Y-Peer, Advocates for Youth Abortion and Legal Prostitution

None of you likely know what or who "Y-Peer" is. Neither did I until tonight. Y-Peer is a United Nations Population Fund initiative organizing youth across the globe as advocates and educators in the area of sexual and reprodutive health. Many believe that the crisis of youth sexually transmitted diseases necessitates such leadership by our youth. Prima facie, this approach brushes aside the primary role parents should play in the education of their children. Beyond that, a statement by this multi-continent organization implies that it supports abortion for "youth" and decriminilization of prostitution and drug abuse. Further below is a quote from the organization confirmed on their own website which provides evidence in supoprt of this allegation. As often is the case, such objectionable ideas are buried within a gauntlet of less offensive, even sympathy producing issues. These are the forces which are facing us as parents and which threaten to indoctrinate our children with sexual filth and perversity. For more commentary on this organization's controversial statement, go HERE or HERE. (Even if you don't read the link, clicking on it will raise its rating in internet search engines)

“Young women’s health is threatened by policies and services that do not provide life-saving access to family planning and contraception. It is vital to implement key effective measures in the continuum of care for maternal health, including access to safe abortion...The rights of marginalized young people, including those who are living with HIV, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, young men who have sex with men, sex workers, injecting drug users, disabled youth, young people in crisis situations and other vulnerable youth continue to be violated through policies and programmes that criminalize them and ignore their specific needs.”

Kentucky Third Graders Searched by Teacher

A couple of basic elements in building successful relationships are trust and respect. It starts at a very young age. If adults show trust and respect toward young children, then the kids are more likely to do the same in return. Well, some authority figures (a.k.a: teachers) in Kentucky don’t understand that concept. When an envelope containing $5 for a school function went missing from the teacher’s desk, it was time to find which 3rd grade student was the thief. What better way to handle the issue then to line the kids up, ask them to remove their socks, search their pockets and in some cases pat them down. Some of these teachers have been watching too many episodes of “COPS.” There are very few reasons why a teacher needs to physically touch a student. A missing $5 does not make that list in my book.

Read the entire story HERE.

Your Rights with DCS (by Nathan Tutor)

A family I know of recently had a visit from their local Department of Child Services (DCS) to respond to an allegation of abuse of their children. Turns out that they were seen 'abusing' the child in public by administering corporal punishment in their car in the parking lot. Despite their insistence of the proper loving use of correction as per their religious convictions, they were visited and investigated by these 'child protection' services. They were made to think that the authority granted this agency was final.

This article on a Connecticut law put in place this summer highlights the jurisdiction granted to these departments and the scope of their legal authority. As you can read, this authority is limited and the parent has the right to an attorney and the right to limit the conversation with the agency to a simple, 'Thanks for coming. My people will talk to your people." In short, this law puts the authority of the child into the hands of the parents at this initial stage.

In Tenessee, the laws for child services are complicated and strong. A quick web search for 'tn child abuse' will produce article after article about horrible situations of parental neglect and abuse of a child. The document (HERE) for 'clients' (parents) to understand the departments procedures seems innocent enough at first, but careful reading will soon reveal that the parent has little or no recourse should the department 'deem' it necessary to take a particular action. It is clear that the parents serve the department and that the burden of proof is on the parents.

Knowing your rights should you be faced with allegations will help you in taking appropriate steps and help you to navigate the initial, and subsequent, interactions with the agencies involved.

Guest post by Nathan Tutor

Child Protective Services and Obese Children

The past week saw a signficant increase in the number of search engine hits for obese children and intervention, but it wasn't to report some new medial breakthrough in their care. Rather, this attention was spurred by a recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) article, recommending the removal of a small number of morbidly obese children from their parents when they are believed to be in imminent danger. There are a number of serious discussion growing out of this particular article, but it is also accompanied by a considerable amount of name calling come from various directions in the comment sections. In contrast, I hope to provide my readers with some questions to challenge the articles in a logical and much needed manner.

Overall, as the article itself (and another article from Pediatrics in 2009), emphasizes, childhood obesity is a serious problem that is affecting more and more children across our nation. No one can seriously argue that we are not facing an epidemic. These morbidly obese children are facing diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension not only in their future adulthood, but sometimes beginning in their childhood. With such staggering numbers growing and with such serious consequences, most agree that something must be done. The problem begins here, with the simple question "What do we do?"

