Two weeks ago, I had an opportunity to speak with Dr. James Dobson about the threat that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child poses to parental rights, particularly the right of parents to direct the education of their children. In retrospect, these warnings almost appear to have been prophetic. Read the rest of this entry »
What kind of society rips a 17-year-old autistic boy from his loving home and places him in a state-run mental institution, where he is given heavy doses of drugs, kept physically restrained, kept away from his family, deprived of books and other mental stimulation and is left alone to rot?
According to an opinion piece published last Sunday in California’s Orange County Register, it can be our own society. Read the rest of this entry »
Yesterday, I had an opportunity to share with Dr. James Dobson about the threat that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child poses to parental rights. Although the interview is the conclusion of a two-part series on the importance of home schooling fathers, this treaty poses a danger to more than just families who home school. Dr. Dobson and I discuss how the government can use the treaty to override the decisions of parents on the basis of the “best interests of the child,” and how the ratification of this treaty is more of a threat today than it ever has been before.
Listen to the discussion with Dr. James Dobson. The discussion of parental rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child begins about seventeen minutes into the program.
For more information on the threat of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, visit The Attack on Parental Rights. We are also launching an in-depth e-mail series on the dangers that the CRC poses, which you can find posted here on the ParentalRights.org blog.
In addition to speaking with Dr. James Dobson yesterday, I was also able to share with Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association about parental rights. During this twelve-minute interview, Tim and I discuss the growing specter of international law, the dangers that international treaties like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will pose, and how conservative justices are looking for an explicit provision in the Constitution before defending parental rights.
Click here to listen to the interview. The discussion of parental rights and international law begins about three-and-a-half minutes into the program.
Last week, I had an opportunity to speak with Dr. Jerry Johnson about the parental rights amendment. During the ten-minute interview, we spoke about the threat to parental rights, the hesitance of conservative judges like Scalia to defend parental rights without recourse to the explicit text of the constitution, and the growing danger of international law.
Listen to the radio interview with Dr. Johnson on the web. The discussion of the parental rights amendment begins 29 minutes into the program.
From the November/December 2007 Court Report
by Michael P. Farris
In the March/April 2006 Home School Court Report, I made the case for a parental rights amendment to the United States Constitution. Even though parental rights are recognized as a fundamental right under current Supreme Court doctrine, there are two threats to recognition of this principle.
First, a growing number of Supreme Court justices refuse to recognize that parental rights are a fundamental right. Justice Antonin Scalia, a noted conservative, holds that parental rights are not judicially enforceable at all until there is a specific parental rights provision in the Constitution.
The second threat is the growing use of international law in American courts. If the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child becomes binding in this country, then parental rights as we know them will be erased. Moreover, all state laws which recognize the right of homeschooling will be superseded by international law to the extent that international and federal courts believe these laws are in conflict.
This article takes you into an in-depth analysis of the threat of international law based on substantial formal study that I have undertaken in the last year. The article is adapted from a speech I gave at the 2007 Home School Legal Defense Association National Conference for Christian Homeschool Leaders.
The question at the heart of the American Revolution was who had the moral authority to make the laws that bound the American colonies. The answer of our forefathers was that only the American people themselves or their elected legislative bodies have the moral authority to make laws.
In light of this history, the first question any of us should ask about international law is: Who has the authority to make international law? And a second question follows immediately: Who is subject to international law? And the third question to complete this series is: What are the types of activities and subject matters that can be regulated through international law? Read the rest of this entry »
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to share the mission of ParentalRights.org in a radio interview with Betsy Hart, a nationally-syndicated columnist, conservative commentator, and host of the Chicago-based radio program, “It Takes a Parent.”
Betsy is the author of a book by the same title, It Takes A Parent: How the Culture of Pushover Parenting Is Hurting Our Kids — and What to Do About It. Betsy’s message is consistently about reminding parents – and our culture – that it takes a parent to raise a child.
In this twenty-minute interview, Betsy and I discuss the threat that federal judges and international law are posing to parental rights, the importance of preserving the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of our children, and the mission of ParentalRights.org: to pass a constitutional amendment that will secure our liberty and self-government for future generations of Americans.
Check out Betsy’s blog post on the interview here.
UPDATE: The audio of the interview is now available on Betsy’s Blog. Audio also available at National Review Online here.
Last Saturday, hundreds of Maryland schoolchildren lined up with their parents in front of the Prince Georges County courthouse to receive mandatory vaccinations. About 2,300 children in the school district had not received vaccines for chickenpox or hepatitis B, prompting state officials to threaten parents with fines or even jail time if they did not comply.
According to Barbara Loe Fisher, President of the National Vaccine Information Center, terrorizing and threatening parents with jail time is not the way to handle the situation. “Chickenpox is not smallpox and hepatitis B is not polio,” Fisher explains.
The school’s response has also been decried by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons as a power play that “obliterates informed consent and parental rights.” The AAPS is also concerned that “vaccine round-ups,” like this one, could expose children to a dangerous cocktail of vaccines without first adequately checking their medical history for potentially-harmful side-effects.
The fundamental question isn’t whether vaccination is beneficial or harmful for children, but who should decide: the parents or the state? It is vitally important that parents are provided with access to the information they need to make important decisions, such as whether to vaccinate their children. But giving parents an ultimatum by compelling them to accept shots or face jail time crosses the line.
The National Survey of Student Engagement has released their 2007 Annual Report, which collects information from colleges and universities nationwide about student participation and academic performance. Among their findings is an extensive discussion about the role of parental involvement in the lives of college students, which garnered the intriguing headline: “Smart parents are meddling parents.”
According to the Virginian-Pilot, the survey “reaches the surprising conclusion that students who are regularly in touch with their parents fare better than those who rarely call home.” Among its findings, the report concludes that seven of ten college students communicate “very often” with at least one parent, and about three quarters of all students frequently followed the advice of a parent, often resulting in more exchanges with professors and more participation in educational activities that improve the quality of education.
The NSSE findings highlight the importance of the vital child-parent relationship: not only in the lives of their children, but also in their development and educational potential. The battle for the parental rights amendment is the battle to protect this vital relationship.
Join the battle for parental rights by becoming a Citizen Co-sponsor of the Petition to protect parental rights.
From the November/December 2006 Court Report Cover Story
By Michael P. Farris
Human rights should not be viewed as being in conflict with the promotion of pluralism. At the core, any theory of human rights views the decisions of individuals for their own lives to be presumptively superior to governmental authority. Of course, there are limits to this theory, and not all things that are claimed to be a human right survive logical analysis. But there is something about the right of private judgment that is fundamental to the idea of human rights.
One of the most important applications of this right of private judgment, at least to the homeschooling community, is the right of parents to decide how their children should be educated. Parents should have a prior right to make such decisions that is superior to any claim of government.
Pluralism, properly defined, is a compatible goal with human rights. In an operational sense, pluralism means that people of different races, religions, and views should live together with mutual respect and as equal citizens.
A government may promote pluralism. But if pluralism and human rights are to mean anything, they must mean that a person may not be compelled to give up his or her individual views in the name of making a pluralistic society. In fact, coerced pluralism is a self-defeating objective. Read the rest of this entry »
