OPPOSE HR 147

STOP ILLINOIS From Backing The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

 

Introduced by:   Mary Flowers

 

Lake County Right to Life Opposes this Dangerous Bill to Parental Authority.

 

HR147 “Urges President Obama to submit the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent without delay, and further calls on gthe U.S. Senate to move swiftly to approve the Convention.”

 

What is UNCRC – The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

The UNCRC defines the child as “a person under 18 years of age;” and while it acknowledges “the primary role of parents and the family in the care and protection of children,” it pointedly adds “the obligation of the State to help them carry out these duties”, which leaves a lot open to how much the state can or cannot interfere in the private home and parental authority.

The UNCRC has come up with 41 articles, each of which details a different type of child’s right. These articles have been grouped together under four themes. Each theme has a dangerous agenda, cleverly cloaked in benevolent wording regarding children’s welfare.  Here are those themes, with a brief Concern regarding each one …

  1. Survival rights: Include the child’s right to life and the needs that are most basic to existence, such as nutrition, shelter, an adequate living standard, and access to medical services. Concern:  Let’s just look at “medical services.” This could include reproductive services that go against a parent’s religious or moral views, and or psychological and psychiatric issues, in which the parents could also not interfere – both these medical matters, could include a parent not being able to interfere with a child’s right to identify as gay or an opposite gender, or to have access to birth control and abortion.
  2. Development rights: Include the right to education, play, leisure, cultural activities, access to information, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Concern: This is a short walk to realizing that a parent would no longer be able to raise a child in the faith or morals in which that parent chose to raise their child. The parent could not deny that child access to any information or data which the parent might feel is dangerous to the child. The child could decide for itself what is moral and good and necessary for its moral and psychological development, in all areas of play, leisure and cultural activities.
  3. Protection rights: Ensures children are safeguarded against all forms of abuse, neglect and exploitation, including special care for refugee children; safeguards for children in the criminal justice system; protection for children in employment; protection and rehabilitation for children who have suffered exploitation or abuse of any kind. Concern: Let’s just look at “abuse of any kind?” Remember, today, a child who identifies as gay or an opposite gender, might very well claim abuse by a parent’s attempts to teach biblical truths concerning these matters.
  4. Participation rights: Encompass children’s freedom to express opinions, to have a say in matters affecting their own lives, to join associations and to assemble peacefully. As their capacities develop, children should have increasing opportunity to participate in the activities of society, in preparation for adulthood. Concern: Where to begin!  A child’s right to have a “say in matters affecting his life,” will quite naturally pit him against his parents in almost every situation regarding what time he goes to bed, to what church he chooses to attend, when and with whom he or she wishes to become sexually active etc.   “Joining any assemblies and associations,” could allow the child to march in the Gay Pride parade, or any other organization or activity which might go against what the parent deems as appropriate.

A bit of Background: In 1979 the Supreme Court held, “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.”  Unfortunately, a growing, powerful minority no longer find that idea repugnant today.

There really is a steady trend by the government and the courts to remove the influence of parents from the public schools; and be advised; all three branches of the government are involved:  judiciary, legislative and executive.

OPPOSE HR 147!  

This trend is seen in court cases such as Fields v. Palmdale (2005),which held that parents have no say in what, when, or how their children are taught about controversial subjects in the public schools; and Parker v. Hurley (2007), which held that parents have no right to opt their children out of objectionable material, even if it does not involve a core curricular subject.

It is also seen in legislative action, such as Congress’s 2009 defunding of a voucher program in D.C. that allowed low income families to make school choices for their children. And that perfectly parallels a lawsuit brought in 2013 by the federal government against the state of Louisiana in an attempt to end a similar educational choice program in that state.

For those of you keeping score, our list now covers all three branches of the federal government: the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive.

Perhaps the greatest example of this intrusive statist mindset, however, has been the push to adopt the Common Core State Standards. Conceived by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and fleshed out by trade unions in D.C., the Common Core includes “curriculum standards” that all states must adopt in order to be eligible for federal “Race to the Top” education dollars.

Under Common Core, local school districts and even state departments of education are losing authority over education decisions to a smaller and more centralized group of “experts” who are further away from and less accountable to the real experts: the parents and local school teachers who know those children and work to meet their needs every day.

Common Core is also coupled with a scheme to create a national database of American students. Proponents claim it will allow educators to tailor curriculum to the individual student’s needs, but critics see it as a ploy to help big businesses exploit student data for advertising revenue.

Fortunately, parents have started to push back. Several states that adopted the Common Core have since reversed that decision; five states declined to adopt it in the first place. And other states where Common Core was implemented this school year are still seeing parents and lawmakers pushing to retake control of education from the centralized federal powers behind this program.

The ultimate way to push back, of course, will come in 2015 with our newly concerted effort to push the Parental Rights Amendment through the U.S. Congress. This Amendment to the Constitution will secure the “fundamental right” of parents “to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children,” including “the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.”

Your tax dollars pay for the public schools. Yet elitist bureaucrats are making them unsafe for parental rights while pushing their own statist worldview. And anywhere unsafe for parents is unsafe for children.