Therefore, a goal of the proposed intervention should be stated. Do we aim for a perfect weight? Do we aim for a threshold of weight loss? Do we just try to avoid the comorbidities listed above? Before implementing any solution, we need a reasonable target. The article from Pediatrics provides a somewhat clearer picture of its purpose in contrast to the JAMA article which discussed the importance of avoiding complications but did not put this into a simple purpose statement. The Pediatrics article proposes a target of avoiding the complications of morbid obese which present an immediate threat to the child's health. This seems reasonable at face value prior to a closer scrutiny.

The closer scrutiny asks two questions: First, "Is the intervention effective at reaching this goal?" In the case of removing a child from their families in order to treat their obesity, case studies are presented, but no study is presented as anything near conclusive evidence. Basically, the authors are saying that they once knew a patient with this condition that benefitted from this intervention. It worked for them, so it should work for everyone else just as well. To their credit, the authors of the Pediatrics article try to address successful strategies such as lifestyle interventions, medical therapies, and surgical therapies. However, neither article provides any study level evidence that removing children from their parents is either effective for the stated problem, or is effective without producing harmful effects in other important areas of a child's life. They seem to be advocating for something rather untested, basing their claims mainly on anecdotal evidence. That concerns me greatly.

The second question is "Is that target worth the cost of the intervention or solution?" This addresses something alluded to above: what side effects may occur from this intervention. If I prescribe a pill for a patient, they are reasonable to ask what are the side effects. If they advocate removing children from their parents, it is reasonable, if not a requirement to ask "What ill effects may be predicted by this intervention?" Obviously, there are a number of potential harms from this intervention. Removing children from the parents to whom they are dearly attached and placing them in foster homes may not result in long term benefits overall even if weight is lost. Our foster system is not able to absorb these vulnerable children nor care for the stigma such a placement will entail.

I hope to revisit this issue soon, but so far I am not convinced by the arguments or proofs found in these articles. I have not heard convincing reasons to overturn the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children.

Canadian Attacks on Homeschoolers

(by John Robinson, contributing author)

As we know, there are attempts to limit parental rights on a weekly basis. Another example is a Roman Catholic family living in Canada who was recently ordered to enroll their four homeschooled children ages 9, 7, 5 and 3 into public school for "socialization." After being reported to the Youth Protection Services (YPS) for neglect, Judge Nicole Bernier of Quebec, Canada ordered the children to stay in school or a daycare until a plan for socialization was approved by YPS.

Apparently, the judge denied access to a fair trial, one of which lasted four days in November 2010. The judge also refused to address the various studies that show the benefits of homeschooling. Paul Faris, president of the HSLDA of Canada issued a statement saying, "This is a shocking decision. Even more concerning is the judge's decision to order the younger children who were not of compulsory school age into day care for socialization."

To read the entire article, click HERE.

New Zealand: Abortion and Prostitution for Children

(by Nathan Tutor, contributing author)

New Zealand may be a small, fairly unthought of island nation in the South Pacific, but it leads the western world in some of its socialistic principles. Long known and proud of its 'progressive' stance towards society and government, it has a firm grasp on the view that the best way to order culture is to allow the 'individual's' to rule themselves. Unfortunately, the only way to enforce this is to have the government rule over the individual so that they can assure that the individual rules...but I digress.

This article highlights the attempt to give the 'right' to rule their body to girls of almost any age. This 'right' is only valid if, in the eyes of New Zealand parliamentarians, the girls are free from any parental infringement. In the case of an abortion, the girl can get counsel and guidance, and even help, from public school counselors with not only the absence of parental consent, but parental knowledge. You can read the details for yourself but what you do not read, even in this revealing article is that these 'rights' for these girls doesn't extend only to the termination of the pregnancy but also to its conception. You see, in late 2003, while I was living and working in New Zealand, parliament legalized prostitution. They decided that the age for girls to obtain a license for prostitution would be 18 years old, but a loophole actually enforces that any girl under the age of 18 who engages in prostitution cannot be charged - so in effect, there is no illegal age to be a prostitute in New Zealand and no parental consent needed to do it. The prostitution bill was an attempt to increase tourism revenue by requiring licenses and taxes for the prostitution industry. So the abortion bill has been a way to mitigate the 'negative side effects' of prostitution and to limit the burden on the socialized medical system. And to be sure, there are as many politicians in the US who would welcome this kind of 'revenue' as there are in New Zealand. The issue is not about the 'rights of the individual', it is about the way to run a country.

