Of course, since BIC is irreparably vague, the state can't have a compelling interest in aiming its legal weaponry at a target it can't see. I think it can effectively be argued that the state has a compelling interest in dealing with neglect or abuse (terms that permit enough precision to go somewhere). But I think the train stops there. For anyone who wants to argue that the state has an compelling interest in prevention of abuse or neglect (versus dealing with those things like the crimes they are) I think he then has to argue that the state must prevent virtually all divorce since divorce is the best predictor of abuse/neglect. The shoals are too rocky there, so it's best to stay out of them. As Brandeis recognized correctly a long time ago, it's when states try their hardest to do good that we need to exercise most caution. States mainly exist to allow individuals to flourish and do good. One of the principle ways states accomplish this is by exerting power against those who do bad. The theory is that the example scares other wrong doers. More than that and you've got the state as Great Busybody. No fun when you've got a neighbor like that ... a heck of a mess when it's the state. Think Prohibition.
