# Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Have you heard about HSLDA wanting to do this? www.hslda.org

If you just look at their perspective on parent's rights, I think it's a really good thing.

Just wanted to let others know.

Besides HSing being protected, it would protect families from other things, like forced third-party visitation (grandparents "rights") which is really important to me.


----------



## HikeYosemite (Jan 21, 2006)

How does HSLDA propose to draft such an amendment? I had to dig through a lot of rhetoric about how gay marriage is threatening us (in light of truly serious but ignored threats like global warming, I don't see how gay marriage can be called a "threat"--or what it has to do with parental rights), and how the government is going to mandate the teaching of religious tolerance, to find these two proposals by Mike Farris:

Section 1. The God-given right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right which may not be abridged by the United States or any state.

Section 2. The balancing test applicable to other fundamental rights may be used to balance a claim of parental rights provided that the government establishes its interest by proper evidence in each case.

I agree that it gets complicated if the government starts telling people they can't raise their children with their own beliefs, but I am always concerned and suspicious about HSLDA legislation because of their extreme-right bias.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
Have you heard about HSLDA wanting to do this? www.hslda.org

If you just look at their perspective on parent's rights, I think it's a really good thing.

Just wanted to let others know.

Besides HSing being protected, it would protect families from other things, like forced third-party visitation (grandparents "rights") which is really important to me.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Terrifying right-wing, fundamentalist Christian agenda.
As much as I support home-schoolers, I would fight tooth and claw to keep that out of our constitution. I don't want to live in a Christian theocracy, thank you very much.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Asherah,

Just honestly trying to understand... what do you see as negative about the words:

"Section 1. The God-given right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right which may not be abridged by the United States or any state.

Section 2. The balancing test applicable to other fundamental rights may be used to balance a claim of parental rights provided that the government establishes its interest by proper evidence in each case."

being added to the Constitution?

Is it because it mentions God? I mean, God is already mentioned in the Constitution as it is, so I really don't see what is bad about parental rights. I *want* parental rights. I want my children to assured the right to HS their own children. I don't want a court to be able to over-ride my decisions as a fit parent just because they don't agree, whether it's HS, HB, vax, third-party visitaion, or whatever. I would think an AP parent would really understand that.

Just because HSLDA might be seen negatively in other areas, I don't think it negates the good they are doing for parents and familes here.

I also don't see what putting parental rights in the Const. has to do wth a theocracy. It gives parents rights to raise their own children, no matter their religion.

Sorry, I just don't understand your views.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

HSLDA has no intention of adding any protections from governmental interference in my family. In fact, they work to undermine it.

The Supreme Court ruled against permissive grandparent rights in 2000.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa060500d.htm


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

chfriend,
How do they work to undermind gov't interference in you family?
Just trying to understand...

Thank you for the link.
I know what the USSC did and I am very thankful.
However, it did not solve the whole problem.
You can go to www.parentsrights.org today and read the message board. Parents are still being sued by third parties today in many states. Not that long ago, there was a media circus because a judge told a mom she couldn't move away from the grandmother, because the grandmother had visitation "rights."


----------



## Eris (Sep 11, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
Is it because it mentions God? I mean, God is already mentioned in the Constitution as it is

I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, in fact my knowledge in this area is woefully limited, but my attempts at a search through the full text of the consititution and its ammendments doesn't seem to find the word "god"- can you tell me where god is mentioned?


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Yk, I just honesty always thought God was mentioned in there. If he's not, my mistake. I was a good student and went to public school and 2.5 years of college, and apparently never really studied the Const. in all that time.
That isn't really the point of what I am saying though. I was trying to say that parental rights are a good thing, something I thought HSers would be in favor of. But I guess I am alone in thinking this here. So anyway, maybe it is just time for me to bow out on this thread. I didn't really come here to debate it, just to let others know.


----------



## Lillian J (Mar 24, 2005)

Love, you cand find a lot in answer to your question on this page:
http://www.homeschoolingislegal.info/

; ) - Lillian


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:

Terrifying right-wing, fundamentalist Christian agenda.
As much as I support home-schoolers, I would fight tooth and claw to keep that out of our constitution. I don't want to live in a Christian theocracy, thank you very much.
I must say that I do not understand this response. I do not understand why any parent, whether christian or not, would want to risk losing their rights to decide how their children are raised and educated, etc... It appears to me that this UN treaty could be risky for any parent.

Tina


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

I think the HSLDA and their conservative Christian fellows are coming at the topic of parental rights from a patriarchal outlook in which children are considered the property of their parents (and especially their fathers).

When people with this outlook raise the question of parental rights, they typically frame it in this way: "Whose kids are they, yours or the state's?" Or they might say, "Who knows better about how to raise your kid, you or the state?" In various ways, they frame the question as either the parent or the state having ownership of the child. Almost everyone rejects the idea that the state should "own" children, and so it seems hard to argue with the HSLDA (and their conservative Christian fellows). When they frame the conflict that way, their point of view seems obviously correct.

But if you consider children to be citizens with rights, rather than the property of their parents, then you might frame the question an entirely different way. You might ask, "Do children have any rights that their parents are obliged not to violate?" You might frame the fundamental conflict, not as being about parents' rights vs. the state's rights, but as parents' rights vs. children's rights. When the question is put that way, suddenly the question of whether parents should absolutely be able to raise their kids any way they see fit seems more complicated.

For example:
- Do parents have the right to withhold food as a punishment?
- Do parents have the right to discipline their child with a belt or paddle?
- Do parents have the right to require their children to work for wages that the parents will keep?
- Do parents have the right to prevent their children from accessing information that the parents disagree with?
- Do parents have the right to deny their children medical treatment?
- Do parents have the right to deny girls an education?
- Do parents have the right to send their gay teenagers to a locked psychiatric hospital in order to attempt a forced "conversion"?
- Do parents have the right to sever their children's relationships with others?
- Do parents have the right to marry off their minor children without those children's consent?

When you look at those questions instead of questions like homeschooling, homebirth, etc., doesn't the issue of parental rights start sounding more complicated?


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
Have you heard about HSLDA wanting to do this? www.hslda.org

If you just look at their perspective on parent's rights, I think it's a really good thing.

Just wanted to let others know.

Besides HSing being protected, it would protect families from other things, like forced third-party visitation (grandparents "rights") which is really important to me.

In theory, I understand it. Especially the grandparents part you mentioned. But I think chfriend put that straight.

But also, the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the society (who said that?). I would NOT support anything that said God in it to be added into our Constitution, personally.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
But also, the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the society (who said that?). I would NOT support anything that said God in it to be added into our Constitution, personally.

I'm a bit confused, so bear with me.  I get lost when it comes to legal things.

First of all, would it be a law??? I thought I understood it to be adding to our RIGHTS not laws. Also I did not ever see that they were trying to add "God" into the constitution. Instead I understood that it would be worded something like: "Parental rights are a FUNDAMENTAL right" such as the right to life, expression, etc...


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Rivka5,

I see what you are saying about the parents' rights vs. childrens' rights. But I also can see where it all can be taken too far and that is what scares me personally. I already do many things that are against what the government and society in general believes. I home birth in a state where there is no legal protection for midwives, I do not vaccinate, I homeschool, we share a family bed, etc... What concerns me is that the signing of this treaty as I understand it could actually end up risking the lives and health (both mentally, emotionally, and physically) of my children. One of the questions in your list was about refusing medical treatment and this one means a lot to me. I treat MOST things here at home with natural things such as diet, herbs, homeopathics, etc... If my children to ever be diagnosed with cancer, I would NOT allow them to receive chemo or radiation, but instead would treat it naturally also. There have already been cases invovling exactly this, where even the child did not want to endure these dangerous treatments either, but the parents were taken to court and FORCED to FORCE them onto the child. This is an example of the government takeing away teh rights of both parent and child. And this could happen many times over with many other situations if this treaty is signed (I believe).

I have also heard stories such as this one where a 13 year old girl was caught doing drugs and was grounded (not spanked or otherwise harshly punished) and she, with the help of the state, took her parents to court over it and got herself removed from the home and put into foster care.

I also wanted to mention that I am a Christian yet I DO NOT believe that I OWN my children. I also do not know of any other Christians that think that way. I do believe that I know my children best and that NO ONE else can give them what I can give them or knows better what they need or do not need. I have very little trust in our government and absolutley DO NOT want them having any say in how I should raise and care for these children I have been blessed with. Their motives would never be out of LOVE for my child. I do not even believe that they would ever truly be motivated by what is BEST for the child as they might say they are. Look at vaccines, food production, etc... They are primarily motivated by money and power even if it means much harm being done to our children and our world...but that is a WHOLE other subject! 

Tina


----------



## Helen_A (Mar 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *t-elaine* 
I must say that I do not understand this response. I do not understand why any parent, whether christian or not, would want to risk losing their rights to decide how their children are raised and educated, etc... It appears to me that this UN treaty could be risky for any parent.

Tina









Here in the UK we are facing this very thing - and our govt. is usually considered a long way to the left of the USA. ATM the parents responsibilty for education is enshrined in law, and is used a lot as a get out clause when state schooling screws up. They are proposing changes to the law here that will make the LEA (our equivalent of the school board, but unelected) responsible for education.... bringing into line the law with what certain officials do anyway :-( until they screw up etc.. see above.

As we don't have a constitution we don't have many of the protections that you enjoy in the USA. This has its upsides as well, but parents becoming breeders for the purposes if the state (in effect anyway) ?????


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
I think the HSLDA and their conservative Christian fellows are coming at the topic of parental rights from a patriarchal outlook in which children are considered the property of their parents (and especially their fathers).

Whoa. Where do you get that theory from? Property?!!!!


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

I really hate to see it phrased as "children's rights vs. parent's rights." It is not me vs. my children. I love my children and want what is best for them.

What this amendment will prevent, IMO, is the state saying what they want for my kids is more important than what I know is best for my kids. Examples:
We homeschooled, but not anymore because now my children have a "right" to an "education."
We used to homebirth, but now my babies have the "right" to "medical care."
On and on and on.

In Rivka5's post- some of your examples are abuse, and that is obviously illegal and will stay illegal. HSLDA says they don't want people to have the "right" to do anything with their kids.
This amendent is just about what HSLDA fights for- the true rights to HS, not vax, not force third-party visitation on the family, etc. They just want parent's rights to be fundamental, so we can keep our freedoms as families.

Also, I am a Christian, and I do NOT believe I "own" my children. I have never met a Christian who felt that way. Christians generally believe we are stewards of things, that we don't "own" anything really... everything belongs to God and should be treated as such.

I am sure there will always be differences... My neighbors are glad they have the right to spank their children, I am glad I have the right to keep my abusive parents away from my children, others are glad they have the right to unschool and refuse medical treatment.... We all might see each others as abusive ("How could they spank?!" or "How could they deny their children vaccines?!" or "It should be illegal to unschool!!") but if don't protect parental right as a whole, we may not have them at all, and that goes for us Mothering-types as well.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *t-elaine* 
I'm a bit confused, so bear with me.  I get lost when it comes to legal things.

