or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution - Page 5

post #81 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
Parents already have the right to make medical decisions for their children. They do not have the right to withold lifesaving treatments from their child in every case (some states are more likely than others to look the other way on this one.) I actually agree with that. I think that a child with a life-threatening illness deserves a chance to survive that illness even if it means getting scientifically proven treatments of which their parent disapproves, such as blood transfusions, chemotherapy, or heart surgery. I don't think parents should have final say over whether an ill child lives or dies. I believe children are human with human rights, not the property of their parents. Children are in a uniquely vulnerable position in society and I am in favor of *children's rights* being enshrined and protected in law.
But now, WHO is to say what is lifesaving or not? Some see vaccines as lifesaving, others see them as EXTREMELY harmful. And the same for chemo and rad therapies. I have personally watched these treatments killed loved ones faster than the cancer would have. And I know personally of people who have used natural treatments and were completely cured of their cancer without traditional medical treatments. Therein lies the problem. What many groups in our country today believe is best for our children is not necessarily so. My fear is that this treaty would give them the edge they need to gain control of the health care and education of our children.
post #82 of 130
Vaccines are preventive medicine (and I know some would argue not even that, but really, that's for another forum and another time.) Chemotherapy is a treatment for a specific type of disease. There's a big difference. If you wanted to compare infectious disease and cancer, vaccines are to avoiding second hand smoke as antibiotic or antiviral drugs are to chemotherapy.
post #83 of 130
Love~ I have been to parentsrights.org and I am paret of CRPR I understand where some are comeing from I do not believe everything that the group stands for (esp. the anti gay belief they have) but as a parent fighting for her rights who has no money and has to deal with leagal aide for an attorney I stand by them and support what they are trying to do for us FIT parents not the parents who abuse their children maybe if more people had their rights stompped all over then they would understand why we can support this even if we do not stand by all their beliefs if they can give me back my rights to want to get to know someone before they take my child all alone who has been verbally and emotionally abusive to their own children then I can 100% stand by them even if this was the only thing that I can say I agree with them on. I will stop now I can ramble on and on about this I because this is the USA how cn this happen to a fit mother?

I do not think that Traxell is followed in NY and not seen in other states as well that is why so many families are fighting GPs or TPs
post #84 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA'sMama View Post
I do not think that Traxell is followed in NY and not seen in other states as well that is why so many families are fighting GPs or TPs

Traxel is applicable in EVERY state. It is the pronoucment of the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling is law in every state. Just because you have a law behind you, or even a Constitutional Amendment does not mean that someone can't file suit against you!
post #85 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwebbal View Post
Read my signature. My family consists of two lesbians and a son. We are currently trying for another child.

From HSLDA's own website (the who we are page)


They clearly are against families like my own, and seek to change laws so that my family would not be protected.
That is quite scary.

bczmama,

I am all for giving children more parental rights in many ways. I can also see this being abused, and I do not believe that the bill the HSLD is presenting is the right one.
post #86 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
Vaccines are preventive medicine (and I know some would argue not even that, but really, that's for another forum and another time.) Chemotherapy is a treatment for a specific type of disease. There's a big difference. If you wanted to compare infectious disease and cancer, vaccines are to avoiding second hand smoke as antibiotic or antiviral drugs are to chemotherapy.
I'll be honest, my brain is not be functioning well today due to lack of sleep and I am struggling to understand what you are saying here.

But my point is that both vaccines and medical treatments that I and other parents are against may very well be forced on us someday, and much more so if this treaty is signed. They all fall in the realm of the treaties stand on medical care.

From http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/treaties/crc.htm

Quote:
Article 24
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:

(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;

(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;

(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;
I assume any of you can see how these statements in teh treaty CAN be used to do what I speak of.
post #87 of 130
I do not like that. I am a Canadian. Most of our provinces have legal guidelines as to parental rights. Only fair, since there are legal reprecussions and punishments for bad parenting to define what might be the minimum standard for parenting is.

It is also completely at odds with the current situation in legal parenting in all the western constitutional democracies and republics. Parenting rights can be lifted or terminated by the state because by law, the state is the real parent and the parents are the parents-on-location acting on behalf of the state. You may not agree with that, and you may not like it but it is the case.
post #88 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-elaine View Post
For my own interest and to further my understanding I have been doing some searching for more information and thought I would post some things that I found.

First of all, can someone please help me undertand this statement in the Constitution and how it could be true that if a treaty were signed it could never override the laws of our land:
I didn't say that. To quote myself.

Quote:
IF a country signs an international treaty (and there are plenty that the US has not signed), then it is voluntarily agreeing to the terms of that treaty - which may result in their laws changing.
Think "copy and paste" not overrule.
Quote:
And I noticed this too, It does not take that much to sign a treaty - only the president and 2/3s of the PRESENT Senators.
you are kidding right? this is equivalent to a constitutional amendment.


Quote:
I also came across some interesting things regarding the ratifying of this treaty in other countries:

http://www.crae.org.uk/cms/index.php...=16&Itemid=104
Does the Convention on the Rights of the Child apply in the UK?
YES, the UK Government agreed to make all laws, policy and practice compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when it ratified it on 16 December 1991 (though it registered some reservations).
emphasis mine - the UK government VOLUNTARILY AGREED - was not forced to. VOLUNTARILY AGREED to be bound to the terms of the treaty.

It also registered reservations - and I remember the UK having a great deal of influence over the wording and contents of the UN Convention.

Remember, who makes international treaties? States do. Representatives of the governments who in turn ratify or not the international treaty. Which states have the most power? The richest countries - and the permanent members on the security council. Who is on the security council?

Quote:
http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp
Membership in 2007
The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end):
Belgium (2008),Italy (2008),,Qatar (2007), Congo (Republic of the) (2007), Panama (2008) ,Slovakia (2007), Ghana (2007) Peru (2007) , South Africa (2008), Indonesia (2008)
Quote:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7072/1565
“Once a country has ratified the convention, it is obliged under international law to comply with its principles and standards.”
Sure, but no country HAS to ratify a convention. A country at any time can say it won't comply with individual implications of a convention. And many many countries ignore common interpretations of different conventions - note the non-proliferation treaty (which was signed by North Korea AND Iran, btw). Iran is claiming that its actions are in compliance with the NPT. North Korea is flouting it entirely.

Quote:
Taking all of this into consideration, it does seem reasonable to believe that the signing of this treaty COULD happen in this country and it COULD mean trouble for many parents.
As i mentioned before, signing the treaty is not an issue. No one can force the US to sign a treaty - trust me, it has been tried before.

IF the US signed the treaty, there is no way any outside country (short of other brute force means of invading or sanctions) could force the US to interpret that treaty in any way that would violate the rights of homeschoolers.

I think the misunderstanding stems frm the fact that the UN and other international bodies are NOT equivalent to our congressional system. Their power to mandate anything is limited to the power given to them by the member states - which can recind that power at any moment. The US is notorious for doing just this. Our government does not take instruction well from the UN, and in fact uses the UN pretty much as a way to justify its own decisions, and ignores the UN when the UN recommends anything that the US feels would be against its interests.

You have NO fear from an international law invalidating the rights of homeschools. You may well have fear of a US law which would accomplish this - but that is a totally different fight.

Siobhan
post #89 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-elaine View Post

From http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/treaties/crc.htm



I assume any of you can see how these statements in teh treaty CAN be used to do what I speak of.
You're seriously freaked out by a UN document suggesting that kids have a right to clean drinking water, and that reducing infant mortality is a good goal to establish? :
post #90 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by siobhang View Post

You may well have fear of a US law which would accomplish this - but that is a totally different fight.

Siobhan

That is not a totally different fight- that is what the amendment would prevent.
post #91 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
You're seriously freaked out by a UN document suggesting that kids have a right to clean drinking water, and that reducing infant mortality is a good goal to establish? :

Obviously we are freaked out by other parts and what it has done in other countries.

I don't think anyone is cowering in fear of drinking water here.
post #92 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
You're seriously freaked out by a UN document suggesting that kids have a right to clean drinking water, and that reducing infant mortality is a good goal to establish? :
No - I am seriously freaked out by the possible interpretations of these statements:
Quote:
States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services
Quote:
a) To diminish infant and child mortality
- this because vaccines ARE seen as a method of diminshing infant and child mortality

Interpretations COULD be drawn from this that a parent who refuses vaccines and other traditional medical services and treatments for even educated reasons, is "depriving" the child of "his or her right to access to such health care services)

Again - I am NOT saying that this treaty is a bad thing. On the contrary, it has some very valuable ideas. My concern is that IF the US does VOLUNTARILY sign and go along with the treaty, there is a much greater risk of parents losing THEIR rights to decide the treatment they feel is safest for their children. This could result in parents even losing temporary custody of their children to do so or being forced to vaccinate their children or being forced to get other treatments done to their children against their wishes, beliefs, and better judgment
post #93 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post

That is not a totally different fight- that is what the amendment would prevent.
what is the source of the threat - an international treaty, which would require the same voting numbers as a constitutional amendment which would prevent it?

