This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts couple declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their doctor
called DCF on them. Knowing that it was only a matter of time before the state goons showed up, they packed up their five children in the car and drove to Texas where they were staying with family. When the DCF stormtroopers showed
up at their home and found them gone, the state issued a nationwide Amber
Alert which said both parents were wanted on five counts of child kidnapping, which seems to be a legal impossibility. How can two parents, who both have legal custody, kidnap their own children? Kidnap them from whom? It seems like the state is indirectly claiming that all children in Massachusetts belong to the state and that parents are only "allowed" by the state to raise them, a privilege that can be revoked at will by the Eye of Sauron.

When the family was located in Texas, they were extradited back to Massachusetts in handcuffs and charged with a half-dozen felonies. For not violating any law. It's not illegal to go on a family vacation to another state. When they left, there was no judicial order prohibiting them from
taking the kids anywhere. There's no legal principle that says the moment someone threatens you with a call to DCF that you are instantly prohibited
from leaving the state.

The same people who scream in red-faced apoplectic rage "My body, my choice!" will enthusiastically support and do shit like this without a second thought.

---------------------------------- https://x.com/laurenlee/status/1911904139958714869?s=20

Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion are homeschooling parents of five. They told their pediatrician they were postponing vaccines for their baby, citing religious reasons.

Days later, DCF showed up at their door. Their crime? Medical autonomy.

After having a pushy confrontation with their pediatrician, Dr. Behzad Goharfar, the parents had decided to switch to a new family doctor. Unfortunately, that didn't go over well with Goharfar. On their final visit, Goharfar, who trained in Iran, allegedly threatened them: Vaccinate the baby immediately or he would report them to DCF with a 51A.

After initial contact with DCF, the Riveras made the choice to leave Massachusetts for Texas, fearing for their children's safety. Why? They knew what was coming and they didn't trust a system that treats religious
objections like crimes.

Unfortunately, instead of protection, they were met with a manhunt. An Amber Alert was issued, alongside charges of kidnapping and media smear campaigns. The Riveras were completely denied due process. A judge rubber-stamped a post-hoc Care and Protection Order without a hearing, without evidence, and without even attempting to notify the parents.

The couple was "caught" in Texas for daring to protect their children. They were dragged back to Massachusetts in handcuffs. Ruth now faces jail time and the baby remains under supervised visitation. All five children were
vaccinated against their will and against their parents' will by the state.

Meanwhile, Dr. Goharfar continues practicing medicine without facing any consequences for his role in this state-sponsored trauma. The situation has turned into a complete nightmare scenario for these loving parents.

Disagree with any vaccine?
Lose your kids.

Refuse on religious grounds?
Go to jail.

Try to escape?
Get hunted down.

If you think this ends in Massachusetts, you're not paying attention. This is
a warning shot. A test case. And it's just the beginning.

There's a reason Big Pharma lobbies the DCF in all 50 states. There's a reason "public health" has become a weapon of state control over the citizens. And there's a reason more and more parents are afraid to speak out.

Because the state is no longer asking. It's taking. You don't have to be a parent to care. You just have to be awake.

In 2025, authoritarianism is allowed and due process denied.

As long as it's dressed in a lab coat.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts couple >declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their doctor >called DCF on them. While I agree with you that rhey were charged with >ficticious crimes (Could they have successfully fought extradition?),
there is no vaccine mandate for babies.

There is a nationally-recommended vaccine schedule, but the only vaccine mandate is when enrolling in school. Some states have mandates for
enrolling in daycare.

There's also Mahmoud v. Taylor, religious exemption fom school
curriculumn teaching LGB, and Miller v. McDonald about school vaccine
mandates. The Supreme Court didn't hear that one, but remanded to 2nd
Circuit, ordering them to extend Mahmoud's reasoning to vaccines. That
was 2025.

But Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) has not been overturned, that state-ordered vaccines during epidemic were not unconstitutional despite
no religious exemption.

The vaccines in question, unlike the COVID vaccines, Stop the spread of
highly communicable disease and should be mandated by states without
religious exemption being safe and effective.

Despite the Supreme Court being on their side, the parents were in the
wrong, but so was the state for just making shit up about the law.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sep 15, 2026 at 10:43:45 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts couple
declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their doctor
called DCF on them. While I agree with you that rhey were charged with
ficticious crimes (Could they have successfully fought extradition?),
there is no vaccine mandate for babies.

There is a nationally-recommended vaccine schedule, but the only vaccine mandate is when enrolling in school. Some states have mandates for
enrolling in daycare.

