Support of Parental Rights Amendment
Recently, I was disturbed to find out the truth behind what the UNCRC (United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child, 1989) could mean if ratified by the United States. If you have heard of this you are probably already know the dangers of the CRC. You may say, “Rights of the child sounds great, what could be wrong with that?”
There are a couple of articles within the CRC that actually do protect children to which the U.S. is already on board. Children are protected from involvement in armed combat (Article 38) and children are legally protected from sexual exploitation (Article 34). This protection is already in place for children in the U.S.
I will list just a few of the dangers that the CRC has in store if ratified. The wording within the CRC speaks of what is best for the child. You may think, I want what is best for my child (and so do I). But the problem is that the government is the one who gets to decide what is best for your child under the CRC. Ultimately under the CRC an 18 person committee from the U.N. is Geneva gets to officially interpret meaning within the articles of the CRC. Their interpretations are “entitled to binding weights in American courts and legislatures” (http://www.parentalrights.org). Yes, you understand right, the CRC would give a committee in Europe the right to make American policy.
Under the CRC, a child who disagrees with his/her parents’ decision, could cause that decision to be reviewed by a government worker just for disagreeing. ParentalRights.org says, “Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent” (emphasis mine). Yes, even abortion is something that the CRC considers best for the child. Parents could not opt their children out of controversial sex education courses, and the CRC committee would determine what content should be taught in these courses regardless of your family’s personal moral beliefs and convictions.
Under the CRC the committee can tell parents how they can educate their children. Including what is taught in public schools and what is taught at home. For example, I couldn’t tell my child that certain behavior is morally wrong if the committee took the opposite position.
The CRC committee would also have the right to tell parents how they can or can’t discipline their children. This includes the use of time-out, grounding or restriction of privileges. While there is much debate about the use of spanking as a discipline measure, there many feel that the use of time-out or grounding is perfectly reasonable. However, according to the Nordic Committee on Human Rights, the Swedish courts have applied the ban broadly, criminalizing everything from slaps on the hand and spankings to “time outs” and sending children to their rooms.
As a result, Swedish parents “negotiate” with their children instead of providing training and discipline. For the parents who choose to buck the trend and brave the risk of training their children, however, the likely outcome is criminal prosecution and punishment at the hands of the state. (parentalrights.org)
Now imagine a place where the government threatens parents with fines, or even jail time, if they refuse to vaccinate their children – all in the name of “watching out” for the best interests of “its” children. Imagine a country that permits doctors to terminate the lives of “deficient” children up to a year old, even without parental consent, for the sake of “a better society”. To find such a place, you need look no further than the nation of Belgium.
The Belgian government’s authority over the health and education of its children is deemed by many as a mark of progress toward a “better society” where children’s rights are properly recognized and protected. Those that satisfy the government’s standards live in peace. For the rest, there is no peace, and sometimes, they are not even allowed to live.
Since 2002, Belgium has allowed doctors to terminate the lives of infants under the age of 12 months if they feel the baby is somehow disabled or deficient, and is likely to suffer in life as a result.14 More than half of the Belgian babies who die before they are a year old are killed by deliberate medical intervention.15 In 16% of cases, parental consent was not even considered.16 To put these numbers in perspective, the CIA World Fact Book estimates that rou
ghly 106,000 babies are born in Belgium each year.17 Even using conservative estimates of Belgium’s rate of “assisted-suicide” in infants, one can estimate that some 470 children will die before they celebrate their first birthday. Of these 470, more than 200 will die not from natural causes, but from direct medical intervention. Forty (40) of them will die regardless of their parents’ wishes, objections, or pleadings. Such a program might produce a “better society,” but one is left in horror at the ultimate sacrifice of innocent babies. (Article written for ParentalRights.org by Peter Kamakawiwoole, Dec. 15, 2008)
Government involvement in decision making for healthcare is supported by the CRC. The CRC would allow someone else to make healthcare decisions for your children and grandchildren, with or without your consent. All in the name of “the best interest of the child” and that “best interest” is determined not by you, the parent or grandparent, but by the CRC committee. Remember the committee that gets to decide what is in the best interest of your child is made of 18 people in Geneva who live in some of the countries who make these laws.
The reason to act now is that President Obama has publicly shown support of the CRC and is intent upon its ratification. To make the CRC law, all that must take place is for the President to sign it and receive 2/3 vote in the Senate. If you think action needs to be taken to ensure that the CRC does not become law, please visit www.parentalrights.org. Please contact your Senator today and ask them to support S.R. 99 and add your name to the petition in support of the Parental Rights Amendment. Please consider if you want the state (or U.N. Committee) deciding what is best for your children or grandchildren.
Thank you,
Kerry Rosfeld
