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.”
Monday, August 8, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
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.
Read the entire story HERE.
Monday, August 1, 2011
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
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
Thursday, July 21, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Stimulus Money for Education
I find information from a number of sites for this newsletter and usually summarize them before inviting you to read further at your leisure with a link. This time I will only provide a teaser riddle and a link to the full story.
How much brainwashing can be purchased in Nebraska with $130,000 of Obama's stimulus money? GO HERE to find out!
How much brainwashing can be purchased in Nebraska with $130,000 of Obama's stimulus money? GO HERE to find out!
Friday, July 15, 2011
Homosexual Role Models in Textbooks
Have you ever wondered who decides how material is chosen for inclusion into school textbooks? There is so much for children to learn, yet so little time. Who is the all knowing wizard that selects or rejects each bit of information for these textbooks which are then spread across 50 states to "educate" the children of our great nation. I am no expert on this issue, but what I have heard as the answer to this question does not surprise me one bit. As the largest states, Texas and California's educational systems determine what information is included in textbooks. If the textbook producers want to sell their textbooks, California and Texas are the two biggest customers. Always please the customer, especially the big ones!
Who cares? Why write an article about this? Well, it goes like this. The California Senate passes Senate Bill 48 that requires that textbooks includes teaching about homosexual figures in the social studies classes. (the so-called FAIR Education bill also prohibits the inclusion of "homophobic" material in the historical lessons of books). If the governor signs the bill, then California will need textbooks with positively portrayed homosexual figures included in social studies books. Book publishers will produce the books and sell them to California as well as across the nation. Abracadabra and there you have homosexuality dressed up for our nation's school children.
In a LifeSite.News article, Archbishop Jose Gomez from Los Angeles had this to say about the bill:
"...forcing schoolchildren to learn about historical figures and their sexual orientation without parental consent "amounts to the government rewriting history books based on pressure-group politics. It is also another example of the government interfering with parents' rights to be their children's primary educators." "
I am thankful that we homeschool and therefore do not need such textbooks, but maybe you know someone whose children attend public schools and need to know about this story. Consider passing it on to them and start a discussion about this threat to our children's moral future.
Who cares? Why write an article about this? Well, it goes like this. The California Senate passes Senate Bill 48 that requires that textbooks includes teaching about homosexual figures in the social studies classes. (the so-called FAIR Education bill also prohibits the inclusion of "homophobic" material in the historical lessons of books). If the governor signs the bill, then California will need textbooks with positively portrayed homosexual figures included in social studies books. Book publishers will produce the books and sell them to California as well as across the nation. Abracadabra and there you have homosexuality dressed up for our nation's school children.
In a LifeSite.News article, Archbishop Jose Gomez from Los Angeles had this to say about the bill:
"...forcing schoolchildren to learn about historical figures and their sexual orientation without parental consent "amounts to the government rewriting history books based on pressure-group politics. It is also another example of the government interfering with parents' rights to be their children's primary educators." "
I am thankful that we homeschool and therefore do not need such textbooks, but maybe you know someone whose children attend public schools and need to know about this story. Consider passing it on to them and start a discussion about this threat to our children's moral future.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Sexual Freedom and Your Child
The International Planned Parenthood Federation has released some alarming new educational material concerning the sexual rights of youths according to international law. "Exclaim!" and "I Decide" have been released as the the UN Youth conference is nearing and provide some scary insights into what Planned Parenthood believes is best for our children. I am printing out Exclaim for closer reading as I type this, but a LifeNews article, which is what originally sparked my curiosity, provided some initial understanding of this sexual indoctrination propaganda.
Here is a quote from the article describing Exclaim!
"The guide also contains some self-contradictions. It cites the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,Article 5 that states, "Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents." However, the guide insists that parents and the State are legally responsible for promoting a worldview and values that are held distinctively by IPPF. The guide demands liberalized abortion, self-identified (rather than biological) gender on identification papers, unrestricted access to contraceptives, and various other contentious claims."
The article also describes how Exclaim! uses the Convention on the Rights of the Child to promote sexual rights for youth:
"Although no right to sex or sexual pleasure exists in binding international documents, the guide goes through a list of human rights found in international law and explains how they can be read as sexual rights. Under the "right to know and learn" includes "bringing an end to abstinence-only sex education programs and promoting evidence informed approaches to comprehensive sexuality education.""
After reading Exclaim! and I Decide, I hope to provide further insight into these horrendous educational instruments. STAY TUNED!
Here is a quote from the article describing Exclaim!
"The guide also contains some self-contradictions. It cites the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,Article 5 that states, "Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents." However, the guide insists that parents and the State are legally responsible for promoting a worldview and values that are held distinctively by IPPF. The guide demands liberalized abortion, self-identified (rather than biological) gender on identification papers, unrestricted access to contraceptives, and various other contentious claims."
The article also describes how Exclaim! uses the Convention on the Rights of the Child to promote sexual rights for youth:
"Although no right to sex or sexual pleasure exists in binding international documents, the guide goes through a list of human rights found in international law and explains how they can be read as sexual rights. Under the "right to know and learn" includes "bringing an end to abstinence-only sex education programs and promoting evidence informed approaches to comprehensive sexuality education.""
After reading Exclaim! and I Decide, I hope to provide further insight into these horrendous educational instruments. STAY TUNED!
