The Facts: Hospital workers call police to seize newborn baby - Angelica Lopez-Heagy

The validity of this story has been called into question, mainly due to the original article on this subject, not supplying enough details and links, - though perhaps when the news broke, Mike Adams and David Icke didn't have the network of info at their fingertips, like I do?  I have found the original source and the name of the parents Scott and Jodi Ferris, and in addition more info on Angelica Lopez-Heagy.

As we can see this story broke on;

Thursday, March 29, 2012 -
by Mike Adams, [left] the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews

Then David Icke covered it the next day; and it's gone everywhere: 

However, the original story broke on the 27th March 2012; here it is;

Newborn Seized in Hospital by Police, Social Worker

Michael P. Farris, Esq.
HSLDA Chairman

Michael P. Farris is founder and chairman of HSLDA. He and his wife homeschool their 10 children. Read more >>

I am not content to sit on the sidelines while the government gradually usurps the very essence of parental rights. I hope you share my determination. We need to stand with people like Scott and Jodi Ferris (obviously no relation to someone named Farris). Here’s their story:

Jodi went into labor a bit earlier than she had expected—and the baby was coming rapidly. Given their location and other factors, the midwife they had hoped would deliver the baby at their home encouraged them to get in an ambulance and head to the hospital.

Their baby, whom I will call “Annie,” was born in the ambulance in the parking lot of the Hershey Medical Center—a state-affiliated hospital in Pennsylvania. Hospital personnel arrived very quickly and took charge of both baby and mom.

As any mother would do, Jodi immediately began to ask the nurses and attendants how her baby was doing. The hospital staff was utterly unresponsive. When they started to give Jodi an injection, she asked what it was and what it was for. They gave her vague answers like, “It’s just to help.” Only after giving her the injection of oxytocin did they tell her what it was and then asked, “You aren’t allergic to that are you?”

Jodi persisted in asking about Annie. No one would tell her anything other than “she’s in good hands and you’ll be able to see her soon.”

Eventually a doctor told her that Annie scored a 9 on a physical exam applied to newborns known as the APGAR test. A score of 8 or higher is considered healthy. (It is unclear when the score was given since she was in the ambulance at birth.) But shortly after this a different doctor told Jodi that Annie was “very sick” and would need to stay in the hospital. This doctor’s comments were accompanied by an explanation of his disdain for midwives saying, “Too many people think they know what they’re doing.”

About an hour later, another hospital staffer finally brought Annie to Jodi and said, “The baby is doing good. She will be able to go home in no time.”

Legal Requirements?

However, several hours later yet another staffer told Scott and Jodi that Annie would have to stay in the hospital for 48 to 72 hours for observation. Even though they persisted in asking why Annie would need to stay, his only answer was that “the law requires us to keep the baby for 48 hours.” When they asked for a reference to this supposed law, he answered, “you’ll have to get that from risk management.” (By the way, there is no such law in Pennsylvania.)

The risk management staffer eventually told them that even though they saw nothing wrong with the baby, they just like “to keep babies like this” for 48–72 hours. The Ferrises were told that Annie would not be released for this period since it was “unsafe for her to leave the hospital.”

Eventually, a risk management staffer admitted that the risk that was being managed was not the health of Annie but the risk that the hospital might get sued if something went wrong after she was discharged.

Ultimately, risk management said that they would be satisfied with a 24-hour stay and that Jodi and Scott could remain with the baby overnight.

You have been Accused

Late in the afternoon, a government social worker named Angelica Lopez-Heagy came into Jodi’s room announcing that she was there to conduct an investigation. Jodi asked to know the allegations. The social worker claimed that it would be against the law for her to show Jodi the allegations.

Jodi replied that she would not be comfortable answering the questions if she couldn’t know the allegations. Immediately the social worker proclaimed, “Since you’re not going to cooperate, I’ll just go and call the police and we can take custody of the baby.”

Fearing that the social worker would carry out her threat, Jodi replied that she was willing to cooperate.

The social worker soon intimated that the issue was Jodi’s refusal to consent to medical treatment for the baby. Jodi replied that she had no idea why anyone would say that. The social worker claimed that she had refused to allow a Vitamin K shot for Annie. Jodi replied that no one had asked her about such a shot. Moreover, she had overheard hospital staffers saying that they had already given Annie such a shot.

Neither the social worker nor any hospital staffer ever gave Jodi or Scott any example of any medically necessary treatment that they had refused for Annie.

At this point, Scott left the hospital to tend to their older children who were staying with friends.

Ordering Tests

Shortly after this, the hospital asked to check Annie’s white blood cell count and to perform a strep test. Jodi agreed to the testing.