It is up to the parents to look ahead at the agenda of social engineers and understand these issues and stand up for their parental rights.

Part 24: The Final Answer to the UN CRC

Parental Rights.Org believes that we must close the door forever on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by ratifying the Parental Rights Amendment. Before explaining why we believe this is the best option, please read the amendment itself:

Proposed Parental Rights Amendment

For the US Constitution

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
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.

SECTION 3
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.

This amendment is important because it provides explicit constitutional language to protect parental rights from government interference except in rare and extreme circumstances such as abuse and prevents international law such as the UN CRC from taking away those parental rights. The language for sections one and two are taken from two past US Supreme Court cases which ruled in favor of parental rights: Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925 and Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972. Therefore the language was crafted by our own Supreme Court justices in the past and has a long history of legal understanding in the courts.

The amendment establishes parental rights as a fundamental right, the highest standard short of an absolute right which goes too far (an absolute right would protect child abusers from prosecution). It then adds section three which protects American parents from international law both in US courts and International Courts (according to Vienna Convention of Treaties, the highest standard for international law.) This section also protects against the threat of Customary International Law which I described earlier.

Next week, you will learn several more reasons that only the Parental Rights Amendment is an adequate response to the UN CRC and the worldview behind it.

Rejoice in the little victories!

I am learning to thank God Almighty for every little victory and want to share a few with you. First, a showing of the documentary, "The Child", has led to many potentially fruitful blessings. One of those blessings is that a student-mother in the crowd was struck by the message and is intent on sharing her newfound wisdom with others. Another is that a new friend was made, a new friend who now shares this same passion for parenting that we do.

Second, from that new friendship, others will have the opportunity to see the documentary and hear the story as he shows "The Child" at his church next week.

Third, a number of parental rights defenders in west Tennessee took a first step towards our state's approval of the Parental Rights Amendment. They presented a resolution to a city commission in support of the amendment and argued it through to approval. This resolution sends the message to our state legislators that Tennesseans support the amendment and want their legislators to do so as well. May this movement spread throughout the country.

Thank you Father for your encouragement by way of these blessings above. May I never forget neither your goodness nor your command to raise children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.



Amen

The Opposition's Trumpet Call

I occasionally channel surf before bed, just to remind myself of the vacous content of today's programming. If I had a nickel for every crime show, I would retire very soon. However, last week, something struck me as different as I clicked from one crime scene to another. A commercial caused me to backpedal and watch with much greater horror than any of the murders on CSI. What could overcome such numbness to violence that our TVs produce?......

The 30 seconds of fear were words spoken in the language of human rights for children. These words to the untrained ear tweak the heartstrings like a St. Jude Children's Hospital commercial. To my ears, trained to discern the deception inherent in the words, "child rights", horror resounded as I realized the propaganda was beginning in earnest. This commercial if left unchallenged would convince millions of Americans, even parents, that we must join a false battle for children's futures. The need for the message of parental freedoms and the need for their defense echoed like a rumbling earthquake in my soul.

Trumpets are sounding for our opponents, calling others to join their fight. Will you join me in blowing our own call to arms?

To see the website procaiming the commerical's deception, go HERE. You will find the same rights that the UN CRC unabashedly promotes. They are not rights... They are definitely not freedoms... THEY ARE SLAVERY to the STATE!

How should we respond as Americans, as parents and grandparents?

Winston Churchill's words from a different era are appropriate to describe the urgent need for our response.

"Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong-these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."

We cannot mistake the signs of a present war regardless of the silence in which our opponents shroud their aims and actions. Churchill knew that a time would come when the Allies' opportunity would be past and no amount of effort could salvage a victory. We are in a similar predicament with the move towards government control of parenting. First, we must respond immediately by urging our Senators to cosponsor SR 99 if they are not already sponsors (GO HERE to find out) (please note that both of Tennessee's Senators are now sponsors despite Sen. Alexander not being updated on the website). This Senate resolution opposes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have 34 sponsors which thwart the 67 needed for treaty ratification, but we want more commitments. Only one defector is needed to ratify the treaty, and therefore we want as many sponsors as we can obtain.

This is the first step to derail the UN CRC, but more is needed. Return soon for the most complete response to this threat against our children's futures.