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
ACTION ITEM FROM THE NATIONAL OFFICE
In preparation for the launch of our summer campaign, we now need to recruit a "social networking army". If you blog, tweet, post, and so forth, we will need your help this summer. (If this sounds like Greek to you, relax - we will find you something else to do!)
To Join our social networking army, use the followling links to connect to us (or email the national office at Michael@parentalrights.org)
Facebook Fan Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/parentalrightsorg
Twitter feed: http://www.twitter.com/ParentalRights
Squidoo Lens: http://www.squidoo.com/supporting-the-u-s-parental-rights-amendment
RSS Feed: http://www.10and2.org/feed2.xml
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
To Join our social networking army, use the followling links to connect to us (or email the national office at Michael@parentalrights.org)
Facebook Fan Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/parentalrightsorg
Twitter feed: http://www.twitter.com/ParentalRights
Squidoo Lens: http://www.squidoo.com/supporting-the-u-s-parental-rights-amendment
RSS Feed: http://www.10and2.org/feed2.xml
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Canada's Attempt To Develop A Universal Early Learning and Child Care Program Based On UN CRC
According to Martha Friendly with the Childcare Resource and Research Unit at University of Toronto, as of 2006, Canada still needed to be more dedicated to finding ways to commit to the UN CRC as it relates to early learning and child care. She feels that the sections of the UN CRC relevant to early learning should be followed in the most dedicated ways by the Canadian government. In her opinion, the federal and provincial governments need to regulate all early learning programs in order to provide the elements needed for all children. For children are citizens who and have rights and voices that need to be respected. She feels that Canada needs to develop a system for a universal high quality early learning and child care program.
Ms. Friendly covers the political history of early learning and child care throughout Canada and points out the specific areas of the UN CRC that pertain to it. She includes numerous statistics and a variety of quotes from research that appear to support her argument. From her vantage point, there does not appear to be any negative elements for Canada (and the rest of the world) to fully support the UN CRC when it comes to caring and educating young children.
What if this attitude was acted upon here in the United States? There are already people in powerful political positions who feel that the UN CRC is an ideal and much needed aspect for our lives. Can you imagine the enormous financial impact that a national state-supported child care program could have on us here in our nation? As if we don't have enough on our debt plates as it is. And if the program is federally funded, then we would be required to follow whatever requirements it entailed. That in itself is a very scary thought. Another example of the government knowing how to raise our children better than us, their parents.
(by John Robinson, contributing author)
Ms. Friendly covers the political history of early learning and child care throughout Canada and points out the specific areas of the UN CRC that pertain to it. She includes numerous statistics and a variety of quotes from research that appear to support her argument. From her vantage point, there does not appear to be any negative elements for Canada (and the rest of the world) to fully support the UN CRC when it comes to caring and educating young children.
What if this attitude was acted upon here in the United States? There are already people in powerful political positions who feel that the UN CRC is an ideal and much needed aspect for our lives. Can you imagine the enormous financial impact that a national state-supported child care program could have on us here in our nation? As if we don't have enough on our debt plates as it is. And if the program is federally funded, then we would be required to follow whatever requirements it entailed. That in itself is a very scary thought. Another example of the government knowing how to raise our children better than us, their parents.
(by John Robinson, contributing author)
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
No Oversight for Judicial Bypass that Allows Adolescent Abortions
Lifenews reported recently on an attempt by Texas Right to Life to close the judicial bypass loophole for pregnant adolescents to easily obtain an abortion. House bill 2555 by Representative Fred Brown (R-College Station) was intended to strengthen parental involvement in adolescent pregnancies through removal of the judicial bypass procedure and strengthening parental notification law. The 82nd Legistlative Session adjourned without acting as key members of the legislature "are not convinced that the state paying for counsel to help minors undergo secret abortions is a problem.
In reading this article, something else jumped out at me besides the failure to pass this legislation. This judicial bypass procedure for adolescent girls to obtain an abortion is "the only court proceeding not reported or tracked by the state's Office of Court Administration (OCA)." Without such tracking, we do not know how many bypasses are sought, denied, nor how are these decisions made? It all happens in a proverbial dark alley with no way to review or study the process and its outcomes. We don't even know the cost which taxpayers are paying for attorneys, fees, etc. Are these bypasses always granted is another question that remains unanswered?
Ultimately, children are moved through a process that impacts their long term emotional, physical, and spiritual well being, yet we have no way of knowing any statistics that would allow us to measure such impact. Somehow, I amsure they they want us to buy the line that this is all done in the "best interest of the child". Sorry, I just don't believe it!
Read the entire story HERE.
In reading this article, something else jumped out at me besides the failure to pass this legislation. This judicial bypass procedure for adolescent girls to obtain an abortion is "the only court proceeding not reported or tracked by the state's Office of Court Administration (OCA)." Without such tracking, we do not know how many bypasses are sought, denied, nor how are these decisions made? It all happens in a proverbial dark alley with no way to review or study the process and its outcomes. We don't even know the cost which taxpayers are paying for attorneys, fees, etc. Are these bypasses always granted is another question that remains unanswered?
Ultimately, children are moved through a process that impacts their long term emotional, physical, and spiritual well being, yet we have no way of knowing any statistics that would allow us to measure such impact. Somehow, I amsure they they want us to buy the line that this is all done in the "best interest of the child". Sorry, I just don't believe it!
Read the entire story HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)