Then the hospital demanded that they give Annie shot for Hepatitis B. Jodi said that she would agree only if they tested her or Annie to see if either of them were positive. If so, then she was quite willing to have the shot for Annie. The hospital claimed that they had forgotten about this earlier when it was still possible to test that day, and that they needed to give the shot anyway without any testing.

When the social worker pressed her to make an immediate decision about this shot, Jodi asked her if they could simply wait until Scott got back before they decided.

Put yourself in Jodi’s shoes at this moment. You gave birth that morning in an ambulance. The hospital has made wild and conflicting claims about your baby’s health all day long. You are exhausted. You are in pain. Your husband has gone to check on your children. And a social worker who has threatened to take your baby into police custody is standing in your hospital room demanding that you make an immediate decision.

Jodi simply said, “Please can’t this wait until my husband gets back.”

The social worker renewed her threat. If Jodi would not answer her question right then, she would call the police. And then the social worker started adding conditions. She and Scott would have to agree to sign a safety plan before she could conclude her investigation.

Jodi said that she wanted her husband and an attorney to look at the plan. She felt she was in no position to read such a document and really understand what she was being pressured to sign.

Thrown Out

And then the story turns ugly.

The social worker left the room and called the police. Without a court order they took custody of Annie, immediately claiming that she was suffering from illness or injury—a patently false claim.

The social worker consented to the administration of the Hepatitis B shot even though no blood test had been done.

The police made Jodi Ferris get up out of her hospital bed and escorted her to the entrance—they were expelling her from the hospital because she had not signed the “safety plan.”

Scott met her at the entrance to the hospital. The police escorted them both off of the grounds of the hospital.

Jodi was told that she would be allowed to return every three hours to nurse the baby through the night.

Jodi and Scott were forced to spend the night that she had given birth in their car in a nearby parking lot. You read that right. They kicked this mother out of the hospital, and in order to be close enough to feed her child, she had to sleep in the car.

To add insult to injury, Jodi was given access to Annie only sporadically and not every three hours.

Baby Returned

The next morning a judicial officer held a shelter care hearing. After hearing the evidence, the officer immediately returned custody of Annie to her parents.

No parents should be put through this kind of ordeal. It is not a crime to ask questions about the well-being of your child. It is not a crime to ask for testing to ensure that a procedure is needed before it is done. It is not a crime to be a protective mom.

It is a moral offense of the highest order to kick a mother out of a hospital and to seize her child on the day of her birth simply because a mom wanted to have her husband read a legal document before she signed.

Both the medical personnel and the social worker engaged in outrageous behavior toward this family.

And we believe that they violated their rights under the Constitution of the United States. And we are going to court to prove it.

Why is HSLDA fighting for parental rights in this context? It is not a homeschooling case.

Parental Rights at Risk

We are taking this case because we are tired of seeing the erosion of parental rights in virtually every area of life. Parental rights in medical cases have an impact on broader parental rights, including educational decisions.

And the plain fact is this: If we don’t fight for parental rights, it is probable that our rights will be eroded bit by bit until there is nothing that remains.

We cannot afford to fund cases like this out of HSLDA’s membership dues. We are taking this case because we believe that our members and friends will stand with Jodi and Scott Ferris. We believe that parents should not be punished by “over-the-top” social workers and doctors.

The social worker’s priority was not the welfare of Annie, but her own convenience and her own perception of her power. She was aiming to teach this homeschooling mother a lesson.

And the hospital was clearly not concerned that Annie had a medical issue—they were just trying to avoid being sued for medical malpractice.

When government workers run over parents in cases like this, the lesson that needs to be taught is to the government.

This case will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Your tax-deductible gifts to the Homeschool Freedom Fund of the Home School Foundation will make it possible for us to take this case to court and to try to establish a precedent that will help protect us all.

All of our families are at risk when the government is allowed to run over one of us. When we stand together, we can fight back for freedom and for truth.


I also belong to the same website as Angelica Lopez-Heagy called; - here's what I have found on her;

  • Born:           1981
  • Age:            31yo
  • Address:        2141 Oregon Pike
  •                 Lancaster, PA, 17601
  • Phone:          717 560 7917
  • Fax:            717 560 6452
  • Title:          Social Worker
  • Healthcare Provider Number: 1041C0700X
  • Relations:      Christopher Wayne Heagy - 29 years old, lives in Middletown
  •                 Alonso Lopez            - 27 years old, lives in Grantville, PA.
  •                 Francisco Riveralopez   - 49 years old, lives in Aguadilla, PR.
  •                 Marcie Wilson           - 29 years old, lives in Denver, CO.
  •                 Phyllis Heagy           - 56 years old, lives in Middletown,
  •                 Dawn Heagy              - 37 years old, lives in Middletown, PA.
  • Occupation:     ex- Counselor at Lebanon Valley College in Harrisburg  - Linked in:
  • [Harrisburg is a place I shall expose one day for what it really is, that's me Trapped in a Masonic World saying this, not this bitch "Angleica", why are all these nut case kind of people got such "heavenly" names?]

Hospital workers call police to seize newborn baby, throw momma out of the building, assault child with dangerous vaccines;

Thursday, March 29, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of

Hospital Workers Call Police to Seize Newborn Baby, Throw Momma Out of the Building, Assault Child with Dangerous Vaccines

'Another shocking case of tyrannical, overzealous social workers and hospital staff has unfolded in Pennsylvania, where a mom who just gave birth in an ambulance to a healthy baby girl was threatened by a government social worker and accused of not allowing her child to receive "medical treatment." (A claim which is factually false.) In reality, the new mom, exhausting from giving birth in an ambulance, was merely asking questions and trying to determine how her newborn daughter was being treated by hospital staff.

A social worker named Angelica Lopez-Heagy continued to threaten the mom, who persisted in asking polite questions to try to determine what she was being accused of. In response, the social worker demanded, "Since you're not going to cooperate, I'll just go and call the police and we can take custody of the baby."'

I hope this helps clear-up any doubts or problems with the validity of the subsquent articles that have followed and quoted the original article without including the original sources, - and why it's vital we all do so whenever possible, - and especially when re-writting such subjects. 

Views: 1408


You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

Comment by Exposure on April 4, 2012 at 1:17pm

Well Daniel, it's and hard one to fathom, as Alexander Deblan the manager has not got back to me, so not sure what to make of it.  One could say that because of the widespread reporting of this, then surely I am not the only one to have done what 'we' have?  Others perhaps would have done what we did, and even telephoned the place, - and is it a case that they, 'she' - will not communicate with anyone?  It's a bugger, as time is the only way this will become more obvious as to what it really might be.  So lets keep our eyes on what else might come out of this?

Comment by Exposure on April 3, 2012 at 5:23pm

I have just telephone 2141 OREGON PIKE , LANCASTER PA17601-4604 US - Business Phone Number 717-560-7917 [ form the UK I have to put 001, first] I just spoke to the receptionist, and asked to speak to Angelica Lopez-Heagy, they put me through to Alexander Deblan [not sure if spelt correct], who is apparently Angelica's manager, but it went onto her answerphone msg, I left my name and contact number, and said i would like to be able to contact and speak to Angelica, this I did 10 minutes ago in responce to your question.  So lets see what happens?

We know how the media work, epsecially local ones, many a publisher is a Freemason as are the police and health workers in general...though like I say, I can understand your doubts, - and there well could be something in all this, it's possible it's been 'staged'? For as I say, if you look deeper into Angelica, she is behind the promoting of making us aware of some multi billion dollar law suits that's been raging for some time, - is there an hidden hand that wants to sensualise these kinds of case? 

Comment by Old Denmark on April 3, 2012 at 9:49am

Has anyone tried to phone her or checked local business registry.? It seems odd to me that if she's 'stolen' a kid the mother hasnt contacted any medias at all not even local ones (so how much can she care in the first place). And if the kid has been 'kidnapped' by the authorities why hasnt any paperwork been presented that kinda stuff leaves tonnes of evidence. Im sure that its just any internet loon that hungers for attention.

Comment by Exposure on April 3, 2012 at 7:19am

As I say, I've no problems with her existence, I can find data on her that dates as far back as 2009, - also below it's dated 2009. - This case will likely end in court, so she will have to raise her head sooner or later.  All Social/Health Workers have to have a NPI number, you can be jailed for submiiting the false information, or pretending you have one, when you're not registered to do so.  You normally have to submit your qualifications prior to being issued a NPI, which is proof you're a registered "Health-Worker".  All changes, corrections or updates to your NPI must be done through the official sources on their documentation.  If she passed-out her qualifications back in 2009, she would have been given her NPI number for the first time, and that number stays with the employee or person, like that of a driving licence or National Insurance Number.  Many "professionals" are "advised" not to join social networks like twitter or facebook, and especially if they are "health workers", police or prison officers, teachers and doctors etc. - if they do, then they tend to have their own dedicated websites for their related professions, - and when do, many go under an alias anyway. - To objective of not going on "social networks" it's to prevent them becoming susceptible to perhaps blackmail, or being accused of unprofessional conduct etc. 

