|
Supporters of a plan to amend the U.S. Constitution to include parental
rights are warning moms and dads across the United States they already
are losing their rights to make decisions regarding their children's
health, education, welfare, finances, sex education, access to abortion
and even leisure time.
"The erosion is upon us," said Michael Farris, founder of the Home
School Legal Defense Association, a college and a church and now a
dedicated leader in the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through
the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights.
Eighty years ago, the amendment website notes, "the Supreme Court
declared that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State; those
who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the
high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'"
However, according to Farris, a survey last year of state and federal
appellate court rulings found "the vast majority of the court decisions
refused to acknowledge traditional parental rights are fundamental
rights."
The problem, says Farris, is the growing reach of domestic and
international government into decisions about health, education,
discipline and other issues that for millennia have been made by
parents. In one recent case in the South, the parents of a 13-year-old
juvenile were refused access to his medical records because the doctor
decided against including the parents in the discussion.
According to Farris, the parents could only be granted access to their
son's medical records with their son's permission.
"The Supreme Court has so muddied the waters … the growing practice is
to treat parenting as a government privilege," he said.
Read an in-depth profile on Michael Farris, the founder of multiple
organizations and campaigns, including the current move to protect
parental rights in the U.S. Constitution, here.
In another case that outraged parents, a federal court ruled that
parents do not even have the right to withdraw their children from
public school teachings that violate their religious beliefs.
Farris says the solution is the Parental Rights Amendment, which would
embed in the Constitution the description of parental rights as
fundamental.
"Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right
without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the
person is of the highest order and not otherwise served," the draft
states. "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international
law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights
guaranteed by this article."
Farris said the amendment proposal, which already has about 80
co-sponsors in Congress, is moving "faster then we thought we would."
Some of the key leaders in the GOP have signed onto the campaign,
citing parental rights as a top concern. Democrat support has been far
less, but the group has seen a large number of signs that the
grassroots are becoming alarmed, pushing county and state officials to
action.
Both the GOP and Democrats will be paying more attention as the
groundswell of support expands, he said.
The local alarm is being raised on a number of converging issues,
including the Food and Drug Administration's new decision to allow
17-year-old juveniles to purchase abortion pills over the counter. Also
among the concerns are a long list of challenges to parents who want to
homeschool their own children and medical information disputes.
Critics also point to a developing propensity for U.S. judges in cite
foreign law in deciding domestic cases, because of the fundamentally
different foundations on which other nations base their laws.
WND reported just this week on a case involving German parents who
wanted to protect their daughter from sexually explicit teachings in
the local school and were fined for it.
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Roger Kiska said such cases must be
fought around the world "to keep bad decisions overseas from being
relied upon by activists who attack parental rights in America."
One of the more significant threats to parental rights in the U.S. is
the possible vote on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Lawmakers have refused to ratify the measure for the 20 years it has
existed because of worries over what it could do to the entire
structure of U.S. law and practice.
For example, it would turn parents who spank their own children into
criminals under international law.
But now there is word that Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., wants to
impose a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the radical international
plan.
The document specifically would create "the right of the child to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion," which critics say would
usurp the role of parents in directing their children's religious
training.
Another concern is a congressional report that reportedly analyzed the
treaty's provisions and forecast that it would be considered in this
session of Congress.
Additionally, a symposium has been scheduled to promote the treaty in
June at the Georgetown University law school.
"The reports don't appear by magic," Farris noted. "They come because
somebody in leadership has requested it."
The Parental Amendment website notes 30 years ago the U.S. Supreme
Court announced the "primary role of the parents in the upbringing of
their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American
tradition."
But just nine years ago the state of Washington allowed any person the
ability to override a good parent's decision about visitation simple by
claiming it would be "best" for child.
At the Supreme Court level there was only one justice to state clearly
that parental rights should get the same high legal standard of
protection as other fundamental rights. One justice, in fact, said
parents have no constitutionally protected rights.
The website notes if approved, the treaty would supersede "the laws of
all 50 states on children and parents."
According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the
following:
* Parents would no longer be able to administer
reasonable spankings to their children.
* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at
the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
* Children would have the ability to choose their
own religion
while parents would only have the authority to give their children
advice about religion.
* The best interest of the child principle would
give the
government the ability to override every decision made by every parent
if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
* A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or
her) to seek
governmental review of every parental decision with which the child
disagreed.
* According to existing interpretation, it would be
illegal for a
nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's
welfare.
* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right
to leisure.
* Teaching children about Christianity in schools
has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex
education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Children would have the right to reproductive
health information
and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or
consent.
Good parents also no longer would be entitled to the legal presumption
that they act in the best interests of their children, giving way to
governmental decisions that would trump anything a parent would seek
for his or her child, regardless of the topic, the analysis said.
"The people are waking up," Farris said.
According to the website, "The goal of this Amendment is to preserve
our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the
ever-growing threat of international law. … This should be a
bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, 'In the end,
there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or
father.' Every member of Congress who agrees with the president on this
principle should be in favor of this amendment.
"The need to protect parents' rights has struck a nerve with the
American people. In an era where congressional leadership and the
administration offer the federal government as the only solution to the
challenges we face, Americans are starting to realize that no sphere of
their lives is off-limits from government encroachment. Specifically,
parents are recognizing the real possibility of being told by the
government how to manage their parent-child relationship," the
organization said in a statement.
Contact: Bob Unruh
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish
Date: April 28, 2009
Link
to this article.
Send
this article to a friend.
 
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in
Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state
coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of
Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our
society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political
persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has
been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the
human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that
every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is
dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection
for the disabled and the elderly. Click here to learn more about the IFRL.
|