OR Congress passing a law which is NOT an amendment, and therefore not requiring two thirds majority?

I am not saying that homeschooling is or isn't under threat. And I have no opinion on the use of an amendment or not to protect parental rights.

I AM saying that the threat coming from an international treaty such as the UN Convention on human rights is a complete non-issue.
post #94 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-elaine View Post
My concern is that IF the US does VOLUNTARILY sign and go along with the treaty, there is a much greater risk of parents losing THEIR rights to decide the treatment they feel is safest for their children.
In order for the US to voluntarily sign the treaty, they would need the same number of votes in congress, and approval by the same president as a constitutional amendment that would protect US from the infringements of rights you feel this treaty would create.

AND just because we sign the treaty doesn't mean we have to interpret the terms of the treaty the way any other country on earth does. And there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism on treaties other than international pressure - and since the US is the most powerful country in the world, really, we have nothing to worry about in that regard.

You may hate the UN Convention on Human rights. But don't get scared of it. There are no teeth in that dog.

In addition, the common interpretation by western countries is that the UN Convention is just a way to justify foreign assistance to developing countries with failing healthcare systems. It is also a way to get corrupt governments who steal outright from their citizens to at least promise to meet the basic needs of their citizens.

But there is no enforcement mechanism other than withholding foreign assistance, sanctions, or the threat of military force - and who on earth is going to even attempt that with the US over a small group of citizens voluntarily refusing to vaccinate their children?
post #95 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by siobhang View Post
As i mentioned before, signing the treaty is not an issue. No one can force the US to sign a treaty - trust me, it has been tried before.

IF the US signed the treaty, there is no way any outside country (short of other brute force means of invading or sanctions) could force the US to interpret that treaty in any way that would violate the rights of homeschoolers.

You have NO fear from an international law invalidating the rights of homeschools. You may well have fear of a US law which would accomplish this - but that is a totally different fight.
I must not being making myself clear enough.
I am not afraid of the US being "forced" into anything. I believe there truly IS a risk of our government eventually, willingly signing this treaty. I also believe that if that happens, with our governments history in other areas, parents that do not go along with the "norm" do risk a loss of rights themselves especially inthe areas of homeschooling and medical care.

Quote:
IF a country signs an international treaty (and there are plenty that the US has not signed), then it is voluntarily agreeing to the terms of that treaty - which may result in their laws changing.
Again - this is exactly my fear - Can ANYONE say that the US would NEVER sign and agree to this treaty? If not, then would it not be safe to say there is a risk.

With that in mind - parents rights being added to the consitition FIRST would aid in protecting parents from teh issues that I have previously mentioned
post #96 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by siobhang View Post
In order for the US to voluntarily sign the treaty, they would need the same number of votes in congress, and approval by the same president as a constitutional amendment that would protect US from the infringements of rights you feel this treaty would create.

AND just because we sign the treaty doesn't mean we have to interpret the terms of the treaty the way any other country on earth does. And there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism on treaties other than international pressure - and since the US is the most powerful country in the world, really, we have nothing to worry about in that regard.

You may hate the UN Convention on Human rights. But don't get scared of it. There are no teeth in that dog.

In addition, the common interpretation by western countries is that the UN Convention is just a way to justify foreign assistance to developing countries with failing healthcare systems. It is also a way to get corrupt governments who steal outright from their citizens to at least promise to meet the basic needs of their citizens.

But there is no enforcement mechanism other than withholding foreign assistance, sanctions, or the threat of military force - and who on earth is going to even attempt that with the US over a small group of citizens voluntarily refusing to vaccinate their children?

