From World Net Daily....the bolding is mine, and I would recommend visiting the website to view the full article which includes a short clip along with various other links to additional information.
Once again, we see government pushing people to relinquish their rights as parents, handing all authority and decision making powers over to the state.....all in the best interests of the children....of course.
ON CAPITOL HILL
Who will raise kids: Mom, Dad or state?
Parental rights: 67 in Congress pushing to amend Constitution
Posted: March 29, 2009
6:52 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.
Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.
According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."
"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."
Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today's system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with "The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool."
Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.
Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.
According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.
As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:
"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.
Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.
"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."
He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."
As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.
"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 said, according to Fox News.
Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing......
Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990's, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents' ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.
Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.
Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment "states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child's education would be enshrined in the Constitution."
Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.
DeMint's bill, like Hoekstra's in 2008, never made it out of committee.
To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Take special note of the following,
Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing.
If the U.S. were to ratify the UNCRC (and let's keep in mind that the Clinton administration was in favor of doing so....any guesses where the current administration is likely to stand on the subject?) the ability of parents to raise their children would cease to exist. Your child could reasonably take you to court for teaching them any beliefs they didn't agree with under the pretense that it was in violation of their rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The state could charge you for violating your child's rights by teaching them your religion and values.
This is just one more nail in the coffin of the family....one more attempt to break essential familial ties and cede all authority over to the government. Undoubtedly, those in support of UNCRC will argue it's a good thing....after all, what kind of person doesn't want to protect innocent children from hideous abuses. THIS is a tactic used to play upon our emotions, all while disguising the true agenda.....expansion of government and consequential loss of God given rights.Garak has provided the number for the Congressman's Washington D.C. office, (202) 225-4401, so people can call him and express their support for an amendment to protect parental rights. I would also encourage everyone to contact your state's congressional representatives, as their votes that will determine whether or not this amendment will pass.