Loose Ends for Licensing Argument

Lafollette's piece, Licensing Parents, takes an interesting and daring approach to addressing certain social problems and dangers by suggesting implementing licensing policies that regulate who and who cannot be a parent. To be licensed parent, must be competent and must not show signs of or clear capabilities of violence, neglect, or abuse. Because parenting can potentially cause harm, it's act should be regulated much like other possibly dangerous acts that we have regulated in society today (driving, practicing law, practicing medicine...). Even though denial may cause disappointments or inconveniences, those innocents that end up protected is more important. Lafollette wants to maximize the good (for common well-being of children).
Well I agree with his idea of bettering society to protect our youth and prevent mistreatment, his general arguments for the licensing and lack of details about the process makes it a hard idea to follow. Too many questions remain unanswered, too many variables are unaccounted for, and too many of his justifications aren't strong enough. I will first address three responses to "practical objections" that I am not satisfied with, and then will state a few additional problems I found with his piece overall.
In response number 1, Lafollette claims that he understands the difficulty in assessing who is a fit parent and the criteria involved. He states that weeding out the unfit, bad people is more feasible and that, "we undoubtedly can identify the bad ones-those who will abuse or neglect their children". But how can he be so sure of this? Assuming he is relying on connecting this system to other regulatory process we have today, there is no way he can support the notion we can positively identify such harmful individuals. For example, citizens in society that have gone through a type of licensing/testing/regulations to ensure they are trustworthy and respectful, knowledgeable, and sane, and able to care for others (children) have repeatedly shocked and disgusted us. Priests have molested children, teachers have had sexual or abusive relations with students, and doctors have committed malpractice in a number of ways. If they can make it through, anyone must have some shadow of a doubt in weeding out such individuals.
His response to objection 2 has to do with predicting who will maltreat. He knows there is no sure way, but that we can use present tests to filter out who has bad characteristics for parenting, such as if people are "easily frustrated", or perhaps impatient, and so on. I am interested in what he would say to people being medicated to control these traits-if they are still suitable if they have already been medicating, if they will be approved if they agree to medicate, and if so, which drugs are OK to take. Further on, he announces a potential testing system that will accurately predict maltreatment through a "longitudinal study". When they are followed to see if they abuse their children, what are the chances parents will act normally under observation? How will they get people to volunteer to do this?
Objection 4 brought up the problem of "testing procedures [being] intentionally abused". Lafollette says there's always a chance for that and responds with the fact that parental licensing systems won't necessarily be more abused than "driver's license tests". It is impossible to put these two possibilities on the same level. To deny or slow the process of being able to legally drive a car is not the same as one individual infringing upon the right for a person or couple to conceive a child. It is a matter of life, not easier way of transporting oneself.
A general lack of specific details for the policy Lafollette proposes leads me to ask a few questions that I feel he should acknowledge or try to mention/attack...
For instance, how often can one apply for parenting? Is there a restriction in total number of times or the frequency? Is the process different in respect to varying cultural backgrounds and religions, the sex and age of the applicant(s), if they are single, in a relationship (not married), married, heterosexual, homosexual? What happens if a non-licensed individual becomes pregnant, impregnates, or gives birth? Are there special circumstances for those who are raped?
Does this policy mean required protected sex (or celibacy?) before being licensed or in denial of license? How can one keep people from having sex? Will the effectiveness of condoms/other forms of birth control be high enough (if no celibacy)? If accidental pregnancy occurs, are abortions enforced, or is giving up for adoption allowed too? If a person isn't found fit to be a parent, are they (accidentally impregnated women) allowed to care for child for 9 months before birth (if adoption allowed)? What punishment is placed on those who conceived unlawfully, and what are the terms based on pure accident, or carelessness, or rape?
I find it impossible to create a policy Lafollette envisions because of the magnitude of variables that cannot be controlled for and the unpredictable outcomes that may or may not result. Such a drastic proposal seems unrealistic in a democracy. Instead of "advocating the more strict form of licensing", it may be advantageous to advocate in the most attainable way of protecting children and get more immediate results with less intrusiveness and more acceptance. Education, communication, and facilities that help/heal abused and abusive individuals should be increased and improved. A sense of safety, awareness, power, and knowledge may prove to be more effective additions to our society rather than a system that is invasive, controlling, not necessarily needed (in its extreme form).