Obama's Plans for UN CRC Ratification

The following comes from a recent national Parental Rights.Org newsletter and reminds us why we can't sit back and trust our Senate to say no to the UN CRC.

"On March 10, the Obama administration told the UN Human Rights Council that it supports the UNHRC's recommendations that the United States should "ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC]." Moreover, the administration promised that it "intend[s] to review how we could move toward its ratification.""

The current administration does not care that American parents would vastly oppose this treaty if they had even the slightest understanding of it. They will spin this into a humanitarian jesture or something absurd in order to entice a few republicans over to vote forit. Then we are in even deeper water.

So why don't American parents stand up and stop it? BECAUSE you haven't told them what they need to know about this issue! The only thing needed for the CRC to win is our silence.

Part 22: Even WIthout Ratification of the CRC

Many are naïve to think that all that is now necessary is to say "no" to the treaty. I wish it were that simple. There are other ways that this worldview can harm families even without the treaty. Even without ratification of the treaty, this deceitful philosophy is already permeating our culture, lying about parents' capacity to raise children. Even without the treaty we are sliding into destruction of the family. Even without ratification, Customary International Law threatens to bring this destructive philosophy of parenting into our country one legal precedent at a time.

Hopefully, in your mind right now, you are asking what must be done to put a stop to this horrible worldview and the treaty which puts it into writing. The next section will begin to answer those questions.

Part 17: Specific Rights in the CRC

In my last post, I focused on the foundation principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (please go to my blog to review this). On this foundation, the drafters of this UN treaty built other rights that define further the best interest of the child and the areas where government can intervene.

1. Right to Privacy even in your own home. In Japan, this means that parents are restricted from accessing their children's emails, text messages, and chat rooms conversations.

2. Right to choose their own religion without parental coercion. According to the words of Professor Van Beuren, one of the treaty's major contributors as described on the website in the article "Nannies in Blue Beret's": "Unlike earlier treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not include a provision providing for parents to have their children educated in conformity with their parents' beliefs. In other words, she believes that we should protect children from their parent's religious coercion.

3. Right to education, that the government decides is best for them. This means an education that includes the principles of tolerance, which we know is being used against Christians. It includes exposure to a variety of national and international sources of information of MASS MEDIA. Consider what the government's opinion of what is best. One of the founding pillars of the American education system was Dewy, who said, "There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes" This also opens us to the dangers of "national education standards

4. Right to health care, including abortion rights. Just look at how the UN has used the UN CEDAW to promote abortion rights and access to contraception for children without parental consent in approximately 60 countries. They twisted that treaty's wording to accomplish that feat. Right now our government is sending our money to Kenya to lobby for repeal of anti-abortion laws. Of course, our children will be subjected to this agenda as well. It also means government must provide health care. We must ask "Who pays?" --- WE ALL do! Basically, Obamacare for children.

5. Right to protection from guns indirectly. Follow this logic. The UN has considerable propaganda saying that guns harms children.If we pass the CRC and guns are bad for children, therefore we must rid our country of guns. Once again, all done in the name of a good deed for the people

California and Forced LGBT Education

A bill was recently proposed in the California State Senate that would make it illegal to say anything against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender lifestyle. State Senator Mark Leno (D) introduced the FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful) Education Act that would control the way California Public Schools address these issues in their textbooks and in class. The bill says that textbooks "must highlight the key LGBT figures who contributed to the history of the United States and include details about the homosexual movement"



Penny Harrington, Concerned Women of America's legislative director of California had this to say about the bill (quoted from the article in OneNewsNow, linked below):
"The bill's language demands that nothing can be said about the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender lifestyle that reflects adversely on these persons. So only positive messages can be shared about behaviors that can have serious...emotional and physical consequences," the legislative director explains.



Please recognize that freedom to disagree is being sacrificed at the altar of feigned tolerance. Those who preach tolerance the loudest, are the most intolerant of all. Our children are targeted for this indoctrination on a daily basis whether in the school system or on the TV shows that we are offered.



More information can be found in this OneNewsNow article.

Florida Schools to Grade Parents ?