First of all, would it be a law??? I thought I understood it to be adding to our RIGHTS not laws. Also I did not ever see that they were trying to add "God" into the constitution. Instead I understood that it would be worded something like: "Parental rights are a FUNDAMENTAL right" such as the right to life, expression, etc...

See post #4 for the wording. Rights or no rights, people use every word in that constitution to make new laws and use it as law.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

- Do parents have the right to sever their children's relationships with others?
Absolutely, when the parents feel that said relationships are harmful to the child. There was an article in Parents magazine several months ago about a grandfather who had sexually abused the mother as a child sucessfully suing for "visitation rights." The government had no place in that.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Absolutely, when the parents feel that said relationships are harmful to the child. There was an article in Parents magazine several months ago about a grandfather who had sexually abused the mother as a child sucessfully suing for "visitation rights." The government had no place in that.

I can't agree enough with this.









Forced third-party visitation can be down right evil.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 

When you look at those questions instead of questions like homeschooling, homebirth, etc., doesn't the issue of parental rights start sounding more complicated?

But if we start losing our rights as parents, don't you see what a slippery slope it is for all our parental rights?

It's not like they are going to ask you what ones you personally want to keep.

Once the gov't starts making these decisions for us, where will they stop?

I don't think the questions you listed are all bad. For instance, yes- parents should be able to decide what info their kids have access to. Do I want my five-year-old to have a "right" to read about Hitler, or my nine-year-old have the "right" to view porn? Amish kids suing their parents because they the "right" to the info on the internet...







: I could go on... but it's late.


----------



## Callimom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
But if we start losing our rights as parents, don't you see what a slippery slope it is for all our parental rights?

It's not like they are going to ask you what ones you personally want to keep.

Once the gov't starts making these decisions for us, where will they stop?


Given your current goverment, I'm not sure that even having these things enshrined in your constitution would help. You might be better off trying to elect a government that has basic respect for it's people. I am exceedingly grateful that I live in Canada - and never more so than during W.'s administration.

I personally would not want the HSLDA to speak for me on any issues, but most especially ones related to the family. They have incredibly UNfriendly agendas towards parents, children and I would venture to say also against any homeschoolers who do not identify as right wing christian fundamentalists.

Karen


----------



## Eris (Sep 11, 2002)

I don't think Rivka5's list of questions to consider was meant to be all obvious answers (much less all obviously "no" answers)- her point, at least as I took it, was that these are much fuzzier questions, but highly relevant to the question of "parents' rights (or not) to control their children" (and "children's rights to self-determination") and that any given person is likely to see more sides of each of them, and of them as a whole, and should then perhaps see that the question, when looked at from some other points of view, of parents rights (vs. state rights, vs. children's rights), is, as she said, much more complicated.


----------



## Mama2-4 (Apr 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Absolutely, when the parents feel that said relationships are harmful to the child. There was an article in Parents magazine several months ago about a grandfather who had sexually abused the mother as a child sucessfully suying for "visitation rights." The government had no place in that.

This is the exact point! I am in the middle of a 1.5 year legal battle that has cost my husband and me over 60 K at this point and it only keeps going up. We are battling my parents who decided to sue us to see our kids.

We are fit parents and have decided that they are not appropriate role models for our kids and we do not want to have anything to do with them. Hence, they take us to court! This is all supposed to be happening in the best interest of the child, but who knows better of the best interest of their child than his/her own parents, certainly not the state!!

Parental rights are in danger. How can Grandparent Rights (I hate to use that terminology, as I feel they have NO rights, being a GP is a privilege not a right) trump parental rights? Well, so far in my case the GP's have more rights than we do!!


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Mom2-3,

So what are the laws in NY as far as third-parties forcing visitation on parents?

It is such an awful thing, even harder for an AP family, I am sure! I am truly sorry you are going thru that.

If you don't mind saying, what happened? How is it going?

My parents used to threaten to sue us for "rights" to our DC because they hated the way we were raising them. The irony is that my parents were actually extremely abusive in several ways, but they thought DH and I were 'ruining' our children with such awful things as BFing (at a few months old).
I can not explain the fear and dispair I went through as a mother, thinking the courts might tell me to give my DC over to them alone!!! I became a Christian from going thru that ordeal, and God has truly protected my family!

I know that some here don't understand why parent's rights are important.

It is one of those things one may not truly understand the worth of, until it is taken from them.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Personally, I am very suspicious of the "parents' rights" movement. I do believe that parents should have more-or-less unchecked authority regarding their kids' education, medical care, discipline (short of abuse), religious practices, and the like, but the "parents' rights" movement seems (in my understanding) to be less about those things and more about specific practices of a certain subculture. HSLDA actively opposes, for example, parents' rights of gay parents. They actively oppose parents' rights of parents who do choose public schools. So, yes, I support parents' rights, but not as interpreted by the organized "parents' rights" movement through organizations like HSLDA.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna* 
HSLDA actively opposes, for example, parents' rights of gay parents. They actively oppose parents' rights of parents who do choose public schools. So, yes, I support parents' rights, but not as interpreted by the organized "parents' rights" movement through organizations like HSLDA.


This wording of this amendment is for ALL parents.
The amendment would not be anti-gay or anti-public school at all.

(BTW, how do they fight against public school parents?)

I actually know of a gay man in politics who is in favor of parent's rights, like this amendment (and public school is one of his pet causes). I haven't asked, but I think the reason he likes the amendment is because it will recoginize him as a parent and not let his rights be trampled by third-parties, etc, just because he is not in a 'traditional' family.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

I do not see anything in the wording that would take AWAY a right from any parent.

I too am wondering how HSLDA fights against the rights of public schooling families. Actually, to the contrary, I have read articles at their site in which they are supporting the rights of parents whose children are public schooled. For example when parents are protesting the teaching of early sex education as well as others.

One other thought, why does it matter WHERE exactly a movement like this one begins? For example, I may not fully agree with a certain person on everything they believe, but if they are calling on people to support a just cause, I would still be a part of it. Why does it matter if HSLDA is the one spear heading this campaign and you disagree with some background stance that they take. This cause is still important to ALL parents, whether christian or not, whether homeschooling or not, whether attachment parenting or not, etc... Supporting this cause does not automatically "connect" anyone with HSLDA, only with this specific cause.

On that note, if more people could put aside their differences and work TOGETHER on things that they CAN agree on, this world would be a much better and peacuful place!









Tina


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I understand that this amendment isn't necessarily connected to HSLDA, but I'm concerned about the implications of it regarding things like protection from child abuse, and the fact that it's HSLDA-backed doesn't reassure me.


----------



## papayapetunia (Feb 6, 2006)

I hate to break it to you all, but parents' rights are already fundamental ones, constitutionally protected and everything. I'm pulling this from a brief I wrote a year ago, so I guess I'm quoting myself in it, but I cited the proper cases and constitutional references if you feel the need to look them up. The case I worked on was for a family whose kids were taken away for false abuse allegations, but the dept. kept the kids after the allegations were proven false because of homeschooling issues.

"It is well-established that parental rights are of a constitutional dimension. The United States Supreme Court has stated that:

[t]he integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). See also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring). Accordingly, the "rights [] to raise one's children" are "essential, . . . basic civil rights of man" protected by the United States Constitution. Id. The Court has affirmed that a parent's desire for "the . . . custody of his or her children . . . undeniably warrants deference, and absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). *Truly, "the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children . . . is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the United States Supreme Court]."* Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality opinion). "


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna* 
I understand that this amendment isn't necessarily connected to HSLDA, but I'm concerned about the implications of it regarding things like protection from child abuse, and the fact that it's HSLDA-backed doesn't reassure me.

If you read what HSLDA says about this amendment, they are the first to say it 'does not give parents the right to do anything to their children' and that HSLDA does not want that. It just puts parent's rights on the same level as other rights, like freedom of speech.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *papayapetunia* 
I hate to break it to you all, but parents' rights are already fundamental ones, constitutionally protected and everything.

Not necessarily - yes some court cases were ruled this way - but because there is no SPECIFIC wording regarding parental rights in the constitution it is a topic that is subject to interpretation and could some day (and maybe not that far off) be interpretted differently. Already there have been MANY cases at state levels where the parents rights were not recognized. I do not want to risk my rights as a the parent to my children being undermined in any way and therefore I am in total support of this cause.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna* 
I understand that this amendment isn't necessarily connected to HSLDA, but I'm concerned about the implications of it regarding things like protection from child abuse, and the fact that it's HSLDA-backed doesn't reassure me.

I was going to comment too, but Love already did.
Since child abuse would still be against the law it would not be protected. Plus - since this IS about Parental Rights vs. the government's control instead of Parent's Rights vs Child's rights, it would not allow abuse either.


----------



## SunShineSally (Jan 18, 2005)

It is in the constituton BUT I am fighting Grandparents in court I actually go back in the 16th (please keep us in your thoughts) I NEVER denied visits all I ever said was I wanted to get to know them befor they took my son with out me present and I have been in court at lease evry other month for the past year ans maybe 4 times in the year befor that and my son is not even 3 yet so really we do need more protection for our rights as parents the GF even said I was a wonderful mother and I was doing what I felt was in _my_ childs best interest but he has his grandparents visitation rights so we are and have been in court for what feels like a lifetime and it has been my childs lifetime!! now where are mine and my childs rights here??? I fully and 100% back the HSLDA parents need more protection and support from the gov. these children are not theirs to determind how they are schooled who they see or what type or medical treatment they are given if a parents is a fit and loving mother or father the state and third parties need to be kept and bay and back off. I am sorry if this post aound harsh or mean but I am a little annoyed and upset since i have a court date coming up with my parental rights on the line! and they way that the GPrights are written a judge can rule in their favor







hopefully it will be a win for my child and myself. Troxell does not apply in every state (I may be wrong but I am almost 100% sure of it)

JA'sMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *papayapetunia* 
I hate to break it to you all, but parents' rights are already fundamental ones, constitutionally protected and everything. I'm pulling this from a brief I wrote a year ago, so I guess I'm quoting myself in it, but I cited the proper cases and constitutional references if you feel the need to look them up. The case I worked on was for a family whose kids were taken away for false abuse allegations, but the dept. kept the kids after the allegations were proven false because of homeschooling issues.

"It is well-established that parental rights are of a constitutional dimension. The United States Supreme Court has stated that:

[t]he integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). See also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring). Accordingly, the "rights [] to raise one's children" are "essential, . . . basic civil rights of man" protected by the United States Constitution. Id. The Court has affirmed that a parent's desire for "the . . . custody of his or her children . . . undeniably warrants deference, and absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). *Truly, "the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children . . . is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the United States Supreme Court]."* Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality opinion). "


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

papayapetunia, oh I am so glad to see a lawyer here!

I am so glad you defended those parents.

The way I understand it, is that HSLDA is concerned that parental rights, at this point, are only protected by _how the courts perceive them_, since parental rights are not explicitly mentioned in the contitution. So, today the case law protects parental rights for the most part, but HSLDA believes those rights are being eroded over time, and so the only real solution is an amendment.

I know you may not totally agree, but do you understand what I am trying to say?

