Talk:Nancy Schaefer

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Vandalism: Information removed about her death and life work has been restored

The top hits in Google with scores higher than Wikipedia by various organizations of individuals in support of Nancy Schaefer and her passionate stance described in her own report, and question the police conclusion of suicide, calling for an investigation because of the suspicious circumstances of her murder. This should be pointed out, not only on its own merits, but also on the merits of Nancy Schafer's own report which she calls on video interview a scathing report, and she pointed out that strong and vicious opposition that she encountered. Both the controversy surrounding her murder and what she describes as her "scathing report" belong in this article. It was vandalism to delete those facts. On first deletion, the claim was made that no citation was there, and that the topic was controversial. There is no question as to the controversial nature of her report and her cause, but it was in fact her report and her cause, as is clearly documented. The citation was added, but the vandalism was done to the page removing those important facts about her life and death that are so central to her last efforts. The final act of vandalism removing these facts and citations pointed out that the contributor is anonymous. In a case involving organized crime of this scale (in Nancy Schaefer's words, billions of dollars annually), it both reasonable and prudent to seek anonymity in reporting when murder has already openly taken place. Nevertheless, the citations provided are not from anonymous sources, but from Nancy Schaefer and news reporting on these facts only.

Therefore I am reverting. If there are issues with the wording, it is one thing to change it, but removing it altogether is against Wikipedia policy, as well working against the very things Nancy Schaefer sought to expose. The words used seemed the least verbose and most informative words that came to mind. It is possible that they could be stated better, but the facts should remain. Deleting relevant facts on Wikipedia is vandalism. If the problem is a missing citation, a citation-needed flag should have been set, but it is reasonable to believe that continued vandalism deleting these facts is intended to hide the facts. In any event, the missing citation was added and the vandalism removing multiple citations and the facts was repeated. Such actions are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

You may wish to find the video interviews of Nancy Schaefer on the subject. That should put to rest any question of its relevance in her life.

-- anon?

Here is a transcript of one of Nancy Schaefer's own speeches:

I’ve been confronted with families struggling to remove their children from the clutches of Child Protective Services. I wrote a scathing report last year, on the corruption in Child Protective Services, and an update, and copies are out on the table. During the last session of the Georgia General Assembly I introduced Senate Bill 415 relating to juvenile proceedings, and copies of that bill are attached to the report on the tables. It called the bill 415 called for the time allotted for the department of human resources to provide emergency care to a child without a court order to be reduced from seven days to 72 hours. It required a court order to enter the residence of a parent or guardian to seize a child. It called for family court to be open to the public, confidentiality and secrecy and family court protects the wrong people. It provided that the immunity in the system shall not extend to the seizures of children that are found to be in violation, nor to the administration of medication to a child over the objection of the parent or custodian, and it provided the state from applying for obtaining, receiving or accepting adoption incentive payments under the federal adoption and safe families act of 1997.

The department of child protective has become a protected empire built on taking children and separating families. This is not to say that there are not those children who do need to be removed from wretched situations and need protection, however, my report is concerned with the children and parents caught up in legal kidnapping. Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide and hundreds and hundreds across the country and in nearly every state, I’m convinced there is no accountability in Child Protective Services. I’ve come to several conclusions, two or three are, one, that poor parents, not always, but often times, are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the wherewithal to hire an attorney and fight the system. The case workers and social workers are very often guilty of fraud, they withhold and destroy evidence, they fabricate evidence, and they seek to terminate parental rights unnecessarily. That the separation of families and the snatching of children is growing as the business grows, because state and local governments have grown accustomed to having these taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-growing budgets. That the bureaucracy is huge, look at who is getting paid, state employees, attorneys, courts investigators, guardian ad litem, court personnel and judges, there are psychologists, therapists, psychiatrists, counselors, foster parents, adoptive parents and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. That the adoption and safe families act set in motion first in 1974 by Walter Mondell, and later in 1997 by President Bill Clinton, offered cash bonuses to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the adoption incentive bonuses, local child protective services would need more children, they must have merchandise, that sells, and they must have plenty so the buyer can choose.