This is a special edition hot off the press. A Florida legislator has proposed a bill that I would nickname, "No Parent Left Alone". Rep. Kelli Stargel has proposed a bill in Florida to enable teachers to grade parents. Here are the three criteria written into the legislation:

"• A child should be at school on time, prepared to learn after a good night's sleep, and have eaten a meal. "

"• A child should have the homework done and prepared for examinations. "

"• There should be regular communication between the parent and teacher. "

Sounds benign, but this is a Pandora's Box of insanity. Obviously, I firmly believe that parents are responsible for their children's education (please read my past posts). However, placing the teachers into the role of oversight for parents is insulting and dangerous. Objectors might point to the simplicity of the three questions above, but I see a wide open door for abuse. What happens to parents next year who did not respond to the "unsatisfactory parenting" on their child's report card? Do you get a fine for your child staying up too late? Do they interogate your child about their bedtime and breakfast? What constitutes regular communication between parent and teacher? Do they report you to child protective services for inadequate homework support?

Please pass this on to others. Maybe they will see the insanity of our leader's worldviews. Even the well-meaning can be misleading.

See CNN ARTICLE for more information.

Response to Come Out and Play

I have a lengthy response to "Come Out and Play"'s recent comments and decided to make an entire post after some problems with trying to just make them "comments". I have included her comments with mine following the "----"'s.

Dear Come out and play,

"Your country's constitution separates religion and state so any Biblical arguments have no constitutional locus bar that rights are endowed by the Creator."

---- First, I think you are misunderstanding my perspective and audience. My focus on a Biblical understanding of the Constitution is directed at Christians and therefore encouraging them to use a Biblically based worldview to evaluate the Constitution, domestic law, international law, and their behavior in response to each of these. Ultimately, God’s Word stands above the Constitution or any other law of man as the final standard for a Christian’s actions. I am encouraging Christians to respond Biblically to this issue. It makes no difference if the Constitution recognizes it or not.

----Second, have you read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence lately? While I grant that the Constitution does not contain this wording, I wonder if the authors thought it unnecessary to repeat what was so well written into the Declaration of Independence.

--- Finally, your theory of separation of religion and state are subject to the widespread deception of our day. This phrase is not found in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights does say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who used this phrase, “separation of church and state” in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. A personal letter, even from Jefferson, hardly qualifies for a ratified component of the Supreme Law of the Land.

---Back to an earlier point in this paragraph. If the UN CRC prohibits the free exercise of religion that includes the education of children along that religion’s lines, then it contradicts the Bill of Rights. I could go on, but I believe my points clearly state my case.


""practically equal" is loose terminology. Either it is equal or superior - other than that you have no worries?"

--- Since you want to be picky on the wording, permit me to expound further on my proper use of the word “practically” by defining my terms. Depending on which legal expert you consult, some place treaties (as ratified by the protocol of Article 6 of our Constitution) on par with Congressional law and others place treaties above the law, only subservient to the Constitution. Others would say that treaties can alter Constitutional provisions. Reid v. Covert in the 1950’s said that treaties override implicit Constitutional rights. This means, that unless the right is explicitly stated in the Constitution, the given treaty can take that right away. Parental rights are currently an unwritten, or implied right, that could be lost through the treaty process. The majority opinion of those in power is that “supreme law of the Land”, as stated below in Article 6 of our Constitution, means that ratified treaties are equal to the Constitution. Others make a reasonable case that this phraseology refers to their desire to uphold treaties made prior to the Constitution’s acceptance (i.e. 1776-1789). Regardless of opinions, “practically” speaking, treaties are “practically” at least equal to the constitution.

Portion of Article 6 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”


"The USA signed the UN Charter, in its explicit terms, the superior item of international treaty law, its effects can be binding even on non-signatory states."

--- If we are bound to follow the letter of the law without ratification, why not just wait for others to ratify and avoid the trouble of a Senate vote? No, we are a sovereign nation, free to enter into treaties or not to enter into treaties. You obviously subscribe to Customary International Law, which states in legal terms exactly what you stated above. While you are accusing the US of missing the mark, please look over the numerous egregious violations of these signatory countries. You will get much more bang for your buck there.

"Let us look at the US paying its dues - for quite some years the UN was in arrears, yet its duty was to pay. That was remedied last year."

--- This is essentially a rabbit trail, unrelated to this treaty. Regardless, you might want to research how many countries are in arrears. According to a Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59K5Y520091021), only 22 countries were paid in full as of October 2009.

"It is in breach, along with every other nation, of Articles 43, 45 and 47, concerning the establishment of armed and airforce contingents for peacekeeping and a Military Staff Committee. I see no challenge in your courts, this has been so since 1945."

