force treatment. If the kid's parents won't consent to treatment and there's a good case to be made that the child's life is threatened, and if a judge agrees, they HAVE to take custody of the kid in order to get treatment.

There are good sides and bad sides to the general belief, and the codification of that belief, that treatment should never be forced.

[RobinA]

57. On Behalf Of

child welfare idiots, of which I am one, I would invite you to come on down and join our ranks. Every state needs workers, and you might be just teach us a thing or two about how not to be idiots. It's a gray, gray world down here, and someone with all the answers would be most welcome.

[bitchkitty]

23. If they didn't object to chemo, why

are they objecting to radiation? It's the least harmful of the two. If I could do it again, I'd say, take the twins, honey, fry the blank space and keep your goddamned poison. Internal organs are just so necessary, you know?

[koopie57]

25. I wonder what kind of insurance

this family has. If she has no insurance and they still demand she be treated, that would tell me the state is acting on her behalf.

There is not much information here to go by, but taking a 12-year-old child from her parents in such a way cannot be helping her suffering. And most generally it seems that cases like these are not due to the best interest of the child, but due to the best interest of someone with political pull.

Texas has that law whereby if someone has no insurance the hospital can stop treating them if they feel it is hopeless and so I tend to not believe this situation is due to the compassion of the state of Texas.

Like I said there is not much information, but something stinks.

[expatriot]

26. the fact that Bush and Co. made an evil law about taking people off

treatment when they can't pay does not mean that there are not well-intentioned people who are working for the state, social workers, judges, etc. who pushed this case. Every action done on the behalf of a state is not done directly at the behest of the leadership. I don't know what you think "stinks" about this case.... Parents are denying cancer treatments to their daughter and the state, represented by the dpss and doctors feel that the parent's refusal to have her daughter treated has unduly endangered her life... they take it to court and the court, speaking for the state, agrees.

[koopie57]

70. humm .. why are you so into this?

You pretty much responded as I was expecting, but what is going on with you and confuzed that this has become such an issue with you? Yes, something does stink. I don't think this story is a simple, black and white, as you make it out to be.

I'm not dissing you, just something doesn't seem right. I guess in other words, something stinks.

[Dover]

27. I saw the video the girl and her parents made.

It probably won't be useful in court unless the law sees this 12 year old as being able to make an independent decision.

But in the video the girl challenged the doctor to have radiation treatments himself if he considered it so 'safe'.
Ha!

Chemo and radiation are truly barbaric and an ass backward approach to healing. And what's worse is that milder "alternative" methods are not getting the research dollars or interest of the medical/pharmaceutical community. In fact they seem to do their best to discourage it, as do most insurers.
Adults have the right, as they should, to decide if chemo/radiation is acceptable to them for their own treatments, and so they should have the right to decide if it's appropriate for their children.

But blanket policies and laws are tough because they don't have the flexibility to deal with each case individually...which is so necessary, particularly with these kinds of issues.

The reasons so many are turning away from 'traditional' medicine are many:

* There is no "preventative" and "holistic" approach available to medicine or healing within traditional methods. (although this is slowly changing as med schools integrate some of these alternative methods into their programs).

* Doctors are often arrogant and poor communicators, and alienate the patient/family rather than help them to feel inclusive in the process.

* The "placebo affect" or "beliefs" do in fact have a place in the healing process, and studies have shown that they, in fact, can positively impact the patient's sense of empowerment and well being...and speed the healing.
The medical community doesn't generally honor any opinion or 'belief' outside their educational/clinical experience.

* Many can't afford good health care, and their experience in the "less good" med. care facilities are often not positive, which causes them to second guess their care. These facilities (usually underfunded public hosptials)do their best, but often are like factories. There is little individualized care or quality to the experience.

[lazarus]

30. Ahem

"There is no "preventative" and "holistic" approach available to medicine or healing within traditional methods."

what do you call vaccinations, if not "preventative"?

There was a time when nothing but "alternative" medicine was practised. And humans died at around age, what, 32? Great! Just solved the overpopulation problem, at least. (Oh, yeah, it moved up to around 50 by the Middle Ages. Hooray!)

As for challenging the doctor to have radiation treatment, should all physicians be taking all drugs they prescribe, just to show the drugs are "safe"? "Safe", after all, is relative. Is death the alternative? Maybe I'll do radiation, then.