I mean, just go look at the New York state third-party visitation statue. A court can basicly intervene in a fit, intact family at any time, and order visitation against both parent's desires. How does that protect a parent's 'fundamental' right?

Just go to www.parentsrights.org to read what fit parents are going thru today. Or ask mom2-3 here.

There are many examples like that. Does anyone remember a year or so ago, the media coverage on the judge that would not allow a mother to move to her new job, because the grandmother had visitation rights and didn't want them to move? These things happen and are real. Can you imagine the emotionial trauma to the family, not to mention the financial hardship from the court battle?

Several months ago (I was told) that Parenting or Parents magazine did an article on a mother who was molested by her father as a child, and the court ordered her own daughter to have visitation with the man anyway, obviously against the mother's wishes.

These are just the third-party visitation issues. HSLDA is also very concerned with parent's rights to HS, parent's right to not vax, etc. These choices are all parent's rights issues.

papayapetunia, maybe you can explain it to me... but how can a right be fundamental if it is not in the constitution? and if parental rights are fundamental, why are all the things I mentioned happening today, after the USSC decided on Troxel?


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JA'sMama* 
It is in the constituton BUT I am fighting Grandparents in court I actually go back in the 16th (please keep us in your thoughts) I NEVER denied visits all I ever said was I wanted to get to know them befor they took my son with out me present and I have been in court at lease evry other month for the past year ans maybe 4 times in the year befor that and my son is not even 3 yet so really we do need more protection for our rights as parents the GF even said I was a wonderful mother and I was doing what I felt was in _my_ childs best interest but he has his grandparents visitation rights so we are and have been in court for what feels like a lifetime and it has been my childs lifetime!! now where are mine and my childs rights here??? I fully and 100% back the HSLDA parents need more protection and support from the gov. these children are not theirs to determind how they are schooled who they see or what type or medical treatment they are given if a parents is a fit and loving mother or father the state and third parties need to be kept and bay and back off. I am sorry if this post aound harsh or mean but I am a little annoyed and upset since i have a court date coming up with my parental rights on the line! and they way that the GPrights are written a judge can rule in their favor







hopefully it will be a win for my child and myself. Troxell does not apply in every state (I may be wrong but I am almost 100% sure of it)

JA'sMama


I am SOOOOOOOOO sorry you are going thru this!!!







s

Troxel should apply to all states. But the states and courts are allowed to interpet things how they want to, and therein lies the problem.

Do you go to www.parentsrights.org? The people on their message board are great.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

dupe post, sorry my comp went crazy for a minute...


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

dupe post


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

I had to add this. I was reading on the internet about groups that are anti-parent's rights. Not a direct quote, but here is basicly what they said:

'parent's rights are not absolute. forced third-party visitation is allowed because it infringes only slightly on those rights, much the same as how all parents are required to send their children to school and are required to immunize their children.'

See the weird (incorrect) logic and the slippery slope?
*That* is what HSLDA is trying to stop here.

If they are doing this today (third party visitation) what will our children have to deal with when they are parents?!

Hmmm, maybe this should be in parenting.


----------



## papayapetunia (Feb 6, 2006)

Can't write out a long reply here, but fundamental rights are not absolute rights. It's just that there is a different test to determine whether a fundamental right has been violated. If the right is fundamental, and the government wants to intrude upon that right, then they have to pass a strict scrutiny test - compelling government interest + least restrictive means necessary to accomplish that interest. So just like we can have restrictions upon fundamental free speech rights, we can have restrictions upon fundamental parental rights. They just have to pass a stricter test. Where there are less important rights at stake, the test is simply whether there is some rational basis to justify whatever is going on.

The problem with grandparents' rights seems to me to be more about the government seeing the grandparent-child relationship as a compelling government interest, than of a decline in parents' rights. Parents' rights are fundamental, that can't change.

I honestly feel that HSLDA uses these scare tactics to make their organization seem more important.







:


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Moved to Parenting Issues...

Dar


----------



## Mama2-4 (Apr 5, 2006)

I am also involved in a very heated 1.5 year grandparent visitation battle. It has been a nightmare for my husband and me and our 3 children. We live in NY and the litigating grandparents live in WI. They continue to threaten us with court action if they do not have things just as they want them.

My husband and I severed the relationship with them 3.5 years ago, we feel they are inappropriate role models for our children and have been historically physically and emotionally abusive to me. They are very controlling and manipulative and after 10 years of this in our married lives we said enough and left the family. They can not accept our decision and as a result have brought about legal action. So, we are now $60K+ in debt from this battle and it does not look like there is an end in sight yet. IMHO there is something terribly wrong with a parent that decides the best way to approach having a relationship with their grandkids is by suing their parents...their rational is that "we left them no choice". They never accept any responsibility for their actions and always pass the blame onto someone else, a huge part of the problem!

Parents rights are a huge issue for me and they need to be protected and strengthened. I feel that we have NO rights and the grandparents have all the rights. The burden is supposed to be on the grandparents, but so far it has all been on us....


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

Just because HSLDA might be seen negatively in other areas, I don't think it negates the good they are doing for parents and familes here
Uh, they are not doing good by my family. They actively fight against families like my own.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Uh, they are not doing good by my family. They actively fight against families like my own.

Could you please explain further? I want to understand
Tina


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Read my signature. My family consists of two lesbians and a son. We are currently trying for another child.

From HSLDA's own website (the who we are page)

Quote:

Where we stand:

9. Why does HSLDA support efforts to constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman?

The following answer is an excerpt from a letter written by HSLDA Chairman of the Board and General Counsel Mike Farris:

. . . We are a Christian organization (see answer to question number 4 above). This colors our way of thinking about many things. Fundamentally, it is reflected in what we believe is truth......

The truth is that God created the family. It is God's view of the family that is reflected in our western civilization and in our law until very recently. If we tear down this God-based view of the family, then all of the God-based principles in our society are ultimately at risk.......

It is impossible to say that the God of the Bible would sanction rights of homosexual marriage...Thus, the argument for gay rights is an argument that fundamentally erodes the very premise of all human rights as rights. HSLDA is not willing to move into an era of human privileges. We believe this would jeopardize our liberty to teach our children at home and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
They clearly are against families like my own, and seek to change laws so that my family would not be protected.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *papayapetunia* 
I honestly feel that HSLDA uses these scare tactics to make their organization seem more important.







:


I don't think it's a scare tactic though, when it's actually happening to your family-- like it is to two moms on this thread.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Jwebbal said:


> My family consists of two lesbians and a son. We are currently trying for another child.
> 
> They clearly are against families like my own...
> 
> ...


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

I am talking about their work to get an amendment into the constitution that would forever enshrine discrimination (against MY type of family) into it. Not their parental rights amendment proposal. I simply cannot support an organization's other proposals if one of the things they are actively doing is seeking to discriminate against MY family. What is so hard to see? They could be about providing free health care for all, but I would not support them if they continued to spout the crap they said in their Who we are.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

I just don't see why one can't support an amendment to protect parent's rights, and separate that from liking/disliking HSLDA. I honestly see them as separate issues. The amendment would really help people (real moms at MDC), no matter if it is HSLDA or ACLU doing it.
It seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water or something. Like someone else said, no two people agree on everything. But that doesn't mean there can't be common goals for the greater good.

(FWIW, I think ACLU would be for the amendment, because I seem to remember them being on the side of the mother in the USSC case that was on parent's rights vs third-party 'rights.')


----------



## Eris (Sep 11, 2002)

the people for the american way site has some good discussion about why, from a liberal perspective, the parental rights amendment would be bad.

Issues Raised by the Parental Rights Initiatives


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

I just don't see why one can't support an amendment to protect parent's rights, and separate that from liking/disliking HSLDA. I honestly see them as separate issues. The amendment would really help people (real moms at MDC), no matter if it is HSLDA or ACLU doing it.
It seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water or something. Like someone else said, no two people agree on everything. But that doesn't mean there can't be common goals for the greater good.
You just don't get it. This organization fights against MY FAMILY rights. It isn't separate, I cannot like what they are doing based on what they do in regards to same sex marriage and insisting my family is bad for society et al. It isn't throwing out the baby with the bath water, the issue of their fight against families like mine IS the baby, and the bath water is parental rights. Just like if I was jewish and would never support neo nazi's, even if they had some brilliant plan that would end up helping my family, the very core of what they are about is against the core of who I am. How could I support an organization that says its for parental rights, but then they don't recognize me as a parent? That they think my form of family is to the detriment of society. Pretty cut and dried to me. I cannot support them.


----------



## h1pp1ch1ck (Jan 21, 2006)

This is very complicated!
I recently read that the international laws were putting something in, that could potentially make homeschooling illegal, along with several other laws (I dont have the details right now though)
There was talk of adding something to the constitution to protect us from that, but I dont see how it would help presonally.
What a mess









I thought God was in the constitution too?


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

God is not found in the constitution. The word creator is used in the declaration of independence. As for international law making something here in the US illegal, hardly. International law doesn't trump the laws here.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *h1pp1ch1ck* 

I thought God was in the constitution too?

One comment about this...God was not put in the consititution, but at that time God was just understood to be IN EVERYTHING they were doing, including the constitution. The founders of this country were Christian men with a strong faith. To them, to put God in the constitution could actually have been a bit redundant.

and this is from the Declaration of Independence:

Quote:

people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of *Nature's God* entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are *created* equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Quote:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of *Divine Providence*, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


----------



## papayapetunia (Feb 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
I don't think it's a scare tactic though, when it's actually happening to your family-- like it is to two moms on this thread.

I feel like you skipped my entire post and just read that one sentence, because I think I explained pretty clearly how a constitutional amendment would change nothing. The rights are already there.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

papayapetunia,
Sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel that way. I read your whole post, more than once.
I just honestly still think this amendment would help families. I do not think it could hurt anything.

I mean, if not this amendment, than what? There has got to be something done to help families, like mom2-3 and many others in her situation. State legislation won't work because it always can change, and is changing.

hippiechick,
I have heard the same thing. It's scary.

Jwebbal,
I am not an expert, but I have read that international treaties do trump state laws, and in fact can trump everything but the constitution. I read this has happened in other countries.

Eris,
I would like to read that site more when I have more time, but so far... it seems to have a lot of what-if's (both good and bad).... where what is happening in forced third-party visitation cases today is reality. The link seems to be very pro-school, and called vaxes manditory...


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

I am not an expert, but I have read that international treaties do trump state laws, and in fact can trump everything but the constitution. I read this has happened in other countries.

Please tell me who exactly is going to enforce these international laws that would supercede our own laws here? So a state like CA allows homeschooling, or some other thing, and then who comes in and tells you you can't homeschool because of international law? Please, scare tactics don't get us anywhere on this issue. And I still say, this organization can't expect to get a single iota of respect from me if it continues in it's battle against families with same sex parents.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
I am not an expert, but I have read that international treaties do trump state laws, and in fact can trump everything but the constitution. I read this has happened in other countries.

Nonsense. IF a country signs an international treaty (and there are plenty that the US has not signed), then it is voluntarily agreeing to the terms of that treaty - which may result in their laws changing.

They may be forced to sign under international pressure (especially smaller, poor nations), but that is a matter for international affairs, not legal direction.

