Once again I find John Balentine’s argument unconvincing.
A few weeks ago Balentine wrote a piece advocating for increased government regulations of the freedom of drone operators (“Drone surveillance law needed in Maine,” Feb. 4). I thought this was a watershed moment where he had finally adopted the common perspective that there are definite advantages to government regulations that protect citizens from the dumb decisions of others.
I was wrong.
In his Feb. 20 piece he reverted to form by advocating for the elimination of regulations requiring some vaccinations for children. After admitting that those opposing vaccinations do not have science on their side (a rare concession on his part), he argued that parents, and only parents, have the right to decide whether to take actions that are known to protect the health of their children.
I guess he will have plenty of fodder for future opinion pieces since there are so many examples of over-weaning government requiring parents to act in ways that protect the health and welfare of their children. Gosh, there are laws forcing parents to assure their children are fed if they are hungry and clothed if they are cold. The government even limits how much physical punishment parents may mete out and effectively prevents parents from certain physical displays of the love they feel for their children.
I look forward to Balentine chastising the nanny state for such over-reach in the future.
Mel Tremper
Topsham
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