[Dover]

32. Your skepticism is well documented here at DU.

Sorry, won't take the bait or waste my time.

[Mythsaje]

36. If "alternative" treatments are used

in conjunction with modern biological knowledge, great progress can be made. Many of the drugs used today were originally derived from herbal remedies. Aspirin, for one. Digitalis, for another. Now we have echinacea (proven to be helpful in combating colds and other respitory infections in adults), and St. John's Wort (useful in combating certain menthal/emotional difficulties).

On the other hand, modern medicine has given us Vioxx. And now we discover the "safe" medication, ibuprofen, isn't quite as safe as we thought.

Be serious, will you? The extended lifespan is as much because of a less strenuous lifestyle, better preventative care (not to mention vaccines--which are a damn good thing, in my opinion), better nutrition, and a greater interest in healthier living.

And the asians, as a rule, are STILL out-living us.

[Dover]

39. Yes, see my post below >>>

Exciting research.

[Dover]

Now this looks promising......

Turmeric fights breast cancer in mice - study

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent Thu Jun 9, 4:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Turmeric, a yellow spice used widely in Indian cooking, may help stop the spread of cancer, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

Tests in mice showed that curcumin, an active compound found in turmeric, helped stop the spread of breast cancer tumor cells to the lungs.

Tests have already started in people, too, said Bharat Aggarwal of the Department of Experimental Therapeutics at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who led the study.

"Here you don't need to worry about safety. The only thing we have to worry about is efficacy," Aggarwal said in a telephone interview.

"Curcumin, as you know, is very much an essential part of the Indian diet," he added.

"What's exciting about this agent is that it seems to have both chemopreventive and therapeutic properties. If we can demonstrate that it is efficacious in humans, it could be of tremendous value, but we're a long way from being able to make any recommendations yet," Aggarwal said.

Earlier research showed that curcumin, which acts as an antioxidant, can help prevent tumors from forming in the laboratory.

..snip..

No drug company is likely to develop a natural product that cannot be patented, he said. "There are no companies behind it so our only source of funding is either the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Defense, he said. The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense's Breast Cancer Research Program.

Aggarwal's team is also testing curcumin against pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/cancer_turmeric_dc;_ylt=AiLV5d4.L_ZwEvUzm6PStWIDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Dover]

37. ..

[Zynx]

50. Um, how are you supposed to kill cancer with holistic crap?

Beliefs ain't gonna cut it. You need something that physically removes or otherwise kills the bastard.

[cap]

40. the devil is in the details

we dont know all the details... it could be the best thing to remove the parents or the worst. Doctors dont always know best and some parents are screwy.

[Vladimir]

41. Unfortunate but clearly quite necessary

Hodgkin's lymphoma is one of the more treatable cancers, and her chances for a full recovery are excellent if she completes the treatment. That's what NHS Direct tells me anyhow:

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=295&AreaID=642&LinkID=245

Its quite sad that her parents don't see this, and it may well be as much the fault of their doctor as them - its the doctor's job to reassure patients about treatment after all. But that doesn't mean the girl should be left to die.

[Bridget Burke]

43. Yes, Hodgkin's is quite treatable.

The girl is at M D Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Doctors there are examining her to determine the best course of treatment.

Speaking Thursday on NBC's Today show, Michele Wernecke said her daughter's illness is unique.

"I think they should treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol. Nobody will look at that," she said.

Actually, medical examinations are meant to determine "what her body calls for."

[Vladimir]

44. Exactly. Remission is quite a dangerous period

If the tumor is allowed to come back, it is usually a lot harder to deal with. My aunt died of breast cancer because the doctors backed off when she went into remission the first time - the second time nothing could help her.

[rainbow4321]

65. Tests unveiled in court show girl has cancer again

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8AL158G1.html

Medical tests on Friday showed that cancer had returned to a 12-year-old girl whose parents were in court to fight radiation treatment because they believed her illness was in remission.

The new tests were revealed by state attorneys during a hearing that was supposed to determine whether treatment for Katie Wernecke was necessary in the days leading up to a custody hearing next Wednesday.

