|
Back on February 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). When it became apparent to many Americans that the convention would pose a serious threat to parental rights, opposition to it mounted. So controversial did it become, in fact, that President Bill Clinton, though he supported the convention, never did submit it to the Senate for ratification. (However, three protocols to the treaty: Treaty Numbers: 106-37, 106-37(A), and 106-37(B) were submitted to the Senate on July 25, 2000.) These protocols address the legitimate problems of the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography, and the involvement of children in armed conflict -- problems that might better be corrected through traditional law enforcement measures or bilateral agreements.
As to why this treaty is worth commenting on now, it is because President Obama has already indicated he is a supporter of the convention. During a presidential debate held at Walden University last October, Obama lamented that only the United States and Somalia hadn't ratified the convention:
"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) has also urged that the treaty, which she asserts provides for "basic human rights" for children, be brought back to life and ratified. "Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer was quoted by Fox News.
Though many pro-family individuals and organizations oppose the CRC, among the most articulate in presenting the reasons is Dr. Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. Parental Rights has posted the following objections to the CRC treaty on its website:
• Parents would no longer be allowed "spank" their children, even with a legitimate reason.
• A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
• The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
• A child's "right to be heard" would allow him/or her to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
• According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
• Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
• Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
• Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services (birth control), including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
The potential damages to parental rights and the integrity of the traditional family posed by the CRC are so great that its opponents — out of legitimate fear — have resorted to an extraordinary measure in an attempt to head them off. Resolutions proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights have been introduced in both the House (H. J. Res. 42) and the Senate (S. J. Res. 13). Though the intentions of the legislators sponsoring these measures are commendable, the amendment process is not the ideal way to secure parental rights. It is not only lengthy and has scant chance of success, but cluttering up the Constitution to enumerate God-given rights already inherent in the state of being a parent is unwise. It suggests that rights are granted by government, and are subject to limitation by government. In fact, this is a major fault of UN conventions such as the CRC — they presume to grant rights already endowed to humans by their Creator.
Rather than using the "band-aid" approach to nullify the effects of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child by amending our Constitution, every member of Congress (particularly senators) should take a firm stand against the CRC.
Scroll down to take action by sending an email to your representative and senators in Congress, telling them to oppose ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, caution them not to resort to a constitutional amendment to counter the dangers posed by the CRC.
Be sure to personalize the pre-written letter to ensure the maximum impact. You are free to edit the pre-written sample letter.
|
