Already signed up? Login.
This short promo can be used at events or a coffee in your home. Check it out below here and download a high quality version for showing at your event here.
Less than two weeks ago, a California appeals court declared in In Re Rachel L. that the vast majority of parents in California may only choose between public and private school because they are unqualified to teach their children. Tens of thousands of children in California are currently homeschooled, but this fact was unconvincing for these three judges, who boldly proclaimed that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” unless they are certified by the state to teach.
In so ruling, the court declined to follow the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder and its 2000 ruling in Troxel v. Granville, relying instead upon two antiquated lower-court decisions. The California court refused to recognize parental rights as fundamental rights (even though the Supreme Court did in Troxel), opting instead for the more lenient, pro-government standard of “reasonableness.” According to the court, homeschooling could not be a legitimate educational option because it would place “an unreasonable burden on the state to have to supervise each and every home in which a child was being educated.”
How do you like that? Read the rest of this entry »
That is what a California court recently said. Regrettably the Supreme Court of the United States might agree with that view. If the fundamental parental right was enumerated in the Constitution through a Parental Rights Amendment, we would not have rulings like this California case.
Sign the petition today and get your friends involved. We can’t wait until it is too late.
An In-depth Look at Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Last week, we looked at how Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child gives the government authority to intervene in the decisions of parents simply by appealing to the child’s “best interests.” This week, we continue our in-depth analysis of the CRC by examining Article 12, which says: “States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” Read the rest of this entry »
It’s usually looked upon as a positive means of holding countries accountable to protect children. But the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is so much more than that.
When the UNCRC was brought up for ratification in 1995, the core group of Senators in opposition concluded that this treaty marked a significant departure from the originally constituted relationship between state and child. They found, in fact, that it was literally incompatible with the right of parents to raise their children as well as a wholesale giveaway of U.S. sovereignty.
But why?
Widespread concerns about the UNCRC stem from the treaty’s repeated emphasis on one key principle used to guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of the child.” This principle underlies all of the rights found in the Convention. Read the rest of this entry »
Check out this great video that Jessica Hulcy created about why she is involved in this effort. She is a member of the committee that is organizing the rally in Dallas on March 1. I hope you can attend!
ParentalRights.org is pleased to announce a special informational rally on Saturday, March 1 to hear Michael P. Farris, J.D. speak on the important topic of eroding parental rights in the U.S. This issue affects EVERY PARENT IN AMERICA.
For years, the Supreme Court has recognized that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, but that support is being steadily undermined by judges across the country who are denying the vital role of parents in the lives of their children and instead, are inserting the government into a “parental” role in the lives of America’s children. Please do not miss this special opportunity to hear Farris’s SOLUTION, which he describes as “the battle of the century for every parent in America.” Read the rest of this entry »
A Palm Beach County case on parental rights reached the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday. The case started with Boynton Beach High School student Cameron Frazier, an eleventh grader who refused to say the pledge of allegiance with the rest of his class in 2005. The following year a district court judge handed down a ruling that minor children possess “autonomy” from parents to decide whether or not to say the pledge of allegiance.
The district court ruling directly contradicts Florida law, which seeks to protect the rights of both students and parents by requiring parental consent for students wishing to “opt out” of saying the pledge. But Frazier, his mother, and the ACLU were intent on striking down the state law and altering the state education policy which allows parents to make crucial decisions for their children regarding attendance of certain classes, or, in this case, determining whether or not to say the pledge of allegiance. In comments praising the district court’s decision, Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida said, “It was long past due for this unconstitutional law in Florida to be struck down and the conscience and rights of young people to be respected by school officials.” Read the rest of this entry »
ParentalRights.org Executive Director Rich Shipe joined the Don Kroah Show on WAVA 105.1 in Washington DC last night for a discussion on the crucial need for the Parental Rights Amendment. Listen to the broadcast here (go to Wednesday January 16, 2008 — Hour 1, Minute 11:00).
From the March/April 2006 Court Report Cover Story
Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong — these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history. — Winston Churchill, speech, House of Commons, May 2, 1935.i
There were early warning signs that homosexual “marriage” should be taken seriously. On May 27, 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to three same-sex couples. A voter initiative eventually trumped this decision, but at least by this date the battle was fully engaged.
Yet, the responses of the pro-family community, judged with the aid of 20/20 hindsight, have to be regarded as too little, too late. Homosexual marriages are now being performed in this nation. And while there have been a number of successful efforts to place traditional marriage language into state constitutions, efforts to bring in a federal constitutional amendment are essentially stalled. Even more troubling is the fact that the momentum in the legal system is moving rapidly in the direction of declaring homosexual marriage a federal constitutional right. If this happens, all state constitutional efforts will be for naught.
A friend in Congress recently told me that if the issue had been brought to the floor of the House 15–20 years ago, there is no doubt that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would have passed. There is substantial doubt that such an amendment will ever pass at this point.
The pro-family movement waited until Congress believed there was a real problem before attempting a constitutional solution, even though legal experts have been united for nearly a decade in saying that the only way to stop the courts’ march toward homosexual marriage is with a federal constitutional amendment. By now, our opponents have gained so much strength in both law and culture that the prospects for the right solution are daunting at best.
This article is about the need to save parental rights. I use the story of the battle to save marriage solely as a cautionary tale. The threats to parental rights are real and growing. And we must face the fact that the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution. If we wish to preserve this right, it is my contention that now is the time to put parents’ rights into black and white—that is, to adopt an explicit constitutional amendment.
If we wait until the threat fully matures, we will have waited too long. Read the rest of this entry »