:

It really strikes me as tunnel vision bordering on paranoia to read that really very bland and general UN document as an attack on voluntary non-vaxers in the first world. There's a lot of families who want vaccines but can't get them they still have to help before they'll worry about you. If ever. A lot of kids who need drinking water, food other than a cup of rice, and basic medical care too.
post #97 of 130
[QUOTE=siobhang;7238063]
You may hate the UN Convention on Human rights. But don't get scared of it. There are no teeth in that dog.
QUOTE]

OK - let me try this a different way - I DO NOT hate the UNCRC at all - I agree that it is a GOOD thing.

I am not afraid of the UN in any way. I am "afraid" of OUR OWN GOVERMENT. If there is a presidential and 2/3rds senate vote to sign and ratify this treaty, then this same government could end up interpreting certain articles along with our constitution in a way that causes trouble for homeschooling families and families who do not use most traditional medical treatments and/or vaccinate. This may never be an issue for us in our generation. But if not that does not mean that would not someday affect our children as parents.

I believe that in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, there is a good chance that we could ammend the Constitution to include parental rights as a fundamental right to help insure protection of these rights for us, as well as our children, and our children's children. With this specific wording in the const. it would make it more cut and dry exactly WHERE the line is to be drawn on when the gov't should step in. Obviously, and without a doubt, parental rights would not include the right to abuse a child, so that is a moot point.

I am hoping that that clarifies my stance.

Tina
post #98 of 130
Thread Starter 
I was just reading the treaty- did anyone see the part where is gives a child rights before birth? Very interesting.


t-elaine, quoting you...
"I am not afraid of the US being "forced" into anything. I believe there truly IS a risk of our government eventually, willingly signing this treaty. I also believe that if that happens, with our governments history in other areas, parents that do not go along with the "norm" do risk a loss of rights themselves especially inthe areas of homeschooling and medical care."


I see exactly what you are saying.
Thank you posting and explaining all you have and for all the links.


BelgainSheepDog,
It's not paranoia. Have you not seen what has happened in other countries where chilren have 'the right to an education?' That is a PC way of saying HSing is illegal. Same thing. I'm sure the government has a different view of 'right to medical care' than many MDC familes do.


Anyway I am not here to be against the treaty.

I am here to be FOR the amendment. Different issues.


And PLEASE all of you, PLEASE stop talking about Troxel and saying forced third-party visitation isn't real, doesn't hold up, whatever. Sometimes it doesn't, but what about when it DOES?
You do not know who you are talking to here. I have seen it happen IRL to a single mom in my old town, with really crazy controlling grandparents. I have seen in happen to married friends online who were trying to protect their kids. It could have happened to me. I have read about it in the news, even read about a judge not allowing the mom and child to move away from the litigating grandma. I have researched this thing to death. It is a very real threat to too many families today, even if not to yours.
post #99 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA'sMama View Post
Love~ I have been to parentsrights.org and I am paret of CRPR I understand where some are comeing from I do not believe everything that the group stands for (esp. the anti gay belief they have) but as a parent fighting for her rights who has no money and has to deal with leagal aide for an attorney I stand by them and support what they are trying to do for us FIT parents not the parents who abuse their children maybe if more people had their rights stompped all over then they would understand why we can support this even if we do not stand by all their beliefs if they can give me back my rights to want to get to know someone before they take my child all alone who has been verbally and emotionally abusive to their own children then I can 100% stand by them even if this was the only thing that I can say I agree with them on. I will stop now I can ramble on and on about this I because this is the USA how cn this happen to a fit mother?

I do not think that Traxell is followed in NY and not seen in other states as well that is why so many families are fighting GPs or TPs
I totally understand.
I agree that the NY statue is not inline with Troxel at ALL.
I don't know why people here don't see this.


How can any of you sit here and say Troxel fixed this mess, and we don't need a parental rights amendment, when it is reality what JA'sMama is going through right now? :
post #100 of 130
I was thinking - it may be easier for some of us to see the risk because we have already seen persecutions of some sort due to our parenting choices.

Many of these persecutions have come from various governmental levels. With that in mind it is easy, at least for me, to see the risk involved.

BTW - This country does deal with issues such as clean water and sanitation or starvation as in others - so there IS a lot of room for our government to the look at the other issues such as vaccination and such. If the treaty is signed HERE, this is the country our gov't would be dealing with, not the 3rd world. Call me paranoid if you will - but I just want my family's (icluding my children's) rights to be protected as fully as possible
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution