I've requested the organization to write an explanation in response to your question and then post it on the website. I got a personal response that said that this verbiage: "neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served" means that the government is allowed to intervene when the interest of the higher order refers to abuse or neglect.
The caveat is that the government has to prove that the family is broken and the parents are unfit. The email I got also had in it cited a precedent (Quincilli v. Walcot, decided in 1978) where it was concluded that the Constitution is violated if the government interferes with an intact family without first proving that a parent is unfit. Another case (from 1982 of*Santosky v. Kramer) clarified the state must prove that a parent is unfit by "clear and convincing evidence." I was told that the lower courts are *supposed* to use this test when dealing with cases involving parental rights: the government must convincingly prove that a parent is "unfit" to raise the child, before intervening in the family. Unfortunately, the state courts often treat parents as unfit without ever proving that the parents are harming their children, or are unable to provide for their needs.
This amendment may not specify the specific cases where the government may act or not act, but an overly-strict amendment would stand virtually no chance of passing. Terms like "child abuse" or "danger to the child" carry a wide variety of meanings and connotations to different people. I was told that by introducing these terms into the amendment, the framers of the amendment would run the risk of creating more unresolved problems over issues that are both complex and deeply divisive.
Instead, the parental rights amendment requires the government to satisfy the burden of proof in*every*case, offering parents protection that is both reasonable and effective.* Instead of being treated as unfit or abusive parents in every case, parents -- like every other person in the United States -- will be innocent until proven guilty.
I hope that answers the question.
And I hope that the organizations takes me seriously and posts an article containing this information on their site. Its an important question that many people have. If they don't properly address it, I feel they'll be losing supporters who may have supported the effort if that have that little bit of information.
For me, I still am leery of "proving a parent is unfit by clear and convincing evidence" especially when the issue at hand is refusing vaccinations, an unwanted cesarean, or choosing an unassisted birth. Ahhh, the weaknesses of the legal system.