Growing public demand for Parental Rights Amendment…and stopping UNCRC treaty ratification!

by Carole Hornsby Haynes, Ph.D.

10 October 2011

At the recent 36th Biennial Convention of the National Federation of Republican Women in Kansas City, MO, a resolution was presented.  If the resolution is approved, federation members will be asked to contact their U.S. Congressional delegations to co-sponsor a resolution proposing a Parental Rights amendment to the United States Constitution.

This is a response to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which was ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1989.  If approved by the U.S., the CRC will automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution and Treaty Supremacy Clause in Article VI.

The treaty made headlines under the Clinton administration. Since Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, there has been a renewed push for the U. S. to ratify this international treaty. When she and other liberals and feminists began saying that a “village” should raise a child, most American understood that village was merely a metaphor for government.

While the treaty may appear harmless to some, it will attack the very core of the child-parent relationships.  If the U.S. does ratify this treaty, Congress would have the power to legislate directly on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty, thus shifting massive power from the states to the federal government.  Once that occurs, parental decisions could be challenged by the child through governmental reviews, every parental decision could be overridden by the government, and more money would have to be spent on child welfare than on national defense.

The advancement of international law in American courts is of great concern to many Americans. Even though our Constitution clearly states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, proponents of one world government are using the international treaty provision to destroy our personal freedoms and our sovereignty.

Parental rights were affirmed in the court decision in 1925. The Supreme Court ruled “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.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510.

That basic line of reasoning continued with other court rulings until liberals began using the courts to implement their leftist agenda.

In 2000 the State of Washington gave any person the ability to override a good parent’s decision about visitation by simply claiming that it would be “best” for children to allow the third-party to have visitation rights.

In Fields v. Palmdale School District (2005) the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the fundamental right of parents over the care and upbringing of their children “does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door,” and that a public school has the right to give students “whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise.”

“Whatever information it wishes to provide” has been further determined in recent circuit and federal court rulings to include the teaching of homosexuality, pornography, and Muslim religion and practices.

In 2010 the Provincetown, Maine local school board approved a policy to distribute condoms to elementary and high school students.  The policy states that both the local school and the school district will refuse to honor requests from parents that their children not be allowed to receive condoms.

On a national level, statists continue their efforts to undermine parental rights.  They understand that whoever disciplines and educates the child also determines the child’s beliefs and attitudes.

During his campaign Obama promised universal pre-K education – early childhood education for all children to be paid for by taxpayers.  Translation:  the government will take over early childhood education almost before the toddler is out of diapers.If the liberal elitists of the world have their way, a heterogeneous couple will be merely baby makers of little “world citizens” for one world dictators to educate and control for the “good” of the global community.

Because it is expected that liberal judges will continue to undermine parental rights as they legislate from the bench, many Americans are calling for a Constitutional amendment to safeguard parental rights.

A number of state legislatures have taken up resolutions opposing ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, or urging Congress to pass the Parental Rights Amendment to the States for ratification.

A few have even done both.

The Texas House Select Committee on State Sovereignty passed HCR 60 but was not passed in the Texas Senate. In April, 2011 U.S. Senator Jim DeMint introduced the SR99 resolution opposing ratification of the CRC.   SR99 sends a message that the Senate lacks the necessary votes to ratify the CRC.

Ratification requires 67 Senate votes; rejection requires only 34--as long as 34 senators remain committed.In the meantime, it is feared that, with left wing judges, the courts will gradually implement the CRC as Customary International Law.

As the outcry grows for a Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment and stopping ratification of the CRC, so does public disgust for the United Nations.

It is time that we withdraw American membership and funding from this radical organization.

Copyright © 2011 Carole Hornsby Haynes, Ph.D., All rights reserved

• < Prev
• Next >