Her willful ignorance only lacks a significant risk because she is raising her children in a modern nation where the vast majority still vaccinate. Her child has a right to judge her.

Damn government wanting to protect its citizens from dangerous communicable diseases. Polio for all! FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!

Good choice! I have been there 2 times and it was very good!

I have zero sympathy for the mother.

Hold on a minute...regarding the bolded: are you saying 43% of children have chronic illnesses that include autoimmune and neuroimmune disorders, or that 43% have a neuroimmune or autoimmune condition? Those are two very different numbers.

I always enjoy watching the Dunning-Kruger effect play out in real time.

Just so you know everything with the other insurance company is standard. They have to verify certain information regarding the other driver before they will accept liability (example: was the driver the owner/driving with permission of the owner, get their statement, etc.). They gave you the answer of "may" because at the moment you spoke to them the only information they have is from an alleged injured party. This case is pretty clear cut as you described it so I wouldn't worry about getting reasonable expenses reimbursed. If you have not done so yet, you should see a doctor and get checked out.

Very likely. The charitable deduction tax break was created to incentivize giving.

But if most aren't actually doing the hook ups (and most teens are not - even those engaging in sexual activities are more often in a steady relationship), then what is really being pushed is yet another moral panic by some. No one has said hook ups don't happen, but what is evident in the data is that they are *not* the norm for teens as the vast majority do not participate,

But we don't have accurate statistics from the time period you reference (there were serious reporting bias issues in the early surveys), so much of what is claimed about that time is anecdotal. Regardless, it is hard to claim " nowadays casual hookups are considered the norm" for teens when the data shows they aren't the norm.

Teen sexual activity is actually declining in recent years. Fewer teens are also having sex with multiple partners. In general, teens today are having less sex, and it is generally safer. http://recapp.etr.org/recapp/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.StatisticsDetail&PageID=555 --Between 1991-2015, the proportion of students who ever had sexual intercourse decreased from 54% to 41%.3 --The percent of adolescents who are having sex at earlier ages has decreased since 1988 and contraceptive use has increased since the 1990s. Together these two factors have contributed to the U.S. reaching its lowest teen pregnancy and birth rates in years.

Believing teens are mature enough to have sex /= understanding that many will still have sex.

Yes, as well know premarital sex was completely unknown until the wicked media changed society.

Legally "tacitly condoning sex" has no meaning when determining liability. The medication restrictions are an overreaction and most have no real basis in liability law either.

Did you actually read it? Because that is not what it says.

Fascinating articled I stumbled upon today: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-poverty-is-like-a-disease I am still digesting it and need to give it another read, but many here have discussed issues covered in this article so I thought it may make for some discussion.

It's common in large parts of the country. Even national orgs like AAU recognize grade indirectly. For example players are eligible for 16U in basketball if they meet the age requirement or are in the 10th grade (grade exception). In the younger age groups they used to limit the number of grade exceptions per team but I *think* that may have been dropped. I have lived in 4 states and in all the local rec basketball leagues all went by grade, which makes sense as the players move up to school basketball as a cohort.

It doesn't really matter. The prosecution has a living victim, forensic evidence and a confession on multiple capital crimes. The only defense strategy is likely some claim of insanity, which won't go anywhere. Wisconsin is not a death penalty state so I would not be surprised to see this end without a trial.

It can vary by state, but in general a burn that is blistering would be considered emergency care and she would be able to seek treatment at the nearest emergency/urgent care facility. They usually can require follow up care through their provider.

Why even bring this up? The police seem to believe she wasn't involved, and they actually have access to all of the evidence.

Terrible analogies as they are not remotely comparable. Again you are treating DNA as if it is completely individual and it is not.

One of the best legal examples is a shared living space. If you and I are on a lease together, you are able to give the police permission to search any common areas or areas under your personal control. You generally do not have the right to give the police permission to search a personal space of mine (ex. my bedroom in a shared apartment). There are some exceptions and if one of us is the owner of the space then the other has no right to grant permission for a search. However, if you provide legal access to the shared living area and the police find something that give them additional probable cause (say they smell marijuana smoke coming from my bedroom or or I left a bedroom door open and they can see something illegal in plain view), that can give the police the right to either search or probable cause for a search warrant, depending upon the exact circumstances. Shared DNA is similar to a shared legal space, and if it provides evidence for further investigation, the police must then proceed using the normal legal procedures with probable cause.

Regarding the first bolded, there are no laws restricting posting someone's address online. You cannot target someone for harassment but an address is public information. The same applies to any other public records (ex. arrest records). Various websites and social media platforms do have their own terms of service that may differ. To the second bolded, while a relative's DNA is related to yours, legally it is not your DNA. There is no valid legal reason for not allowing others to share their DNA for their own purposes. It would be legally viable to restrict who may access that information or what they may use it for to some extent (ex. insurance companies as they already fall under federal and state privacy laws and regulations). New laws would have to be passed re: law enforcement as information voluntarily provided has no expectation of privacy (and again, they cannot access your personal DNA without a court order). I personally have no issue with law enforcement using a voluntarily provided DNA database to cross check DNA samples left at crime scenes.

Based on what the OP has said this isn't something being done by the coaches. As someone said above these "stay to play" tournaments are not uncommon and they most definitely are a way to generate revenue from a captive audience.

They have a long history of sharing stories that are taken out of context or have not been verified. They are not in any way a valid news source. An example: https://www.dailywire.com/news/19851/year-zero-vigilante-protesters-start-dig-remains-john-nolte Another: https://archive.is/G4u0d In both cases they take something that is true and take it out of context to generate reactions from its readers. In the first they used a 2 year old story and exaggerated what actually happened, and in the second they leave out some important facts (namely that Harvard still had a main graduation and the "black graduation" was a separate event organized by individuals). What they do goes well beyond a slant or bias in reporting.