Some counties often offer four to six thousand dollars bonus for each child adopted out to strangers. And an additional two thousand for a special needs child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing. But that is only the beginning figure in the formula in which each is bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state is managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. Therefore, states and local communities work hard to reach their goals for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care. As you can see this program is offered from the very top and is run by health and human resources. This is why victims, in child protective services get no help from their legislators, explains why my bill senate 415 suffered such defeat in the judicial committee, and why I was cut off at every juncture and why I was defeated myself last month for my re-election by another republican. The tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat. Many grandparents have called me to get custody of their grandchildren, before being lost in the system. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage, and grandparents and parents too, lose the connection of their heirs.

And that the national centre on child abuse and neglect in 1998 reported that six times more children died in foster care than in the general public. And that once removed to official “safety”, these children are more likely to suffer abuse and sexual molestation than the general population. Think what that number is today, ten years later. Here are a couple of recommendations on my list, called for an independent audit of all state child protective services and for a federal congressional hearing on child protective services.

Abolish, the federal and state financial incentives that have turned child protective services into a business that separates families for money.

I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to so many families that I’m not sure if reform of the system is even possible. The system cannot be trusted, it does not serve the people, it obliterates families and children, simply because it has the power to do so.

What I have said to you in these few minutes, is that we must confront the fraud in child protective services. Child protective services seizes children using the very system that is paid for by the taxpayer, who actually believes it is used to protect abused and neglected children. The bureaucracy of workers benefit financially by a system that converts children into cash, while destroying families and their lives. No child who emerges from the system can ever be sound or whole. Many disappear, and are never, are ever heard from again.

--129.115.2.48 (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)SZ The above is a good contribution of hers that I've heard her talk about. I'm including it under a new heading "Legacy" as many other bios have similar legacy sections. If there's a better place to include it or if it should be quoted or rewritten in some way to make it more encyclopedic or whatever, someone with more talent and experience please do so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution was removed by User_talk:Mkativerata. See his page for discussion as he removed the content without discussion here. Shame on you, Mkativerata! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and weasle words surrounding her murder

Given that the reason for her murder has never been fully investigated or exlained, using the weasle words, "conspiracy theory," is uncalled for and disrespectful. Nancy, herself indicated that she faced public and political backlash for going after those who traffick children through the courts. Given the the US has a very high rate of sexual trafficking, then it can be concluded that there is also a lot of money to be made or lost through investigations of how children are trafficked. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oshs/factsheet.html

It does seem more probable that someone who was afraid of these investigations would murder her, just as with any other international crime and money laundering spree, than that her husband of 52 years would murder her and then kill himself. In light of the fact that the FBI has sadly not intervened to the point of halting and preventing the thousands of trafficking victims in the US, then their bias against investigating this subject becomes clear, and in fact shows a predilection for protecting traffickers. That the FBI claimed this was murder suicide, then is as problematic as the agency's refusal to state any reason for their theory that this was murder suicide, than that there were two people dead who knew each other.

Conspirarcy theorist is a weasle word term used to discredit those who ask questions. In this case, those who ask questions have seen that there are abuses in the family court systems and in the so called child protective services. This people do not ask because they are crazy and should not be dismissed. Neither should their questions be dismissed as idle chit chat. They have asked a specific question that demands a specific relief: the exhumation of Nancy and her husband, and a complete and public investigation into their deaths. As Americans, we have the right to participate in government, and that is what these intelligent and cncerned Americans are doing. The only people who have anything to lose due to an investigation of these subjects are those who are perpetuating the trafficking of children in America, and so there is a great and financial interest to silence all questions and all investigations as mere conspiracy theories. If Wiki wants to record that specific people in the government (and they should be named) have labled these people conspirarcy theoriests, then that can be done. However, it should be noted how long the articles concerning the deaths of JFK and Marilyn Monroe have become in the many decades since thier deaths. It should be noted that a great many people in America do believe there was a government coverup in their deaths due to various reasons. Those who respect Nancy will not allow this conversation to end and this page should reflect their right to ask these questions until an investigation occurs. Simply because Nancy was a lesser known politician, that does not make the questions sorrounding her death any less troubling or credible to ask. This article should respect Nancy and the right of the American public to ask questions, and refer to us as concerned Americans with questions, not conspiracy theorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C002:D83A:B4DB:BD86:88B9:B211 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nancy Schaefer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Nancy_Schaefer"