It was twelve years ago this month that an article about the push from HSLDA for a parental rights amendment to the United States Constitution was published in Home Education Magazine.
Do We Want to Turn Our Parental Rights and Responsibilities Over to the Government?, January/February 1996, Home Education Magazine
Conclusion
Parental rights cannot be protected by legislation. Attempts to do so can easily lead to increasing government intervention in family life and requirements that parents comply with government standards in education, health care, and other areas.
I noticed just such an increase in government intervention in recent proposed legislation for parental rights here in Missouri. The legislation “declares a parent’s right to make all health care and education decisions for their minor children …” Except one. Requiring a pregnant minor daughter to get an abortion. Parents will not be allowed to do that.
Did you get that? Regardless of how you feel about abortion, in legislation for protection of the rights of parents, the same parents will be restricted in one aspect of their child’s health. That’s double-speak. And precedent.
The legislation is being sold to Missourians under the guise of parental rights, but it actually introduces a restriction. Pret.ty slick.
Back at the national parental rights amendment, though, just under two years ago there was another push for the lagging legislation.
U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 30 May 2006, Home Education Magazine News and Commentary
This past April (2006), the topic came up on the HEM-Networking list when a list-member asked why the Convention on the Rights of the Child was “front-burner” again. The only thing I could relate it to was HSLDA’s “free membership” drive, a limited-time membership that is valid only for the summer, a time when school-attendance isn’t #1 on most people’s lists, and the likelihood of the need for homeschool legal services is probably the lowest, excluding child custody issues, which know no season. Homeschool legal coverage usually doesn’t include representation in child custody disputes.
And here it comes again: From the desk of Michael P. Farris.
- Two of these justices, ”then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor” have since left the Court. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, a noted conservative, holds that parental rights are not judicially enforceable at all until there is a specific parental rights provision in the Constitution.
- If the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) becomes binding on this country, then parental rights as we know them will be erased.
- The Parental Rights Amendment is the only way to protect and preserve the rights of parents to make key decisions for their children, as well as to direct their upbringing and education.
- The battle for parental rights will be the fight of our lifetime.
- With a gift of $25 or more, you can become a member of Parental Rights.org.
- Second, under existing federal law we can only send detailed information about the political implications of this effort to dues-paying members.
- Our user-friendly Tell a Friend application enables you to upload email addresses from your address book, …
1. So what was all that hoo-hah over Harriet Miers and John Roberts about? If justices could decide in favor of parents in Troxel v. Granville, why can’t a greater percentage of conservative justices also decide that way?
O’Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., and Thomas, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Stevens, J., Scalia, J., and Kennedy, J., filed dissenting opinions.
2. U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Read about non-self-executing treaties.
3. When saying that an amendment is the only way to guarantee parental rights, keep in mind the Missouri legislation, and how the political process allows for consensus, plus bits and pieces of compromise, to be inserted to get ‘the other side’ to go with your big idea.
4. “Fight of our lifetime.” A slogan. It fits on a bumper sticker and sidesteps critical thought.
5. A gift of $25. Fund-raising.
6. “[O]nly send detailed information about the political implications of this effort to dues-paying members.” Oh, for crying out loud. Use a web site.
7. “Tell a Friend application” This makes the person who provides the addresses a spam-enabler.
For another look at this parental rights push, go to Parental Rights Legislation.
CREATE A CRISIS
OFFER A VAGUE SOLUTION
SOLICIT YOUR MONEY
REALITY CHECK, PLEASE.
And, yes, I do wonder how HSLDA got from:
“The Supreme Court of the United States has made it repeatedly clear that the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Michael Farris, “Federalism and the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act,” HSLDA Resource Library document, no longer available) and
“The U. S. Supreme Court has long held parental rights to be primary in American law. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” (“Historic Parental Rights Bill passes Indiana House,” Home School court Report, February/March 1996, page 15) and
“The parental Rights and Responsibilities Act has been introduced in the House (H.R. 1946) and Senate (S. 984). This act affirms the rights of parents to control the upbringing and training of their children. Although guaranteed by the United States Constitution and upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, these rights have gradually been eroded by conflicting state court decisions.” (“The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act,” The Teaching Home, May/June 1996, page 21) (Emphasis added)
to
“Parental Rights are in Jeopardy” in just 16 years.
So, in well over a decade, the parental rights legislation has languished, but yet the proponents soldier on. They are nothing if not determined. A question to ask is, if they are successful, will the cure be worse than the disease?
posted by Valerie
Eric Potter MD said on October 26, 2010
Good evening,
I am experiencing two conflicting emotions in reading this article. First, I am saddened by the biased presentation of the parental rights amendment as proposed by those associated with HSLDA. This seems more of an HSLDA bashing than a truly balanced discussion of this important issue. Second, I am somewhat glad that I am the first to comment, so that I can provide an alternative view. After a year and half of studying this issue intensively, I have a different opinion. For my thoughts, go to my parentalrightstn blog on blogspot.com.
I hope that the editors will permit this to remain as a comment. If their stance against the amendment is correct, they should not fear readers doing further investigation. The evidence from both sides will lead them to the correct solution to the VERY REAL problem of eroding parental rights. (If someone doesn’t believe it is a problem, they should search the news or read my blog as it cites such news sources.) Please, allow people to think for themselves.
Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD
Helen Hegener said on October 28, 2010
Hello Dr. Potter,
I am the co-publisher and managing editor of Home Education Magazine and I appreciate your taking the time to share your opinion and your views, and the link to your website, with our readers. I did read your blog and I can see that you are, indeed, passionate about the issue of parental rights being eroded. I assure you it is a primary concern for us at HEM as well.
The post referenced here, which was about the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), and NOT about parental rights, was written in the context of many other posts on the topic, and readers who saw it at the time were undoubtedly familiar with the issues raised and the problems discussed. Taken by itself two years later I can certainly see how you would consider it less than balanced, because balance was never the intent. Information and analysis was.
The title of this blog is News & Commentary, and the editor of this blog at the time this post was written, Valerie Bonham Moon, was well versed in the dynamics surrounding the issues addressed. She kept her readership well versed also, and the easy familiarity of her writing in this post showcases that.
If you’ve read our weblogs for any length of time you should be aware that we are not in the habit of censoring or deleting posts or opinions we may not agree with, and we won’t delete yours. You end your missive with a plea to “please, allow people to think for themselves.” I assure you, that has always been the highest goal of our 28 years of publication, online and off, and that is why your post will remain.
I did find much of interest and value in your blog, Dr. Potter, and I hope you’ll visit ours again and perhaps tell us a little more about your view of the parental rights issue.
Cordially,
Helen Hegener, co-publisher
Home Education Magazine
http://homeedmag.com