According to a new report out at KFF Health News, progressive Democrats around the nation are beginning to consider the elimination of mandatory reporting for suspected child abuse—in other news, the child abusers are circling the wagons.

Pray tell, why else? All the government does, especially progressive Democrat governments, is meddle in peoples’ private lives. They seek to control what we drive, what kind of gasoline we use, what we eat, what appliances we own, what medicines and supplements we take, what we teach our children, how much money we spend and where, etc. So why in the world would they look to roll back laws that facilitate more government involvement? I mean, how else do you excuse erring on the side of not protecting children?

Well, these are the Democrats about whom we’re speaking, so protecting the innocence of children and promoting their well being is about the last thing you’ll ever see them advocate for, and they always have the stupidest reasons for anything they do, so their “logic” shouldn’t surprise you: white supremacy.

Yes, seriously.

Here are the details, from the original story:

More than 60 years ago, policymakers in Colorado embraced the idea that early intervention could prevent child abuse and save lives. The state’s requirement that certain professionals tell officials when they suspect a child has been abused or neglected was among the first mandatory reporting laws in the nation.

…

But now there are efforts in Colorado and other states to roll back these laws, saying the result has been too many unfounded reports, and that they disproportionately harm families that are poor, Black, or Indigenous, or have members with disabilities.

Now, to be honest, I’m not quite sure what constitutes as “child abuse” at this point in time, given the fact that the government doesn’t bat an eye when deranged mothers routinely dress their toddlers in clothing meant for the opposite sex, homosexuals with histories of pedophilic comments are permitted to purchase infants through surrogacy, and little boys dancing in drag on gay bar stages while leering men shower him in dollars has somehow escaped the label, but anyway, according to the article:

Mandatory reporters should not ‘make a report solely due to a family/child’s race, class or gender,’ nor because of inadequate housing, furnishings, income or clothing.

Now, I certainly don’t trust the government, particularly in regards to children, because state child welfare agencies are notorious for sowing dysfunction. They’re all too happy to remove children from the home and sever the parent-child relationship, because each child placed in the custody of the “child services” agency means a big fat paycheck, so there might actually be a silver lining to less government intrusion.

And, according to Mical Raz, a “physician and historian” from a New York university, we learn this:

‘There’s now a wealth of evidence that demonstrates that more reporting is not associated with better outcomes for children.’

Gee, would that revelation (if true) have anything to do with the fact that as time has marched on, there has been an increasing load of government involvement in the lives of private citizens, and it is a trend that is actually not the best for the people?

Who’da thunk it?

Image: Free image, Freepik license.