There is a key concept here called Soverignty - this means that the State (as in the government of a particular country) has sole authority to dictate laws and governance on matters affecting its citizens and within its borders. It can voluntarily comply with international law which dictates laws or governance on certain matters within its borders, but State Soverignty is an enshrined feature of international law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverignty

This means that the UN cannot go to Canada or Burundi or anywhere in the world and say "You can't do X to your own citizens". They can strongly suggest, they can cut off funding, or promise funding if the State changes the law. But legally, no external agent (be it a multi-lateral such as the UN or world bank or a single country like the US) can actually legally force another country to change its laws within its own boundaries. IF a law affects citizens of another nation or crosses borders, then international law might come into play, but its legality is limited to extra-border/extra-citizen impact

There is no way that any country would voluntarily give up state soverignty as a defacto right to the UN - they have to voluntarily agree to any international law.

The only example we currently have of countries voluntarily giving up Soverignty is the EU, where european countries have voluntarily given up their sovereignty of selected areas to the European Union. But even there, there are many many areas (especially family and social law) which remain within the sovereignty of each state.

In addition, there are multiple examples where a country has signed an international treaty and clearly not complied either explicitly or implicitly. THe only way to enforce the treaty is to take away the benefits to the non-compliant signers (many receive substantial financial aid packages as a result of their signatures).

Anyhow, the US is not in the habit to take recommendations from the UN and wholesale incorporate them into their legal systems. We barely tolerate the UN as it is, despite the fact that we are the most powerful individual country on the Security council.

Even if the US agreed to a UN based treaty on family law, there would also be serious questions of whether Congress really has the right to overrule US state law, when the juristidiction for family law has traditionally rested with each state.

Looking forward to more information from anyone with international law experience (I am remembering all this from my college days learning about International Affairs)


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

reading the full HSLDA article, it is clear that this is a strawman scare tactic to get families riled up.

And as mentioned by Jwebbal, I am deeply suspicious of any work by an organization which has views so diametrically opposite of mine (and basically, I find offensive).

Sure, maybe what they want in this specfic case is innocuous (I which I actually don't believe), but I would be very very very very careful about reviewing everything they suggest with a fine tooth comb to make sure nothing was slipped in that in fact limited family rights to their personal definition of family.

I also think the "family" rights is a huge issue for gay couples if homosexual families are going to be defacto excluded from any definition of family, which is part of this groups mandate.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

Although this is not to the point of the thread, I could not let this statement:

"One comment about this...God was not put in the consititution, but at that time God was just understood to be IN EVERYTHING they were doing, including the constitution. The founders of this country were Christian men with a strong faith. To them, to put God in the constitution could actually have been a bit redundant"

go uncontested. The reason God was not put into the constitution is not because they thought it was so obvious that it required no mention. It was a conscious choice made to uphold the Founding Fathers' belief in the separation of church and state, and the fear of establishing a religion therein.

James Madison, the "father" of the Constitution, wrote "Memorial and Remonstance against Religious Assessments" (1785):

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Not all of the Founding Fathers were practicing Christians either:

On Washington (generally believed to be a Deist):

Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative."

Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself." - Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800

Of Benjamin Franklin (generally believed to be a Deist):

Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers."


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

For my own interest and to further my understanding I have been doing some searching for more information and thought I would post some things that I found.

First of all, can someone please help me undertand this statement in the Constitution and how it could be true that if a treaty were signed it could never override the laws of our land:

From Article 6 of our constitution:
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.

And I noticed this too, It does not take that much to sign a treaty - only the president and 2/3s of the PRESENT Senators.
From Article 2 of our Constitution (speaking of the president):
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

I also came across some interesting things regarding the ratifying of this treaty in other countries:

http://www.crae.org.uk/cms/index.php...=16&Itemid=104
Does the Convention on the Rights of the Child apply in the UK?
YES, the UK Government agreed to make all laws, policy and practice compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when it ratified it on 16 December 1991 (though it registered some reservations).

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7072/1565
"Once a country has ratified the convention, it is obliged under international law to comply with its principles and standards."

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1121
"One of the conditions [for homeschooling] is that the homeschoolers must sign a document in which they promise to rear their children along the lines of the UN Convention on Children's Rights."
"The document the homeschoolers are made to sign also states that government inspectors decide whether families comply with the UN's ideology. Furthermore, it contains a clause in which the homeschooling parents agree to send their child to an official government recognized school if the inspectors report negatively about them twice."
"It is becoming clear that the decree of 2003 is being enforced with uncharacteristic speed and rigidity."
"Article 24 of the Belgian Constitution states that "education is free" and that "the state guarantees the parents' freedom of choice." The current educational authorities are forcing home educators to relinquish their freedom of choice and adopt the philosophy of article 29 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, both in their homes and in their education."

Taking all of this into consideration, it does seem reasonable to believe that the signing of this treaty COULD happen in this country and it COULD mean trouble for many parents.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
Although this is not to the point of the thread, I could not let this statement go uncontested.

Not all of the Founding Fathers were practicing Christians either

On Washington (generally believed to be a Deist)

Of Benjamin Franklin (generally believed to be a Deist)

I agree that this is not the point of this thread, but I too could not let some statements go uncontested.

about Benjamin Franklin:

http://candst.tripod.com/franklin.htm
a quote from JUNE 28, 1787:
"&#8230;when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.-Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered&#8230;And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?&#8230;the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men&#8230;We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this&#8230;
Therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service"

And from Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography:
"[I believe] That there is one God, who made all things.
That he governs the world by his providence.
That he ought to be worshiped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving.
But that the most acceptable service of God is doing good to man.
That the soul is immortal.
And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice, either here or hereafter"

George Washington:

And George Washington?
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resource...?ResourceID=13
From a letter written by his "adopted" daughter who lived in their home for 20 yrs:
"It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6]."
"Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country.""

And here is an interesting article with even more interesting quotes from others:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4631001
And one more:
http://minutemenunited.org/modules.p...e=print&cid=42


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

WOW t-elaine!!!

Thank you so much for finding that all and posting it for us all to see.

I just have a second now-- but I am going to come back and read it again soon, slower, when I can check out the links. =)


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

And George Washington?
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resource...?ResourceID=13
From a letter written by his "adopted" daughter who lived in their home for 20 yrs:
"It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6]."

Washington wrote virtually nothing that states what his personal belief system was. "Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears."

In fact:

In February 1800, after Washington's death, Thomas Jefferson wrote this statement in his personal journal

Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice....

I know that Gouverneur Morris , who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed him self to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did" (quoted in Remsberg, p. 123 from Jefferson's Works, Vol. 4, p. 572, emphasis added).

Therefore, we can only speculate based on his actions. His diary shows that he was an irregular attender, and apparently did not take communion or otherwise profess his beliefs. His own minister indicated he never took communion, despite being reprimanded for not doing so:

"One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it "With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation--always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants--she invariably being one--I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it" (From Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. 5, p. 394, quoted by Remsberg, pp. 104-105).

Re Franklin -- I never said he was an atheist, I said he was a Deist. Deist thought includes the following:

Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".
Rejection of the Genesis story of creation and the doctrine of original sin, along with all similar stories.
God exists and created the universe.
God wants human beings to behave morally.
Human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife.
In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior. [NOTE how closely these last items track the language you quoted from Franklin's autobiography. Also note -- he does not profess a belief in Jesus Christ, as the son of God.]

While Franklin may have prayed, and even see stories in the Bible as being exemplers of good and bad behavior, this does not mean he would be typically viewed as "Christian" today.

Further with regards to the Constitution:

"At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a Maryland representative urged the inclusion of some kind of recognition of Christianity in the constitution on the grounds that "it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." How ever, the delegates to the convention rejected this proposal..."

This is an area of some dispute on both sides. While I believe the discussion is important from the viewpoint of historical accuracy, I do not believe it is important in terms of how we move forward today. Any claim that the key founding fathers intended anything other than the separation of church and state should be viewed with suspicion. I also believe that any claim that Christianity should have some sort of "priority" over other faiths on the basis that it was "here first" to be incorrect, and also not within the original intent of the founding fathers.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

The right to privacy is already constitutionally protected, although the likes of the rightwingers pushing these "parents rights" bills do all they can to break that protection down, what with sodomy laws, assaults on Roe, etc. My guess is they'd like to see their specific rights to beat their kids with belts protected, then they can rip up other people's families with impunity on the grounds that you have the right to "parents rights" but not to do as you please in your bedroom.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
The right to privacy is already constitutionally protected, although the likes of the rightwingers pushing these "parents rights" bills do all they can to break that protection down, what with sodomy laws, assaults on Roe, etc. My guess is they'd like to see their specific rights to beat their kids with belts protected, then they can rip up other people's families with impunity on the grounds that you have the right to "parents rights" but not to do as you please in your bedroom.


Maybe I missed something, but what do you mean about the right to privacy? We are talking about adding parent's rights to the constitution, not privacy rights- not really the same thing.
How on earth would parental rights break down privacy?! That's what forced third-party visition does, NOT parental rights!

Sodomy laws, to my knowledge have been around for a loooong time... not really sure what that has to do with adding parent's rights to the constitution either..? Or Roe for that matter.

I think it's really offensive that you think rightwingers just want to beat their kids. Rightwingers are people, there are even rightwing AP parents here at MDC. I am not that political (I consider myself a libertarian if anything really), but this amendment is very important to me since I see parental rights being erroded, such as with forced third-party visitation issues. I also want to know that HSing, for one thing, will be here for my grandkids.

Also, how on earth would a parental rights amendment rip apart families..? It's not a straight or gay amendment, it's about parents.
If you are gay and therefore not recoginized as a parent, that is a whole different issue than the amendment.

I'm not saying everyone has to love HSLDA, but they are not completely evil. Right now in one state they are fighting for single parents to have the right to HS. I just read some of their printed literature, and it was very positive anout UNschooling. They are not all everyone wants them to be in every area, but that doesn't mean everything they do is bad.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

t-elaine said:


> From Article 6 of our constitution:
> 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.
> 
> From Article 2 of our Constitution (speaking of the president):
> ...


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

The right to rear your children as you see fit is covered by the right to privacy. Also, sometimes, the right to religious freedom. There's no need to establish separate "parents' rights" unless you're interested in restricting one or both of the other two freedoms.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
The right to rear your children as you see fit is covered by the right to privacy. Also, sometimes, the right to religious freedom. There's no need to establish separate "parents' rights" unless you're interested in restricting one or both of the other two freedoms.

I see what you're saying... but unfortunately the 'right to privacy' and/or 'religious freedom' obviously isn't enough since fit parents can currently be sued for forced third-party visitation, while having those rights.

Also, how could the rights to privacy and religious freedom be restricted if they are actually specificially in the constitution, unlike parent's rights?


----------



## andreac (Jul 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
I am sincerely speaking from my heart here, so please try to understand, even if you don't see eye-to-eye with me...