The parents had insisted the four rounds of chemotherapy Katie received killed the cancer and that the recommended radiation therapy would only harm a healthy girl. But Friday's results, "changes everything," said Daniel Horne, an attorney for the parents.

"That fact is this latest development, as they say, changes everything," he told Judge Carl Lewis. "The Werneckes have never said that they would deny medical treatment to their daughter if she was ill and getting worse."

[Vladimir]

66. This is a sorry sorry state of affairs

I hope she makes it...

[lateo]

46. Are they religious nut jobs?

[lonestarnot]

48. F Troops

[mopinko]

52. i had a niece

who had a rare cancer. her parents freaked out. instead of getting recognized, proven treatments for her, they found a quack on the internet who told them the doctors were full of it, it wasn't even cancer, and that he could cure her. put her on a macrobiotic diet, and about $50/day worth of shark cartilage. not only did she die, she died a horrible death without the palliative care that she would have had.
and at the end, the went crying to the medical center that wanted to treat her in the first place, trying to start treatment. they not only have to grieve for their daughter, they carry around a great burden of guilt.
"alternative" medicine is every bit as corrupt as big pharma. people die needlessly everyday because they listen to the "all natural, good" siren's song.
they are doing this family a favor. but i hope there is some counseling for them to accept their daughter's situation.

[adigal]

53. This might be the new Schiavo, wingnuts screaming

that she doesn't need medicine, she only needs prayer.

Count on further loss for the repubs.

[graywarrior]

56. So say she got the treatment

Her insurance company will probably send her letter after letter investigating her "pre-existing conditions" then finally deny coverage.

[Tealbreeze]

60. Suprised Frist hasn't jumped on this one already

The people made it pretty clear that the government had over stepped it's bounds in the Schivo case. Where the heck do they get off? They need to stay out a health matters. This is not a case of abuse. This is a child in remisssion.

[progressivebydesign]

61. If this family was doing this for religious reasons DU would be freaking!

I find it so interesting that people here jump on the bandwagon dependent upon who appears to be the enemy du jour. Think that the republicans are butting into parent rights and medical decisions? Okay.. then it's the Republican's fault here. If y'all think that the parents are doing this cuz they think Jesus will cure her? Then you'd be screaming for the court to take her and give her the treatment.

Soooo predictable.

The parents are being idiots. The girl needs to have the treatments obviously. WHAT would the doctors and the State have at stake other than trying to get this child the help she needs? WHy must there always be some sinister motive? A 12 year old child does not have ability to decide her own treatment... this disease does not go away on its own. Remission is not CURED.

[conflictgirl]

62. I don't think I'm seeing the same response here that you are

It doesn't look to me like the overwhelming consensus is in favor of the parents.

Even if the parents were doing it for religious reasons, my answer would be the same - the medical community is not god and therefore I don't feel that the state has to enforce accepted medical protocol. Frankly I don't think it's any business of the state's whatsoever.

[bicentennial_baby]

64. There may be religious reasons actually

On Olberman last night, they were talking about how the family has tried to refuse transfusions for her in the past b/c of their religious beliefs...I think the church is called the Church of God...

[bettyellen]

71. they only wanted to use the mom's blood for transfusion for some reason..

and i thought that sounded pretty ignorant.
the doc said that there has been a history of problems from the beginning getting them to follow through with treatments and this is not the first time there's been complaints against them,
the parents say they just wanted a better explaination or second opinion and were never given one. i'm not buying it. you want a good explaination, you'll get one if you insist on it.
the fact that they run away with the girl kinda tells you that's bullshit, doesn't it? they weren't working to get informed or get second opinions at all. thay have completely changes their tune since the girl was taken from them. the kid should not die just becasue her parents can't cope.

[bicentennial_baby]

72. I agree completely

I feel for that child...and I think her parents are totally full of it.

[bettyellen]

73. they obviously weren't coping well...

but running away was not the answer.
hiding behind the kid? no 12 yr old can decide these things.

[DanCa]

63. Culture of life exposed

These people are not christians they are embryo lovers pure and simple. I hope the parents have some kind of legal action to pursue.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

67. And yet I'll bet if the kid was black or latino

they wouldn't give a rat's ass.

[obxhead]

68. Oh how easy it is for us

to make statements about this girls fate from a 30 second "news" byte from the MSM.