Though what seems odd to me, is her involvment with the cases below, - as like I say, it appears as if she is dealing from both decks? 

Here's her record below form the following website;



NPI Number Provider (Organization) Full Name Provider (Organization) Other Name Entity Type Replacement NPI


Gender Enumeration Date Last Update Date Deactivation Reason Code Deactivation Date Reactivation Date Employer Identification Number (EIN)

Female 05/20/2009 05/20/2009


Business Mailing Address


Practice Location Address


Business Phone Number Business Fax Number Practice Phone Number Practice Fax Number

717-560-7917 717-560-6452 717-560-7917 717-560-6452

Authorized Official – Name Authorized Official – Title/Position Authorized Official - Phone Number





Information provided in the current document is obtained from official source and accuracy of the information provided is the sole responsibility of the healthcare provide. All changes, corrections or updates must be done through the official sources. Please contact in case you need the assistance in obtaining the official contacts of corresponding government organizations. 

Comment by Old Denmark on April 3, 2012 at 5:25am

Now im actually sure that its a duck. To make this a bit more strange she's got no twitter, facebook, myspace or any other social networking going on seems weird for an 31 year old nowadays.




Comment by Exposure on April 2, 2012 at 12:29pm
Comment by Exposure on April 2, 2012 at 12:22pm

She provides the link to a government PDF doc; here's an extract;

1.2 Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission


The Issue

A pregnant woman infected with HIV can transmit the virus to her fetus in the

womb, during childbirth, or while breastfeeding. In the absence of intervention,

the risk of mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) is 20–45%. MTCT is the

most significant source of HIV infection in children below age 10. The risk of

transmission can be reduced by over 40 percent by the use of antiretroviral drugs,

given peripartum to the mother, or the infant, or both. In light of the clear health

benefits, strong measures, sometimes of a compulsory nature, have been proposed

(and enacted) for testing of pregnant women and infants, in which the interests

of the child may be pitted against those of the mother.

Legal and Policy Considerations


Although the increased efficacy of antiretroviral drugs in controlling

HIV infection and reducing MTCT provides a strong public health justification

for widespread testing, most policy makers and health care providers oppose

mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women (although many experts support routine

prenatal screening). Considerations of patient autonomy are supplemented

by concerns that mandatory testing may deter women from future HIV testing,

prenatal care, or general medical care. Some jurisdictions do, however, impose

mandatory screening on newborns if the mother does not consent to an HIV test.

Policy makers and health care professionals are split on the advisability of universal

screening—routine counseling and testing for all pregnant women—not

just those typically considered at risk. UNAIDS, WHO, and CDC support routine

offer of HIV testing to pregnant women (see Topic 1.1).

The majority of pregnant women agree to an HIV test after culturally appropriate

counseling. It is important that such counseling make clear that refusal of

an HIV test does not jeopardize prenatal care or legal rights. Furthermore, it

should assure pregnant women that an HIV-positive result will be kept confidential

(health care providers should not disclose a woman’s HIV status to her spouse

or partner over her objections because of the fear of domestic violence) and

that it may not be used against the woman in legal proceedings, for example, to

challenge child custody.


Health care professionals, courts, and policy makers faced with a

pregnant woman refusing PMTCT interventions must determine the legal and

ethical balance between the adult patient’s autonomy and the to-be-born child’s

well-being. A competent adult cannot be forced to submit to treatment for the...full pdf: 

Comment by Exposure on April 2, 2012 at 12:11pm

For the record, I'm going to list a few things, as something doesn't quite add up does it? For when there is billion dollar lawsuits involved, things tend to work rather mysteriously...Take this Angelica Lopez-Heagy, in the article see appears to be 'pro-injections', and seeming to want to force the mother and child to agree to have an injection related to HIV; yet Angelica appears to me anti-injections and related to HIV?  So let's just give it a hmm, for the moment and get more evidence;  

The Berkeley Inquisition Exposed

The word is chutzpa – and it’s hard to imagine a better way to describe UC Berkeley (UCB) Vice Provost Sheldon Zedeck’s assignment of Arthur Reingold to investigate misconduct allegations against Professor Peter Duesberg, PhD.  The charges stem from Duesberg’s (et al) report that was published in 2009 by  Medical Hypotheses.  Citing 35 references that includes South Africa’s (SA) own mortality reports, Prof. Duesberg’s team concluded that: 

huge losses of African lives are unconfirmed and that HIV is not sufficient or even necessary to cause the previously known diseases, now called AIDS in the presence of antibody against HIV.  Further we call into question the claim that HIV antibody-positives would benefit from anti-HIV drugs, because these drugs are inevitably toxic and because there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

Professor Peter Duesberg

If AIDS allegedly kills million in Africa, why has Africa’s population doubled from 400-800 million during the same period?