I wonder how much of the negativity here towards the amendment is simply because it is from HSLDA. _If the same type of amendment had been brought forth by a different 'chrunchy' group to permanently protect parental rights to HS, not vax, etc... maybe a lot of MDCers would feel very differently._

I honestly don't understand why any AP parent, who is using their parental rights for 'alternative' things (to not vax, to homeschool, to homebirth, etc, etc), would not be the first on board to support parental rights to ensure they can keep their freedoms for our children and grandchildren.


Because it DOES matter who the messenger is. If the KKK was sponsoring legislation, even if I agreed on the surface, I would be against it on general pricipal.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
I also believe that any claim that Christianity should have some sort of "priority" over other faiths on the basis that it was "here first" to be incorrect, and also not within the original intent of the founding fathers.

Since this is not pertaining to the OP and the topic of this thread, I do plan to comment further except to say that I have never nor would ever make a statement such as this. As a matter of fact I, personally have never heard or seen that anyone else made a statement like this. Not saying that it never hs been said, but definitely not from me. Just wanted to make sure no one thought I was saying something like that. As you said, this is an area of dispute on both sides and there is no need to dispute this further here.
Tina


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Actually the Supreme Court's ruling in Troxell v Granville protects families against such intrusions. In that case, the parents of the deceased spouse were barred from seeking visitation rights with their grandchild. A few states still have laws allowing 3rd parties to seek visitation rights, but they won't stand up to challenge.

As for homebirth, what you want there is better state or national midwifery laws. I don't exercise "parental rights" to see a CPM in my state. CPMs are legally licensed by the state, as are NDs. Unlicensed midwives are also allowed. You won't see people getting in hot water for using midwifery care in states where midwives are allowed to practice by law.

Same with homeschooling. You want good loopholes in the compulsary public education laws. You don't need "parental rights" for that.

Homebirth is a very different issue from homeschooling which is a very different issue from third party visitation. All three can be adequately addressed by existing laws.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *andreac* 
Because it DOES matter who the messenger is. If the KKK was sponsoring legislation, even if I agreed on the surface, I would be against it on general pricipal.

Good point - but the question I have is - IF it were someone else WOULD any of those opposed due to HSLDAs association change their mind? "And if yes, then why not another campaign started.

We can see from the articles that I posted earlier, that in other countries, FREE countries, this treaty has superceded their constitutions and it COULD happen here. And in those countries the right to privacy was even superceded!!! So I do not understand this other comment that was made:

Quote:

There's no need to establish separate "parents' rights" unless you're interested in restricting one or both of the other two freedoms.
I see that parents rights would protect BOTH of these freedoms.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *t-elaine* 
And I noticed this too, *It does not take that much to sign a treaty - only the president and 2/3s of the PRESENT Senators*.
From Article 2 of our Constitution (speaking of the president):
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

That's funny! YOu were kidding right? Getting TWO-THIRDS of the Senate to agree to anything is very very very difficult!!!!!!!! (And on important votes, the Senators get their a***s to Congress).

And the U.S. CONSTITUTION is the Supreme Law of the Land. It overrides any law or treaty made that conflcits with it.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Homebirth is a very different issue from homeschooling which is a very different issue from third party visitation. All three can be adequately addressed by existing laws.

True here too, but let's take this further...vaccines are already an issue - and the treaty makes specific mention in reagrds to the health care of a child. This could cause much stricter laws in regards to vaccine requirements as well as any other refusal of medical care. For example, if any of my children were diagnosed with cancer I WOULD NOT allow them to be treated with chemo or radiation, but would instead use natural treatments. There have already, without this treaty, been cases where children were forced to undergo these devastating treatments against the parents and THEIR wishes!!! I can see the possibility of the health of our children being controlled (at their detriment) if this treaty is signed.

Add to that the risk of homeschooling being attacked to as it has been in other countries, and you have both the mind and body of our children being controlled by a government instead of the parents who truly have the best interests of the children in mind.

I must say that I believe this treaty is meant for good. What concerns me is that this country has a trend of getting things a bit "twisted" and taking things that are meant for good and missing the whole point. They turn around and persecute those who are truly doing what is best for their children while letting those who are truly harming their children right through the cracks of the system!


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
That's funny! YOu were kidding right? Getting TWO-THIRDS of the Senate to agree to anything is very very very difficult!!!!!!!! (And on important votes, the Senators get their a***s to Congress).

And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. No law passed by the Congress OR in the form of a treaty overrides it! The U.S. Supreme Court has the power, pursuant to our system of checks and balances to override as "Unconstitutional" and law or treaty passed by the Congress and President. (Really, this is the most basic facet of our system people!)

Which is why I asked in that particular post if someone could help explain it all to me. I willing admit that I am not "up" on government as much as some poeple are.

Quote:

First of all, can someone please help me undertand this statement in the Constitution and how it could be true that if a treaty were signed it could never override the laws of our land:
And you say that the constitution is the "supreme law" but this statement from the constitution says otherwise to me - I still ask that someone please help me to make heads or tails of it.

Quote:

From Article 6 of our constitution:
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.
You also say

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court has the power, pursuant to our system of checks and balances to override as "Unconstitutional" and law or treaty passed by the Congress and President.
Which just cements in me that I do want parental rights added to the constitution so that the things happening in other countries would be "unconstitutional" here.

I believe that already our right to privacy is being attacked in other ways, so I can see that one really being at the most risk. And eventually, freedom of religion could become at a greater risk too as little steps have been taken against people in regards to their faith already.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Love said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *t-elaine*
> ...


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Parents already have the right to make medical decisions for their children. They do not have the right to withold lifesaving treatments from their child in every case (some states are more likely than others to look the other way on this one.) I actually agree with that. I think that a child with a life-threatening illness deserves a chance to survive that illness even if it means getting scientifically proven treatments of which their parent disapproves, such as blood transfusions, chemotherapy, or heart surgery. I don't think parents should have final say over whether an ill child lives or dies. I believe children are human with human rights, not the property of their parents. Children are in a uniquely vulnerable position in society and I am in favor of *children's rights* being enshrined and protected in law.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
A "parent's rights" amemdnment would be very dangerous meaning that childeren would have even less rights then they do now and leave them more vulnerable to child abuse.

First of all, thanks for clarifying on that statement.

On this, how so? Child abuse would still be illegal and I do not believe anyone in this cause wants child abuse to be protected. This is a statement that I have a very hard time comprehending.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Parents already have the right to make medical decisions for their children. They do not have the right to withold lifesaving treatments from their child in every case (some states are more likely than others to look the other way on this one.) I actually agree with that. I think that a child with a life-threatening illness deserves a chance to survive that illness even if it means getting scientifically proven treatments of which their parent disapproves, such as blood transfusions, chemotherapy, or heart surgery. I don't think parents should have final say over whether an ill child lives or dies. I believe children are human with human rights, not the property of their parents. Children are in a uniquely vulnerable position in society and I am in favor of *children's rights* being enshrined and protected in law.

But now, WHO is to say what is lifesaving or not? Some see vaccines as lifesaving, others see them as EXTREMELY harmful. And the same for chemo and rad therapies. I have personally watched these treatments killed loved ones faster than the cancer would have. And I know personally of people who have used natural treatments and were completely cured of their cancer without traditional medical treatments. Therein lies the problem. What many groups in our country today believe is best for our children is not necessarily so. My fear is that this treaty would give them the edge they need to gain control of the health care and education of our children.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Vaccines are preventive medicine (and I know some would argue not even that, but really, that's for another forum and another time.) Chemotherapy is a treatment for a specific type of disease. There's a big difference. If you wanted to compare infectious disease and cancer, vaccines are to avoiding second hand smoke as antibiotic or antiviral drugs are to chemotherapy.


----------



## SunShineSally (Jan 18, 2005)

Love~ I have been to parentsrights.org and I am paret of CRPR I understand where some are comeing from I do not believe everything that the group stands for (esp. the anti gay belief they have) but as a parent fighting for her rights who has no money and has to deal with leagal aide for an attorney I stand by them and support what they are trying to do for us FIT parents not the parents who abuse their children maybe if more people had their rights stompped all over then they would understand why we can support this even if we do not stand by all their beliefs if they can give me back my rights to want to get to know someone before they take my child all alone who has been verbally and emotionally abusive to their own children then I can 100% stand by them even if this was the only thing that I can say I agree with them on. I will stop now I can ramble on and on about this I because this is the USA how cn this happen to a fit mother?

I do not think that Traxell is followed in NY and not seen in other states as well that is why so many families are fighting GPs or TPs


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JA'sMama* 
I do not think that Traxell is followed in NY and not seen in other states as well that is why so many families are fighting GPs or TPs


Traxel is applicable in EVERY state. It is the pronoucment of the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling is law in every state. Just because you have a law behind you, or even a Constitutional Amendment does not mean that someone can't file suit against you!


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Read my signature. My family consists of two lesbians and a son. We are currently trying for another child.

From HSLDA's own website (the who we are page)

They clearly are against families like my own, and seek to change laws so that my family would not be protected.

That is quite scary.

bczmama,









I am all for giving children more parental rights in many ways. I can also see this being abused, and I do not believe that the bill the HSLD is presenting is the right one.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Vaccines are preventive medicine (and I know some would argue not even that, but really, that's for another forum and another time.) Chemotherapy is a treatment for a specific type of disease. There's a big difference. If you wanted to compare infectious disease and cancer, vaccines are to avoiding second hand smoke as antibiotic or antiviral drugs are to chemotherapy.

I'll be honest, my brain is not be functioning well today due to lack of sleep and I am struggling to understand what you are saying here.

But my point is that both vaccines and medical treatments that I and other parents are against may very well be forced on us someday, and much more so if this treaty is signed. They all fall in the realm of the treaties stand on medical care.

From http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/treaties/crc.htm

Quote:

Article 24
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:

(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;

(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;

(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;
I assume any of you can see how these statements in teh treaty CAN be used to do what I speak of.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

I do not like that. I am a Canadian. Most of our provinces have legal guidelines as to parental rights. Only fair, since there are legal reprecussions and punishments for bad parenting to define what might be the minimum standard for parenting is.

It is also completely at odds with the current situation in legal parenting in all the western constitutional democracies and republics. Parenting rights can be lifted or terminated by the state because by law, the state is the real parent and the parents are the parents-on-location acting on behalf of the state. You may not agree with that, and you may not like it but it is the case.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *t-elaine* 
For my own interest and to further my understanding I have been doing some searching for more information and thought I would post some things that I found.

First of all, can someone please help me undertand this statement in the Constitution and how it could be true that if a treaty were signed it could never override the laws of our land:

I didn't say that. To quote myself.

Quote:

IF a country signs an international treaty (and there are plenty that the US has not signed), then it is voluntarily agreeing to the terms of that treaty - which may result in their laws changing.
Think "copy and paste" not overrule.

Quote:

And I noticed this too, It does not take that much to sign a treaty - only the president and 2/3s of the PRESENT Senators.
you are kidding right? this is equivalent to a constitutional amendment.

Quote:

I also came across some interesting things regarding the ratifying of this treaty in other countries:

http://www.crae.org.uk/cms/index.php...=16&Itemid=104
Does the Convention on the Rights of the Child apply in the UK?
YES, the UK Government *agreed* to make all laws, policy and practice compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when it ratified it on 16 December 1991 (*though it registered some reservations*).
emphasis mine - the UK government VOLUNTARILY AGREED - was not forced to. VOLUNTARILY AGREED to be bound to the terms of the treaty.

It also registered reservations - and I remember the UK having a great deal of influence over the wording and contents of the UN Convention.

Remember, who makes international treaties? States do. Representatives of the governments who in turn ratify or not the international treaty. Which states have the most power? The richest countries - and the permanent members on the security council. Who is on the security council?

Quote:

http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp
Membership in 2007
The Council is composed of five permanent members - China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States - and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end):
Belgium (2008),Italy (2008),,Qatar (2007), Congo (Republic of the) (2007), Panama (2008) ,Slovakia (2007), Ghana (2007) Peru (2007) , South Africa (2008), Indonesia (2008)

Quote:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7072/1565
"Once a country has ratified the convention, it is obliged under international law to comply with its principles and standards."
Sure, but no country HAS to ratify a convention. A country at any time can say it won't comply with individual implications of a convention. And many many countries ignore common interpretations of different conventions - note the non-proliferation treaty (which was signed by North Korea AND Iran, btw). Iran is claiming that its actions are in compliance with the NPT. North Korea is flouting it entirely.

Quote:

Taking all of this into consideration, it does seem reasonable to believe that the signing of this treaty COULD happen in this country and it COULD mean trouble for many parents.
As i mentioned before, signing the treaty is not an issue. No one can force the US to sign a treaty - trust me, it has been tried before.

IF the US signed the treaty, there is no way any outside country (short of other brute force means of invading or sanctions) could force the US to interpret that treaty in any way that would violate the rights of homeschoolers.

I think the misunderstanding stems frm the fact that the UN and other international bodies are NOT equivalent to our congressional system. Their power to mandate anything is limited to the power given to them by the member states - which can recind that power at any moment. The US is notorious for doing just this. Our government does not take instruction well from the UN, and in fact uses the UN pretty much as a way to justify its own decisions, and ignores the UN when the UN recommends anything that the US feels would be against its interests.

You have NO fear from an international law invalidating the rights of homeschools. You may well have fear of a US law which would accomplish this - but that is a totally different fight.

Siobhan


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *t-elaine* 

From http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/treaties/crc.htm

I assume any of you can see how these statements in teh treaty CAN be used to do what I speak of.

You're seriously freaked out by a UN document suggesting that kids have a right to clean drinking water, and that reducing infant mortality is a good goal to establish?







:


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 

You may well have fear of a US law which would accomplish this - but that is a totally different fight.

Siobhan










That is not a totally different fight- that is what the amendment would prevent.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
You're seriously freaked out by a UN document suggesting that kids have a right to clean drinking water, and that reducing infant mortality is a good goal to establish?







:


Obviously we are freaked out by other parts and what it has done in other countries.

I don't think anyone is cowering in fear of drinking water here.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
You're seriously freaked out by a UN document suggesting that kids have a right to clean drinking water, and that reducing infant mortality is a good goal to establish?







:

No - I am seriously freaked out by the possible interpretations of these statements:

Quote:

States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services

Quote:

a) To diminish infant and child mortality
- this because vaccines ARE seen as a method of diminshing infant and child mortality

Interpretations COULD be drawn from this that a parent who refuses vaccines and other traditional medical services and treatments for even educated reasons, is "depriving" the child of "his or her right to access to such health care services)

Again - I am NOT saying that this treaty is a bad thing. On the contrary, it has some very valuable ideas. My concern is that IF the US does VOLUNTARILY sign and go along with the treaty, there is a much greater risk of parents losing THEIR rights to decide the treatment they feel is safest for their children. This could result in parents even losing temporary custody of their children to do so or being forced to vaccinate their children or being forced to get other treatments done to their children against their wishes, beliefs, and better judgment


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 








That is not a totally different fight- that is what the amendment would prevent.

what is the source of the threat - an international treaty, which would require the same voting numbers as a constitutional amendment which would prevent it?

OR Congress passing a law which is NOT an amendment, and therefore not requiring two thirds majority?

I am not saying that homeschooling is or isn't under threat. And I have no opinion on the use of an amendment or not to protect parental rights.

I AM saying that the threat coming from an international treaty such as the UN Convention on human rights is a complete non-issue.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *t-elaine* 
My concern is that IF the US does VOLUNTARILY sign and go along with the treaty, there is a much greater risk of parents losing THEIR rights to decide the treatment they feel is safest for their children.

In order for the US to voluntarily sign the treaty, they would need the same number of votes in congress, and approval by the same president as a constitutional amendment that would protect US from the infringements of rights you feel this treaty would create.

AND just because we sign the treaty doesn't mean we have to interpret the terms of the treaty the way any other country on earth does. And there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism on treaties other than international pressure - and since the US is the most powerful country in the world, really, we have nothing to worry about in that regard.

You may hate the UN Convention on Human rights. But don't get scared of it. There are no teeth in that dog.

In addition, the common interpretation by western countries is that the UN Convention is just a way to justify foreign assistance to developing countries with failing healthcare systems. It is also a way to get corrupt governments who steal outright from their citizens to at least promise to meet the basic needs of their citizens.

But there is no enforcement mechanism other than withholding foreign assistance, sanctions, or the threat of military force - and who on earth is going to even attempt that with the US over a small group of citizens voluntarily refusing to vaccinate their children?


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
As i mentioned before, signing the treaty is not an issue. No one can force the US to sign a treaty - trust me, it has been tried before.

IF the US signed the treaty, there is no way any outside country (short of other brute force means of invading or sanctions) could force the US to interpret that treaty in any way that would violate the rights of homeschoolers.

You have NO fear from an international law invalidating the rights of homeschools. You may well have fear of a US law which would accomplish this - but that is a totally different fight.

I must not being making myself clear enough.
I am not afraid of the US being "forced" into anything. I believe there truly IS a risk of our government eventually, willingly signing this treaty. I also believe that if that happens, with our governments history in other areas, parents that do not go along with the "norm" do risk a loss of rights themselves especially inthe areas of homeschooling and medical care.

Quote:

IF a country signs an international treaty (and there are plenty that the US has not signed), then it is voluntarily agreeing to the terms of that treaty - which may result in their laws changing.
Again - this is exactly my fear - Can ANYONE say that the US would NEVER sign and agree to this treaty? If not, then would it not be safe to say there is a risk.

With that in mind - parents rights being added to the consitition FIRST would aid in protecting parents from teh issues that I have previously mentioned


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
In order for the US to voluntarily sign the treaty, they would need the same number of votes in congress, and approval by the same president as a constitutional amendment that would protect US from the infringements of rights you feel this treaty would create.

AND just because we sign the treaty doesn't mean we have to interpret the terms of the treaty the way any other country on earth does. And there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism on treaties other than international pressure - and since the US is the most powerful country in the world, really, we have nothing to worry about in that regard.

You may hate the UN Convention on Human rights. But don't get scared of it. There are no teeth in that dog.

In addition, the common interpretation by western countries is that the UN Convention is just a way to justify foreign assistance to developing countries with failing healthcare systems. It is also a way to get corrupt governments who steal outright from their citizens to at least promise to meet the basic needs of their citizens.

But there is no enforcement mechanism other than withholding foreign assistance, sanctions, or the threat of military force - and who on earth is going to even attempt that with the US over a small group of citizens voluntarily refusing to vaccinate their children?









:

It really strikes me as tunnel vision bordering on paranoia to read that really very bland and general UN document as an attack on voluntary non-vaxers in the first world. There's a lot of families who want vaccines but can't get them they still have to help before they'll worry about you. If ever. A lot of kids who need drinking water, food other than a cup of rice, and basic medical care too.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

siobhang said:


> You may hate the UN Convention on Human rights. But don't get scared of it. There are no teeth in that dog.
> QUOTE]
> 
> OK - let me try this a different way - I DO NOT hate the UNCRC at all - I agree that it is a GOOD thing.
> ...


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

I was just reading the treaty- did anyone see the part where is gives a child rights before birth? Very interesting.

t-elaine, quoting you...
"I am not afraid of the US being "forced" into anything. I believe there truly IS a risk of our government eventually, willingly signing this treaty. I also believe that if that happens, with our governments history in other areas, parents that do not go along with the "norm" do risk a loss of rights themselves especially inthe areas of homeschooling and medical care."

I see exactly what you are saying.
Thank you posting and explaining all you have and for all the links.

BelgainSheepDog,
It's not paranoia. Have you not seen what has happened in other countries where chilren have 'the right to an education?' That is a PC way of saying HSing is illegal. Same thing. I'm sure the government has a different view of 'right to medical care' than many MDC familes do.

Anyway I am not here to be against the treaty.

I am here to be FOR the amendment. Different issues.

And PLEASE all of you, PLEASE stop talking about Troxel and saying forced third-party visitation isn't real, doesn't hold up, whatever. Sometimes it doesn't, but what about when it DOES?
You do not know who you are talking to here. I have seen it happen IRL to a single mom in my old town, with really crazy controlling grandparents. I have seen in happen to married friends online who were trying to protect their kids. It could have happened to me. I have read about it in the news, even read about a judge not allowing the mom and child to move away from the litigating grandma. I have researched this thing to death. It is a very real threat to too many families today, even if not to yours.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JA'sMama* 
Love~ I have been to parentsrights.org and I am paret of CRPR I understand where some are comeing from I do not believe everything that the group stands for (esp. the anti gay belief they have) but as a parent fighting for her rights who has no money and has to deal with leagal aide for an attorney I stand by them and support what they are trying to do for us FIT parents not the parents who abuse their children maybe if more people had their rights stompped all over then they would understand why we can support this even if we do not stand by all their beliefs if they can give me back my rights to want to get to know someone before they take my child all alone who has been verbally and emotionally abusive to their own children then I can 100% stand by them even if this was the only thing that I can say I agree with them on. I will stop now I can ramble on and on about this I because this is the USA how cn this happen to a fit mother?

I do not think that Traxell is followed in NY and not seen in other states as well that is why so many families are fighting GPs or TPs

I totally understand.
I agree that the NY statue is not inline with Troxel at ALL.
I don't know why people here don't see this.

How can any of you sit here and say Troxel fixed this mess, and we don't need a parental rights amendment, when it is reality what JA'sMama is going through right now?







:


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

I was thinking - it may be easier for some of us to see the risk because we have already seen persecutions of some sort due to our parenting choices.

Many of these persecutions have come from various governmental levels. With that in mind it is easy, at least for me, to see the risk involved.

BTW - This country does deal with issues such as clean water and sanitation or starvation as in others - so there IS a lot of room for our government to the look at the other issues such as vaccination and such. If the treaty is signed HERE, this is the country our gov't would be dealing with, not the 3rd world. Call me paranoid if you will - but I just want my family's (icluding my children's) rights to be protected as fully as possible


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *andreac* 
Because it DOES matter who the messenger is. If the KKK was sponsoring legislation, even if I agreed on the surface, I would be against it on general pricipal.


Okay, I see your point, but when it comes down to it, I don't agree.
Just hear me out...

If my child was dying of thirst in the desert, and there was only person left who had a glass of water... I wouldn't care if the water came from Hillary Clinton or George Bush... I would save my child.

That is what I see it as. Parental Rights, even if a different political party writes the amendment, STILL protect my children and grandchildren from vax, public school, on and on...

I mean, most people here consider themselves pro-choice. Would you shoot down a "pro-choice" constitutional amendment because it was from the 'wrong' party line?


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
what is the source of the threat - an international treaty, which would require the same voting numbers as a constitutional amendment which would prevent it?

OR Congress passing a law which is NOT an amendment, and therefore not requiring two thirds majority?

I am not saying that homeschooling is or isn't under threat. And I have no opinion on the use of an amendment or not to protect parental rights.

I AM saying that the threat coming from an international treaty such as the UN Convention on human rights is a complete non-issue.

I think the threat would come from our own government, state or federal.
It wasn't too many years ago that someone on capital hill tried to pass some crazy extremely anti-HS law, and HSers actually shut down the switchboards calling in.

Things like that come up, and HSLDA (and others) just want to put out a preventative measure to protect people.... BEFORE something happens.

I just don't think, when our own gov't is as iffy as it is on some issues, that we need to give children "rights" to an education, when we have seen what has happened in other countries with that. Who knows how OUR gov't would interpet that in 20 years (or next year)? My chilren sure don't want the "right" to be in public school- just ask them.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

BelgianSheepDog said:


> Same with homeschooling. You want good loopholes in the compulsary public education laws. You don't need "parental rights" for that.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Trust me, I don't want my HS rights based on loopholes.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

maya44 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Love*
> ...


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
Traxel is applicable in EVERY state. It is the pronoucment of the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling is law in every state. Just because you have a law behind you, or even a Constitutional Amendment does not mean that someone can't file suit against you!

Yes it could mean that!
If Parental Rights were in the Const, third-party visitation statues in the individual states could easily be seen as unconstitutionial and declared so. Therefore, parents could NOT be sued under them, since you cannot be sued under a statute that no longer exists. So parents would be free from this! (When you sue for TPV, you must do so under your specific state statute.)


----------



## SunShineSally (Jan 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
Traxel is applicable in EVERY state. It is the pronoucment of the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling is law in every state. Just because you have a law behind you, or even a Constitutional Amendment does not mean that someone can't file suit against you!

Maybe my point was that since traxel's case NY did not need to rewrite their case Traxell did not protect all the states with GPV rights and the Judge would have thrown out the GPs case in my situation if NY had. I know they have a right to "their day in court" but they have had more than a day they have had my child's whole life! They can say on stand that I am a wonderful mother that they believe what I am doing (not settleing this to an agreement witch is exactly what they are going for in court 6 hours a week and weekends and every holiday!!!!!!! they do not even know my child and that is my exact point neighter one of us know them and that was their own doing!)well they believe that what I am doing is what I believe to be in Ds's best interest the GM said she does not need to have a relationship wiht me to have one with my son!! She said she can not show my child the affection she wants to wiht me present!! that scares me what does she wanty to do with my child she can not do with me there???!!! yet this judge can still rule in their favor even though the GM has not come to any visit that was going on since court and the GF leave 1 hour to 35 minutes early and has a 2 hour visit every other week they have no real interest in my child they just want to have control and want to "get back at me for takeing their son to court" If I hadn't I would have been looked at as unfit and irresopnsable any mother would have after what he had done. I was told by their one child that is exactly why they are doing this. But still the judge could rule in their favor judges have in much worse cases so really how has traxell protected my case and many other cases in the US? if Traxell applied here I would not be going to court next week it would have been thrown at pre trial like my sons law guardiana nd my attorney thought it was going to be. I am not argueing I just want people to see the truth we as parents in most states have few rights when it comes to grandparents "rights" a grandparent should have no rights being an active grandparent is a privillage not a right an unfit parent does not make a fit grandparent!!! And a fit parent should be able to protect their child that is why this ammendment would be wonderful and so many parents can and would beable to protect their children the way they should have always been able to!

sorry again for rambleing








JA'sMama


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Uh, they are not doing good by my family. They actively fight against families like my own.


I can see where you are coming from jwebbal. If this was something that the ACLU was proposing I would be against it based solely on the fact that the ACLU makes my skin crawl.

I'm not meaning this to sound rude in any way, I just wanted to say I understand where you are coming from in not wanting to support this based on the fact that you don't like the HSLDA.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JA'sMama* 
Maybe my point was that since traxel's case NY did not need to rewrite their case Traxell did not protect all the states with GPV rights and the Judge would have thrown out the GPs case in my situation if NY had. I know they have a right to "their day in court" but they have had more than a day they have had my child's whole life! They can say on stand that I am a wonderful mother that they believe what I am doing (not settleing this to an agreement witch is exactly what they are going for in court 6 hours a week and weekends and every holiday!!!!!!! they do not even know my child and that is my exact point neighter one of us know them and that was their own doing!)well they believe that what I am doing is what I believe to be in Ds's best interest the GM said she does not need to have a relationship wiht me to have one with my son!! She said she can not show my child the affection she wants to wiht me present!! that scares me what does she wanty to do with my child she can not do with me there???!!! yet this judge can still rule in their favor even though the GM has not come to any visit that was going on since court and the GF leave 1 hour to 35 minutes early and has a 2 hour visit every other week they have no real interest in my child they just want to have control and want to "get back at me for takeing their son to court" If I hadn't I would have been looked at as unfit and irresopnsable any mother would have after what he had done. I was told by their one child that is exactly why they are doing this. But still the judge could rule in their favor judges have in much worse cases so really how has traxell protected my case and many other cases in the US? if Traxell applied here I would not be going to court next week it would have been thrown at pre trial like my sons law guardiana nd my attorney thought it was going to be. I am not argueing I just want people to see the truth we as parents in most states have few rights when it comes to grandparents "rights" a grandparent should have no rights being an active grandparent is a privillage not a right an unfit parent does not make a fit grandparent!!! And a fit parent should be able to protect their child that is why this ammendment would be wonderful and so many parents can and would beable to protect their children the way they should have always been able to!

sorry again for rambleing








JA'sMama

Well it's a little hard to understand exactly what is going on. First, as a lawyer who does a great deal of constitutional work, let me assure you, Traxel applies in every state. What it does not apply to is a family where both parents are not united.

If you are divorced, then no, it does not apply. A single parent? Nope. Let me also make it clear that constitutional scholars who have studied the "Parents Rights Amendment" feel that this will in NO WAY change the fact that when one parent is absent, grandparents will still have the right to come in and try to gain visitiation etc.....


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

maya44,

Mom2-3 and her DH are AP parents, married and together, and they have also been drug into court by the grandparents, right now.

It is not just grandparents either. It has been half-sisters, past employers, etc. Third-parties in general.

I'm sorry, but if there is even a chance this will help one person, I am ALL for it 200%.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
Yes it could mean that!
If Parental Rights were in the Const, third-party visitation statues in the individual states could easily be seen as unconstitutionial and declared so. Therefore, parents could NOT be sued under them, since you cannot be sued under a statute that no longer exists. So parents would be free from this! (When you sue for TPV, you must do so under your specific state statute.)


maya44,

Truly no offense meant, but if you are a lawyer, how could you not know this?

For instance, in WA there is NO grandparents visitation statute, therefore no parents can be sued for it.
In NY, because the way the statue reads, anyone can be sued at anytime.
In my old state, married bio parents could not be sued, but other parents could- due to that state's statute.

Alo, why should Troxel not apply to single, widowed, etc. parents? In that case, the bio dad had died.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
maya44,

Mom2-3 and her DH are AP parents, married and together, and they have also been drug into court by the grandparents, right now.

It is not just grandparents either. It has been half-sisters, past employers, etc. Third-parties in general.

I'm sorry, but if there is even a chance this will help one person, I am ALL for it 200%.

I could take a stranger on a message board to court too, but that doesn't mean I would win. Having a precedent or a statute in place does not prevent people from bringing frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
I could take a stranger on a message board to court too, but that doesn't mean I would win. Having a precedent or a statute in place does not prevent people from bringing frivolous lawsuits.


No, you are incorrect. There is no third-party visitation statute in the U.S. that would allow you to sue for forced visitation with a stranger you were on a message board with.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Having a precedent or a statute in place does not prevent people from bringing frivolous lawsuits.


Um, yes it could.

For instance, if there was a statute (or constitutional amendment) that said "Fit parents are completely responsible for the upbringing and education of their children, and may not be sued by third-parties." that would mean that third parties could not sue fit parents for tpv. See how it works?

In tpv, you have to sue under your specific state's statute. You can't just wake up one day and sue anyboby (well, unless you live in a state like NY with a really messed-up statute).

That is why parents in WA and FL cannot be sued at all, parents in IL and OR can only be sued under specific circumstances like divorce or whatever, and parents in NY can be sued for anything at anytime.... It has everything to do with your state's statute. But a const. amendment could fix that.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
No, you are incorrect. There is no third-party visitation statute in the U.S. that would allow you to sue for forced visitation with a stranger you were on a message board with.

No, she is correct. People bring frivolous law suits...with absolutely no basis...all the time. They don't WIN those suits, but they still can hassle the other party.

And the Amendment at issue would not prevent a 3d party visitation statute from being on the books. The Amendment only states that a balancing test would be used :
Section 2. The balancing test applicable to other fundamental rights may be used to balance a claim of parental rights provided that the government establishes its interest by proper evidence in each case.

. This could well mean that a Court could determine that the balance tips in favor of the 3rd Party visitation statute and these statutes can be on the books. While some could try to argue that the Amendment means that there the law is unconstitutional this could be a tough sell.


----------



## SunShineSally (Jan 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
No, you are incorrect. There is no third-party visitation statute in the U.S. that would allow you to sue for forced visitation with a stranger you were on a message board with.

But in NY if you are a stranger with blood ties you can sue







:














:







: also if you adopt a child the bio grandparent(s) can come in and sue you fro visitation "rights"

Maya44 why should it matter if the parent is single? am I any less of a parent because i did not stay in a verbally abusive relationship??? and again like Love said Mom2-3 is married and has been fighting a good fight for sometime now the point is traxell did nothing for many states because of the way the "law" is written so many many families all over the country are still fighting for their rights married or not! and the way DRL72 is written a judge can rule on how he/she feels that day or just if they feel a GP (good or bad) should see their GC is that fair is it fair I need to show proof that these people are unfit just because I am single??? I have no proof when I was with their son I did not think I needed to tape them being verbally abusive and screaming and throiwing fit over nothing and swearing and being uncontrollable in rage. Is that fair? is that upholding my rights as a fit and loving mother??? It isn't just because I am single. Also these people did not have a relationship with my son I never stopped them from having one and they never tried to have one so really the way the law is written I should not be going to court next friday again for probily the 20th time in two years (and I am guessing on the lower level of amounts of days spent in court) so really the 14th amendment and even the way that the conditions of DRL72 did not protect me.There are many married parents going through this I am not really asking you these questions I am just saying that judges can do as the please in many many states when it comes to GPR and TPV it is not cut and it is a horrid expereance and if this amendment doesn't help me I hope and pray that oneday it will help another family to not endure this. and Like Love said if it helps one family then I would be pleased and feel like oneday something can help my son and I.

