this right is outweighed by the State’s interest in the administration of the penal system. Id. at 1071. ¶15 This conclusion is also consistent with several other decisions upholding the right to force-feed hunger-striking prisoners. Laurie v. Senecal, 666 A.2d 806, 808-10 (R. I. 1995) (authorizing force-feeding of a hunger-striking prisoner and finding there was no right under the state or federal constitution to override the State’s interest in preserving life and preventing suicide); Commonwealth Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Kallinger, 134 Pa. Commw. 415, 422, 580 A.2d 887 (1990) (allowing the force-feeding of a prison inmate by finding the State’s interest in the orderly administration of the prison system outweighed a prisoner’s diminished right to privacy); Caulk, 125 N.H. at 232 (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. White v. Narick, 170 W. Va.
holding that a district court grievance committees reliance on a state courts findings without holding an independent hearing did not violate the attorneys due process rights holding that the auuw statute did not violate the defendants second amendment rights holding that forcefeeding of an otherwise healthy inmate did not violate state privacy rights holding that a parents rights must yield to the childs right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent healthy safe environment a parent cannot protect his parental rights by merely stating that he does not wish to have his rights terminated internal citations omitted holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights