A story in today’s Deseret News, talking about some expected legislative activity, has this to say:

The most emotional debate of the session may well come over a dozen or more bills now being drafted concerning parental rights.

“I hope we won’t debate the emotions,” said Stephens. Rather, some bills will sift out naturally, others will be combined, and in the end “we hope the Legislature will more define the decision process” when a child is taken away from his natural parents, he said.

“This is not just because of one case,” added Mansell. “There are many cases out there” where parents are upset over how they were treated by state child welfare officials and the courts. In my years up here, I have heard more complaints about (child welfare) concerns than all other issues involved. They are very emotional issues,” Mansell said.

Just based on the hoopla last summer, I’d be shocked if it wasn’t a very emotional debate. The slogan of the parent’s rights crowd was “My Child, My Choice.” Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Why is it that the right rallies around the “My Child, My Choice” banner only after the child has been born? Seems to me that if its wrong to choose a medical procedure which will result in harm to a child before its born, then its equally wrong afterward. The right has taken the “choice” platform which they decry whenever they hear it from the left on abortion and made it their own. In fact, out of context, most people would see this as a pro-abortion slogan.

Certainly the issues are deep and not as block and white as this slogan portrays. Slogans on either side give the wrong message because they reduce the debate to sound bites. Perhaps the legislature will be able to do something good and clarify exactly what parameters DCFS works under. Having see this process up close and personal however, I’m not very confident. Likely as not, they’ll react to the emotion and merely make DCFS’ job more difficult and children will be the losers.