There's also Mahmoud v. Taylor, religious exemption fom school
curriculumn teaching LGB, and Miller v. McDonald about school vaccine mandates. The Supreme Court didn't hear that one, but remanded to 2nd Circuit, ordering them to extend Mahmoud's reasoning to vaccines. That
was 2025.

The schools wouldn't even be an issue in this case because the couple homeschooled their kids.

But Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) has not been overturned, that state-ordered vaccines during epidemic were not unconstitutional despite
no religious exemption.

The vaccines in question, unlike the COVID vaccines, Stop the spread of highly communicable disease and should be mandated by states without religious exemption being safe and effective.

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no 'emergency exception' to the Constitution:

Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer
may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case
of emergency.

--Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

Despite the Supreme Court being on their side, the parents were in the
wrong, but so was the state for just making shit up about the law.

Well, at least with regard to the Wuhan Flu, we have precedent that all those restrictions, closure orders, and vaccine mandates were unconstitutional:

A federal judge ruled on Monday that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's
coronavirus orders, which shut down the state, closed businesses and
limited gatherings, were unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV ruled that COVID-19 orders from
Wolf and Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Rachel Levine violated and
continue to violate the 1st Amendment right to freedom of assembly and the
due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment:

The rule of law, as established by the United States Constitution
and the Pennsylvania Legislature, dictates these rules must be
followed notwithstanding the Secretary's instructions to the
contrary.

There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution.

Throughout its history, the nation has experienced emergencies
of every kind (except maybe the dead rising to feed on the flesh of the
living and Skynet) but the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as
the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a 'new normal', where the basic liberties of the people can
be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather,
the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an
emergency.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Sep 15, 2026 at 10:43:45 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts couple >>>declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their doctor >>>called DCF on them. While I agree with you that rhey were charged with >>>ficticious crimes (Could they have successfully fought extradition?), >>>there is no vaccine mandate for babies.

There is a nationally-recommended vaccine schedule, but the only vaccine >>mandate is when enrolling in school. Some states have mandates for >>enrolling in daycare.

There's also Mahmoud v. Taylor, religious exemption fom school
curriculumn teaching LGB, and Miller v. McDonald about school vaccine >>mandates. The Supreme Court didn't hear that one, but remanded to 2nd >>Circuit, ordering them to extend Mahmoud's reasoning to vaccines. That
was 2025.

The schools wouldn't even be an issue in this case because the couple >homeschooled their kids.

Right. The older children weren't vaccinated.

But Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) has not been overturned, that >>state-ordered vaccines during epidemic were not unconstitutional despite
no religious exemption.

The vaccines in question, unlike the COVID vaccines, Stop the spread of >>highly communicable disease and should be mandated by states without >>religious exemption being safe and effective.

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no 'emergency exception' to the >Constitution:

Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer
may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case
of emergency.

--Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

Under federalism, states have powers the federal government does not. I
thought Jacobson was still good law. Quarantines can be imposed in state
law. Governors can exercise extraordinary powers in an emergency.

Despite the Supreme Court being on their side, the parents were in the >>wrong, but so was the state for just making shit up about the law.

Well, at least with regard to the Wuhan Flu, we have precedent that all those >restrictions, closure orders, and vaccine mandates were unconstitutional:

A federal judge ruled on Monday that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's
coronavirus orders, which shut down the state, closed businesses and
limited gatherings, were unconstitutional.

A case that's been floating around for six years? We know now that a lot
of early assumptions about what to do were wrong. Probably yhe only
necessary shutdowns were large concert venues. If there were plenty of
air exchange, offices probably could have remained open.

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV ruled that COVID-19 orders from
Wolf and Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Rachel Levine violated and
continue to violate the 1st Amendment right to freedom of assembly and the >due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment:

The rule of law, as established by the United States Constitution
and the Pennsylvania Legislature, dictates these rules must be
followed notwithstanding the Secretary's instructions to the
contrary.

There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution.

Throughout its history, the nation has experienced emergencies
of every kind (except maybe the dead rising to feed on the flesh of the
living and Skynet)

Give it six months.

but the solution to a national crisis can never be
permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as
the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept
the concept of a 'new normal', where the basic liberties of the people can
be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather,
the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an
emergency.