--- So? What does that have to do with the UN CRC?


part 2
The USA has ratified 2 of the Protocols to the Convention on the use of children in armed forces and prostitution and exploitation. No argument advanced there against such a process.

----These were limited protocols in agreement with the basic law of our nation. We therefore agreed to do what we were already doing. While you are thinking about this, consider all the countries which have not signed these optional protocols. Are they therefore “for” children as soldiers and for child prostitution? Please take aim at them where real harm is occurring.

"I also have some problem with the use of the term "parental rights". This has been advanced in response to the idea of there being children's rights enshrined in a treaty and signed and ratified by the US? That Convention is explicit in what these children's rights are, they are detailed and set down."

"You use 'parental rights' in the plural, and make emotional appeals as to their defence. But surely you need to state what you believe these to BE? What ARE parental rights, in the plural?"

--- Again, nitpicky and silly, but I’ll play along. I wonder if you are a parent. If so, you might at least pause before asking such a question. A parent would already know by experience that no list could ever encompass the comprehensive scope of parenting rights or responsibilities. A parent would say “right-S” if only to emphasize the wide ranging nature of parenting.

--- Furthermore, any attempt to define parenting would undoubtedly leave out something. In the legal world, this “left out” facet would then not be legally protected. In other words, “not listed” means “non-existent”. As the amendment states, “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.” Parental rights are the liberty to “direct the upbringing and education of their children”. This language comes from prior US Supreme Court Cases upholding parental rights. If it has to do with “care” or “education”, it is protected. If it was good enough for the Supreme Court, why not for you?

---If that is not good enough, look at the converse of the CRC for parental rights: right to educate your child, right to direct their speech, right to direct their choice of religion, right to limit their privacy, right to direct their associations, right to direct their media sources, and more. The CRC has hit on many of the high points.

"Unless you specify, you have no case for a Constitutional amendment. If you mean, for example that:"

"In the raising and disposition of their children, parents have total authority in all matters regarding the upbringing, welfare and treatment of those children" then you must be explicit. That I would call the 'owned chattel' approach, arguable I suppose, emotionally-laden, maybe has religious sanction (and by no means just Christianity or even Islam).

"Does your Constitution support such a claim? Discuss. Does the Bible? Likewise."

---Our Constitution does not provide what you describe above and neither does the Bible. You describe an absolute right when you use the word “total”. A fundamental right as defined in our country’s law is not absolute. Our organization is not advocating for “total authority”, just a fundamental right. We would oppose any law that proposed absolute authority. Therefore, you are misunderstanding us, or you are intentionally misleading in your rhetoric here.

---The Bible places the primary responsibility for child rearing on the parents, not the state, not even the church. That is clear and implies that parents must have the freedom or authority to carry out these responsibilities.

"So far, without such a claim being put to the people of the US, I think you will find that neither State nor Federal law supports a notion that kids are totally subservient to parents and have no rights under the Constitution which in those terms, of rights, I gather is superior to state constitutions? "

--This statement is somewhat unclear, so unless you expound, I will leave it alone.


Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD

Judge Eviscerates Parental Notification Law in Alaska

Alaskans voted last year to pass a parental notification law, forcing physicians to notify a teenager's parents before performing an abortion unless an abusive situation was present. Superior Court Judge John Suddock just recently ruled that the law can stand, but without the penalities for compliance failure. So he left a law without any penalties for enforcement which is obviously worthless. Abortion practitioners who violate the law cannot be held accountable without any penalty of prison or fines or even lawsuits from parents.

As the source article from OneNewsNow notes, even "Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, voted himself to uphold parental involvement laws, both consent and notice laws, that had criminal penalties attached to them." Alaska has become the only state with laws requiring parental notification that have no penalty associated with it.

We are faced with a continuous assault on the right of parents to even be involved in major decisions faced by their children. We can not wait any longer to stop this erosion of our freedom to parent.


For more information on this story go to HERE or HERE.

Part 14: The Emerging Worldview Threatening our Children, Section 4

Obviously, this view is different than most American’s beliefs and should be opposed by anyone who believes that parents have an inalienable right to direct the upbringing and education of their own children. If the government gains the upper hand, they will take over this role from the parents. This will occur through legal means, educational means, and administrative means. Who exactly will take over? The ruling political class and their experts.
In contrast, we recognize that God has given parents certain rights and duties, not the government. They are inalienable rights based on the duties commanded by God discussed earlier. They do not need the government to grant them, only protect them from its own power grab. Unless parents cross a criminal line, the civil government must stay out of the family sphere. The real perpetrator against rights is government. As will be seen shortly, the UN seeks to undermine the Biblical view of parental rights
As the final ingredient to a nasty recipe, many high ranking leaders of our country believe in Customary International Law. This is an entry point for the philosophy just discussed into our system of law. In simple terms, this means that International Law overrides our Constitution or Congressional law if the majority of other countries already hold to it. For parental rights this means that we should obey the CRC even though we have not ratified it.
One may examine the US Supreme Court Case of Roper v. Simmons in which the CRC was used to rule against the juvenile death penalty. My concern lies not with the death penalty, but with the use of the CRC to argue against it based on Customary International Law. Another example is a judge in NY and another in Ohio has even used the CRC to rule in cases involving American parents. This is another example of using customary international law although the Ohio judge simply thought that we had already ratified the CRC. If that is not irritating enough, San Francisco, Portland, OR, and Berkeley have adopted CRC (without legal jurisdiction to adopt treaties).
You should also be aware that very high ranking officials in the US Justice Department and the State Department believe this theory of law. Harold Koh believes this as a high ranking State Dept. lawyer. David Ogden -- deputy attorney general of the United States, the second highest position in the Justice Department also holds to this philosophy.
And last but not least, not only does our new Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor believe in the supremacy of international law, but so does our current tentative appointee, Elena Kagan. So you can see that the leaders entrusted to defend us and our law, don’t believe in defending us, but instead surrendering our freedoms to international law. If these leaders and their followers have their way, the CRC will probably become part of American law without Senate ratification through Customary International Law.
Obviously, while the first two philosophies combine to pose a great danger to parental rights, the third ingredient simply opens wide the door to their UNWELCOME intrusion and heightens the urgency of a response by American parents.

The Gay Agenda in Schools

A Renew America article from 2006 tells the story of a Massachusetts parent who fought against the public school's refusal to follow state law (Parental Notification Law (M.G.L. Ch. 71, Sec. 32A). Why did he have to go to court in order to force the school to follow state law? The school refused to notify him when his 6 year old's class would be addressing sexuality topics. Imagine, the parent having to force the school to follow the law. Even more strange, but not unexpected, the ACLU fought against him. They fought to protect the rights of teachers to teach about sex and homosexuality (the book "King and King" and other such occurences).

This is the agenda which we must stand against. Occasionally, David's win against Goliath's, but more often these battles require an army of determined parents working in unity. The more we work together, the more probable our victory and the deeper our gain into the enemy's territory. We need your help in the mundane (i.e. forwarding these newsletters and sharing the information with others) and the more sacrificial ways (volunteering as speakers or hosting viewings of "The Child"). Most importantly, we need your constant prayers for all our children's futures.

Board of Education Socializing Children

A past Renew America article caught my attention while searching their archives for parental rights stories. The majority of the article warns us of United Nations' efforts at globalization, but a quote towards the end of the article struck me as very alarming for parents. Although I underlined the quote's most worrisome verbage below, I want to explain the reason for my concern.

This legislation directed the Illinois State Board of Education to develop and to implement a policy aimed at the social and emotional development of children. Furthermore, they were directed to incorporate these standards into the Illinois Learning Standards. They are now guidelines for directing and measuring school's success in educating children. The schools are directed and empowered to direct children's social development. Bureaucrats on the state Board of Education will be deciding how to "socialize" Illinois children. I don't know about you, but this concerns me. May God prevent this from happening in Tennessee (oh my, I don't know that we don't already have this in place???)!


"This In the document of the 94th General Assembly, State of Illinois, 2005 and 2006, HB 1382 amends the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning a children's mental health plan.

It states in Section 5(a) The State of Illinois shall develop a
Children's Mental Health Plan containing short-term and long-term recommendations to provide comprehensive, coordinated mental health prevention, early intervention, and treatment services for children from birth through age 18.

In Section 15(a) Mental health and schools it states that The Illinois State Board of Education shall develop and implement a plan to incorporate social and emotional development standards as part of the Illinois Learning Standards for the purpose of enhancing and measuring children's school readiness and ability to achieve academic success."

For the link to this Illinois public act GO HERE.