JA'sMama


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

maya44 said:


> No, she is correct. People bring frivolous law suits...with absolutely no basis...all the time. They don't WIN those suits, but they still can hassle the other party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

JA'sMama,

I have to just say again how much I feel for you. My heart truly goes out to you.







s Just keep on fighting the good fight. Don't give up!!!

I have been keeping you and mom2-3 in my thoughts and prayers. :heart

Just because some people think this amendment wouldn't help, does NOT mean they are right. MANY people believe this amendment would be an awesome victory for parents.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 

And the Amendment at issue would not prevent a 3d party visitation statute from being on the books. The Amendment only states that a balancing test would be used :
Section 2. The balancing test applicable to other fundamental rights may be used to balance a claim of parental rights provided that the government establishes its interest by proper evidence in each case.

I think this would prevent it. And even if it would not, it would definitely help.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
. This could well mean that a Court could determine that the balance tips in favor of the 3rd Party visitation statute and these statutes can be on the books. While some could try to argue that the Amendment means that there the law is unconstitutional this could be a tough sell.

I do not see it as being a tough sell at all.


----------



## SunShineSally (Jan 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
JA'sMama,

I have to just say again how much I feel for you. My heart truly goes out to you.







s Just keep on fighting the good fight. Don't give up!!!

I have been keeping you and mom2-3 in my thoughts and prayers. :heart

Just because some people think this amendment wouldn't help, does NOT mean they are right. MANY people believe this amendment would be an awesome victory for parents.

thank you Love I truely believe if this got passed it would help mom2-3 and myself and all the other out at least from anymore litigation I have hope for next friday I believe that we will win :my fingers are crossed: I have been fighting I just truely do not want any other fit parents to have to go through this it is the worst thing I have ever been through it has also showd me how strong I can be emotionally and spirtually.

thank you again!

JA'sMama


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

Ok - I will begin by fully admitting I am not "highly knowledgable" when it comes to legal and constitutional terms and such. But some of this is really beginning to seem pretty clear to me.

First of all I want to quote the constitution again:

Quote:

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
So - if a parental rights ammendment WERE added to the constitution, than NO state could make a law or put anything in THEIR constitution that goes AGAINST that ammendment. It would appear to me that 3rd party visitations would be included in here. They are an infringement on the rights of the parents. Also - I see NO evidence that this ammendment would not include ALL parents wether single or married or gay or straight. It does not designate any specifics in that area. So if a person is the LEGAL parent of a child he or she would have thier rights protected.

Here is alink for other lay-people like me that talks about the Supremacy Clause in the constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

I find it VERY interesting that it mentions in there that even in the 50s people showed great concern about treaties. So much so that an ammendment speaking specifically about treaties was proposed.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

I am getting very fusterated at the lack of knowledge on this thread about TPV, with people who think they know allll about it.
I am tired of argueing against people who, however nice, are completely ignorant on how TPV works in the U.S. in the different states.

I have personally BTDT.

Please, before you starting typing about it like you know all about it, go look into it. Read the actual statutes for some states. Read when the law alows a lawsuit and when it does NOT. Read the statutes that have been overturned. Read some case law. Read some more. Talk to a lawyer who has actual real experience with TPV cases. Go to www.parentsrights.org and ask the experts on their message board. Do not just assume you know what you are talking about or what you heard is right.

The fact is plain and simple, all TPV cases are bound by the state statute that the children have resided in for the past six months. If you don't believe me, go try and sue someone for TPV in a state that doesn't have any TPV statute to sue under.

It is absurd that people here are arguing this basic fact.


----------



## t-elaine (Feb 6, 2003)

I just wanted to say,





















to all of the parents who are experiencing the trials of having their parental rights stomped on. I have not said much about the whole GP rights topic because it is not one that I know much about, but you are all in my thoughts and prayers and hopefully this ammendment will be added and you will finally get more protection.
Tina


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
I am getting very fusterated at the lack of knowledge on this thread about TPV, with people who think they know allll about it.
I am tired of argueing against people who, however nice, are completely ignorant on how TPV works in the U.S. in the different states.

I have personally BTDT.

Please, before you starting typing about it like you know all about it, go look into it. Read the actual statutes for some states. Read when the law alows a lawsuit and when it does NOT. Read the statutes that have been overturned. Read some case law. Read some more. Talk to a lawyer who has actual real experience with TPV cases. Go to www.parentsrights.org and ask the experts on their message board. Do not just assume you know what you are talking about or what you heard is right.

The fact is plain and simple, all TPV cases are bound by the state statute that the children have resided in for the past six months. If you don't believe me, go try and sue someone for TPV in a state that doesn't have any TPV statute to sue under.

It is absurd that people here are arguing this basic fact.

I know it seems crazy, but really people sue ALL THE TIME when they have NO right to do so. I know. I have clerked for judges who had these suits before them. Nope, no statute.... no nothing. But the suit is filed anyway. It's called a frivolous lawsuit and it happens all the time. And yes in Illinois. A suit is filed. The other side has to file something to say "No you can't do this here." The parties must appear in court. They have to write briefs. AFTER all of that a judge WILL say "hey this suit is no good" but you CAN still file it! The clerks don't check on this kind of thing. Ask any lawyer you know. I am sure they will tell you this is so. There is NO GATEKEEPER function is state courts. You can file the suit, even if it will not last long. I promise you that!

The Amendment at issue would not prevent them and would not even prevent the TPV laws on the books now. Would some be considered unconstitutional? Maybe, maybe not! New York's law for example has yet to be tested to see if it meets the Troxel standard in the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may very well hold it invalid, or it might not. The exact same would be true even if the Amendment is passed. The laws don't disapear from the books!


----------



## WNB (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
The right to privacy is already constitutionally protected, although the likes of the rightwingers pushing these "parents rights" bills do all they can to break that protection down, what with sodomy laws, assaults on Roe, etc. My guess is they'd like to see their specific rights to beat their kids with belts protected, then they can rip up other people's families with impunity on the grounds that you have the right to "parents rights" but not to do as you please in your bedroom.

ding ding ding! we have a winner, folks.

thank you, BSD for the most concise summation of my suspicions about HSLDA.

THe right to privacy is generally construed as the right to be left alone, without government intrusion, into what is considered the PRIVATE sphere of life, including decisions about procreation and child-rearing.


----------



## Climbing Rose (Dec 10, 2006)

maya44,
Okay, I give up.







:
Maybe we are saying the same things in different ways.
I get what you are saying about the gatekeeper. So you are just saying they can try to sue, but it would immediately get tossed out as not having standing. I understand that.
I am saying there are different statues in each state that says who has standing and when (if anyone).
FWIW, laws do basicly disapear when they are declared unconstitutionial, which is what I am going for here.
Thank you for not taking it personally if I got a bit fusterated.

---------------------------

WNB,
The right to privacy is obviously not enough, because FIT PARENTS ARE BEING SUED.

----------------------------

Okay, everybody, this is an issue obviously really near and dear to my heart.

But I have reached that point of getting burned out on this thread.

I never thought the thread would go like this, I honestly just wanted to let people know for their own information because I thought it was interesting and would help parents defend their right to raise thier own children.

Then maybe I would not have to do what I have been doing, taking time out of my life to call and email the lawmakers to protect my children from my parents, when I am a fit married bio parent- and my parents are abusive scary people.

I am going to let this thread go now, just because I think I have said all I can and it is taking too much of my time right now.


----------



## WNB (Apr 29, 2006)

Being sued does not mean the state is trampling one's rights. To the contrary, it means one's rights (to due process in a court of law) are being upheld.

eta: I do agree with you that it is a shortcoming of our legal system and culture that we have not got a truly reliable means of filtering out "frivolous" lawsuits against "fit" parents, or of compensating them for the hassles and expense of fighting such lawsuits. However, I do not believe that the constitutional amendment HSLDA is proposing would prevent such lawsuits. I think the amendment is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist (inadequate legal basis for parental rights), and one that would NOT address the problems that do exist (ie, frivolous lawsuits).


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I guess I am a biased person, but just wanted to say, Love, I agree with everything you have said, and I think this amendment would be very good for our family and our country. But then again, I am a member of the HSLDA and stand by them and most of their actions.

I just see it coming, my rights to home school (and unschool) my children, homebirth my children, UC my children, non-vax my children, refuse unnecessary medial intervention (and "preventative" medicine, including but not limited to check-ups), and basically teach my children that my spiritual beliefs are true are slowing being eroded and narrowed based on legislation in favor of "child rights" as well as "states rights" (and "states responsibilities"). I can see a time in the nearing future where I would no longer be "allowed" to teach my children my spiritual belief if they are not PC. Or not "allowed" to homebirth or non-vax my children if a social worker believed it was in the best interest of my children, or force my children to receive "necessary" medical intervention, even when I did not believe it to be necessary.

And quite frankly, I have already been in a battle where state social workers tried to override MY parental rights in these areas and without HSLDA the outcome may have been quite different.

But that is just my personal opinion.


----------



## SunShineSally (Jan 18, 2005)

WNB said:


> Being sued does not mean the state is trampling one's rights. To the contrary, it means one's rights (to due process in a court of law) are being upheld.QUOTE]
> 
> Okay so my rights as a parent are being upheld???? I am fighting for my right to protect my child from verbal and emotional abuse from GPs who have sued me time and time again for visits with my child. And I certainly do not feel my rights as a fit mother are being upheld! I am being trampled on time and time again. I should not have to have proof that these people are unfit I am his mother and I should have the final say in this situation and the worst part is I never told them they couldn't see MY son I only said I want to get to know them and all they had to do was call and they could come and see him and I have been fighting them for my sons whole life I do not feel my rights are being upheld.
> 
> ...


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
maya44,
FWIW, laws do basicly disapear when they are declared unconstitutionial, which is what I am going for here.


I understand that Love is leaving this thread. But FWIW, laws do not just disapear when a new constitutional amendment is added. With the amendment at issue it would take years and years and years for the a case to get to the United States Supreme Court to decide if the TPV statutes were unconstituional or not. Only then, and only if declared unconstitutional would ANYTHING disapear. In any event, the Amendment at issue has almost no chance of ever being added. The "God" part alone would make it pretty much impossible. We simply don't have anything like that in the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love* 
Yes it could mean that!
If Parental Rights were in the Const, third-party visitation statues in the individual states could easily be seen as unconstitutionial and declared so. Therefore, parents could NOT be sued under them, since you cannot be sued under a statute that no longer exists. So parents would be free from this! (When you sue for TPV, you must do so under your specific state statute.)

The reason that I do not support this ammendment is because you can substitute "child abuse statutes" for "third-party visitation statutes." The fact that child abuse is illegal now is no guarantee that it will be illegal after such an ammendment. There were hundreds of laws on the books protecting the production, consumption, and sale of alcohol before the 18th Ammendment. I have no doubt that if this ammendment were to pass, we would see various groups using it to establish their "parental right" to hit their children with objects, provide their children's "sexual initiation," marry off their 13 year old daughters against their will, etc.


----------

