I do not understand your ferocious defense of Asa Hutchinson.
Neither do I understand your mindless rage.
He is not upholding any principle with his decision.
According to him he is.
He took this action with his ban on female genital mutilation -- by making the state the sole authority.
He banned a procedure. That is within the state's bailliwick, and not asserting sole authority.
He also said he would be happy to have signed this to ban procedure too.
He also protected women's bathrooms from trannies.
He also protected women's sports from trannies.
So he is not protecting gender delusion elsewhere, so what made this different?
I don't know what is in his head, but he has enough of a record on the subject (and a Conservative record a mile long) to want me to understand what his trouble was, rather than going off half-cocked and out for blood.
The law in question is not making the state the sole authority forever. Arkansas is simply saying not yet. Arkansas is standing up for the child, giving the child a voice when the age of consent is reached.
The child is not the question. The child is a dependent. It is the authority of the parents that is being usurped, and standing against doctors orders too I would suppose... That may be the meaning of 'too broad' and 'sole authority'... I don't know... but there must be another dimension to this one considering his record surrounding this subject.
And since the child is dependent, YES it is flatly removing the right of the parent *forever*, as once the child is 18, the child is beyond parental jurisdiction. That is REMOVING the natural parental right for the duration.
And I will assert AGAIN, I don't care about these parents in particular - Their culpability in damaging their children is apparent. But if that is so, ban the procedures, and write law to enforce, and charge the parent properly and bring em to trial like you ought. A summary decree without recourse is not how it s done.
And if that is allowed to stand, which decree will come next, imposed against the natural parental right?
I fail to find logic
The logic is found in what this will turn loose. The matter at hand is not the issue near as much as what it sets as precedent. When the state asserts blanket authority over the natural right of the parent, and that is allowed to stand, then the state can assert that same authority over anything concerning any child within its jurisdiction... Because it has proven itself to be over the parent without any trial or proceeding, with no charges filed... This is no longer regulatory - Rather, it is imposition of power under the color of law.
Such is the same power that denies a father parental rights with no charge or trial, and no means of recourse. This seems to be the same sort of thing.
or humanity
Humanity my ass. Sobbing 'It's for the chidren' is liberal bullcrap. Law is no time for emoting. If it prevents these scurrilous acts against these children at the cost of liberty to countless other (innocent) parents, removing the natural right of the parent by any old thing decreed by the state, then the humanity of the act is rather subjective, ain't it?
If you want to take that right, then make it illegal, and arrest them. At least they'll see their day in court to be judged by their peers. And the natural right is preserved.
in your convoluted
Nothing convoluted about it at all.
Natural right belongs to the parent.
The state cannot take that right (any right) away without charge and trial.
Allowing that to happen is power exercised under the color of law
and creates a precedent that can be used in the future to do it sommore.
That's the thing, and it's a straight line of thought. If that is the cost to 'save the chidren', that cost is way too high, I assure you. There are other ways to do it, that provide charge and trial, that preserve the parental right for the rest of us.
or reason for your devotion to Asa Hutchinson.
Beyond recognizing his great efforts for Conservatism, and defending that record, and because of that, being willing to hear him out and try to understand why this was different, I have no devotion to Hutch at all. Nor to Noems who was recently savaged in a similar fashion.
But neither am I willing to join you in your mindless bloodlust trying to tear the man down. Or Noems for that matter. Neither are RINOs and I will wait to hear them out.
Rather, what I am viciously defending is the natural right of the parent.