Great. No way to quarantine Typhoid Mary.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 02:32:03 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts couple >declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their doctor >called DCF on them. Knowing that it was only a matter of time before the state >goons showed up, they packed up their five children in the car and drove to >Texas where they were staying with family. When the DCF stormtroopers showed >up at their home and found them gone, the state issued a nationwide Amber >Alert which said both parents were wanted on five counts of child kidnapping, >which seems to be a legal impossibility. How can two parents, who both have >legal custody, kidnap their own children? Kidnap them from whom? It seems like >the state is indirectly claiming that all children in Massachusetts belong to >the state and that parents are only "allowed" by the state to raise them, a >privilege that can be revoked at will by the Eye of Sauron.

When the family was located in Texas, they were extradited back to >Massachusetts in handcuffs and charged with a half-dozen felonies. For not >violating any law. It's not illegal to go on a family vacation to another >state. When they left, there was no judicial order prohibiting them from >taking the kids anywhere. There's no legal principle that says the moment >someone threatens you with a call to DCF that you are instantly prohibited >from leaving the state.

The same people who scream in red-faced apoplectic rage "My body, my choice!" >will enthusiastically support and do shit like this without a second thought.

---------------------------------- >https://x.com/laurenlee/status/1911904139958714869?s=20

Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion are homeschooling parents of five. They told >their pediatrician they were postponing vaccines for their baby, citing >religious reasons.

Days later, DCF showed up at their door. Their crime? Medical autonomy.

Would love to see how they twist the law to try to fit into that
situation.

I would be interested what statute they were charged under and the
wording of it.

After having a pushy confrontation with their pediatrician, Dr. Behzad >Goharfar, the parents had decided to switch to a new family doctor. >Unfortunately, that didn't go over well with Goharfar. On their final visit, >Goharfar, who trained in Iran, allegedly threatened them: Vaccinate the baby >immediately or he would report them to DCF with a 51A.

After initial contact with DCF, the Riveras made the choice to leave >Massachusetts for Texas, fearing for their children's safety. Why? They knew >what was coming and they didn't trust a system that treats religious >objections like crimes.

Unfortunately, instead of protection, they were met with a manhunt. An Amber >Alert was issued, alongside charges of kidnapping and media smear campaigns. >The Riveras were completely denied due process. A judge rubber-stamped a >post-hoc Care and Protection Order without a hearing, without evidence, and >without even attempting to notify the parents.

The couple was "caught" in Texas for daring to protect their children. They >were dragged back to Massachusetts in handcuffs. Ruth now faces jail time and >the baby remains under supervised visitation. All five children were >vaccinated against their will and against their parents' will by the state.

Meanwhile, Dr. Goharfar continues practicing medicine without facing any >consequences for his role in this state-sponsored trauma. The situation has >turned into a complete nightmare scenario for these loving parents.

Disagree with any vaccine?
Lose your kids.

Refuse on religious grounds?
Go to jail.

Try to escape?
Get hunted down.

If you think this ends in Massachusetts, you're not paying attention. This is >a warning shot. A test case. And it's just the beginning.

There's a reason Big Pharma lobbies the DCF in all 50 states. There's a reason >"public health" has become a weapon of state control over the citizens. And >there's a reason more and more parents are afraid to speak out.

Because the state is no longer asking. It's taking. You don't have to be a >parent to care. You just have to be awake.

In 2025, authoritarianism is allowed and due process denied.

As long as it's dressed in a lab coat.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 05:43:45 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

This is a year old but I'm just hearing about it. A Massachusetts couple >>declined to vaccinate their baby, citing religious beliefs. Their doctor >>called DCF on them. While I agree with you that rhey were charged with >>ficticious crimes (Could they have successfully fought extradition?),
there is no vaccine mandate for babies.

There is a nationally-recommended vaccine schedule, but the only vaccine >mandate is when enrolling in school. Some states have mandates for
enrolling in daycare.

There's also Mahmoud v. Taylor, religious exemption fom school
curriculumn teaching LGB, and Miller v. McDonald about school vaccine >mandates. The Supreme Court didn't hear that one, but remanded to 2nd >Circuit, ordering them to extend Mahmoud's reasoning to vaccines. That
was 2025.

But Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) has not been overturned, that >state-ordered vaccines during epidemic were not unconstitutional despite
no religious exemption.

The vaccines in question, unlike the COVID vaccines, Stop the spread of >highly communicable disease and should be mandated by states without >religious exemption being safe and effective.

Despite the Supreme Court being on their side, the parents were in the
wrong, but so was the state for just making shit up about the law.

So how does that turn into a charge of kidnapping when both custodial
parents had the child?

The state is abusing the law.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)