Not since the trials of Galileo and Ignaz Semmelweis has a scientist been more of a threat to a corrupt scientific establishment.  Considered one of the world’s most eminent cancer researchers, Prof. Duesberg’s 1987 paper sent shockwaves through research facilities, universities and HHS.   Like Galileo’s exposure of Pope Urban’s geocentric universe, Prof. Duesberg’s unanswered questions implicated thousands of scientists and jeopardized billions of dollars in research funding.  

For his heresy, the NIH cut off all funding to Duesberg.  

As OMSJ described last week, AIDS Inc. is currently threatened on numerous fronts.  While Celia Farber’s libel lawsuit against Treatment Action Group (TAG) makes its way through the New York Supreme Court, trial attorneys in more than thirty criminal HIV cases are forcing prosecutors to locate AIDS experts who are willing to testify under penalty of perjury.  Unsurprisingly, the industry that has spent $7 billion to settle dozens of criminal and civil complaints since 2004 are responding like vampires in sunshine. 

The Case Against Professor Duesberg 

According to Science Insider, the UCB investigation is based upon complaints from none other than Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), which is funded by mining giant AngloGold and TAG, which is funded by pharma

Geffen’s complaint exploits an insignificant error related to reported HIV prevalence within prenatal clinics.   Because the error does not alter the paper’s conclusions, Geffen’s anxiety apparently stems from being caught manipulating computer models to exaggerate AIDS mortality…   

Geffen relies on a report by Pride Chigwedere MD (et al), in which Chigwedere admits to using estimates that UNAIDS admits were deliberately inflated.   Chigwedere’s report was funded by the Harvard School of Public Health, which received a $160 million spike of AIDS funding from HRSA in the years leading up to publication (2008). 

… while SA’s actual mortality represents a tiny fraction of Geffen’s inflated numbers:   

By 2007, reported HIV mortality remained negligible:

Without Geffen’s propaganda, AngloGold could not blame its mine-related lung diseases on the sexual stereotypes of its kaffir labor force; groups like TAG and TAC could not use the nonexistent pandemic to fund gay pharmaceutical activism and universities like Berkeley and Harvard could not justify the continued research of what prosecutors are finally dismissing as junk science

Epidemiologists Without a Cause

Because infectious disease became statistically inconsequential in the US by 1955, epidemiologists suddenly found themselves with a lot of free time.  

Even at the height of the alleged pandemic, AIDS mortality affected no more than .015 percent of the US population:


Because researchers throughout Europe (2), Australia and South Africa [2007] have corroborated these numbers, UCB and Reingold rely on reports like Geffen’s to justify continued NIH (taxpayer) funding. 

In light of the pharmaceutical industry’s routine corruption, Geffen’s cynical complaint isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. 

Conflicts of Interest

Geffen also alleges that co-author David Rasnick PhD should have reported his brief association with health advocate Matthias Rath MD.  To assert that a co-author’s relationship (that ended is 2006) represents a punishable conflict of interest against Duesberg is absurd – especially when considering the breathtaking conflicts of his accusers and employer.

Since 1992, the NIH has directed to UC Berkeley approximately $200 million in AIDS-related funding.  A glance at 2010 indicates what is at stake:    

Since 1992, UC Berkeley has received appx $200 million in AIDS-
related funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

To compound the absurdity, UCB Vice Provost Zedeck assigned the investigation to one man – Arthur Reingold - who, since 1988, has received more than $37 million for AIDS research.

In light of these facts, it’s understandable why, like Robert Gallo, Vice Provost Zedeck has avoided thousands of highly qualified licensed investigators to assign the only man with reason to obfuscate the obvious to convict America’s resident Galileo. 

A Call for Action

A few years ago, Professor Duesberg would be forced to defend himself from Berkeley’s kangaroo court.   Today, OMSJ is assisting Prof. Duesberg and thousands of other victims of medical and scientific corruption.

Comment by Exposure on April 2, 2012 at 11:38am

I'm intrigued Daniel, the most unusal case I've covered to date is the Sabina Eriksson cases I cover...look forward to hearing what you might have discovered...

Comment by Old Denmark on April 2, 2012 at 10:56am

Now i think you found something this needs some checking up to do but i think actually you found something ground breaking and its really big. Get back to you tomorrow if im not mistaken.


  • Add Photos
  • View All



Please remember this website is supported by your donations...

© 2018   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 2007-2015 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted