Pinpricks

From firstamendmentcenter.org:

Mary Anaya said four armed deputies came into her house that day. She said she tried to keep them outside, even using physical force, but they came in and took Joel from the arms of her 12-year-old child.

“It was terror,” she said.

He was placed in the custody of the state Department of Health and Human Services.

A Douglas County juvenile court judge ordered the next day that the baby remain in foster care until the preliminary results came back and confirmed further testing wasn’t needed. Joel was returned to them Oct. 16, when the tests came back negative.

The high court, in the opinion written by Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman, criticized the decisions that were made. While failure to do the required tests can be considered with other actions to conclude a child is being neglected, “failure to test under the newborn screening statutes, standing alone, does not establish neglect,” the judge wrote.

“There simply was no legal, factual, or logical basis to keep Joel in state custody after the blood sample was taken,” today’s opinion continues.

And yet…

But, she added, “What’s done can’t be undone. It’s only a small satisfaction that what was done to us was found to be wrong when there’s no consequences … it’s a small consolation.”

The court found that the actions of the four armed deputies were wrong, yet of course did nothing to punish them.

And there are other, less benign reasons for drawing a baby’s blood.  Don’t think there aren’t.