If you are a parent and are reading this, be afraid – be very afraid.
Congress’ ratification of the UN’s benevolent-sounding Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is in the works. And though the title gives no hint of anything other than a representation of human rights, there is more than meets the eye.
The United States is one of only two nations in the world that has not accepted this Convention as our own. And with good reason. If this proposed treaty comes to pass, according to Parentalrights.org, here are the possible (probable) ramifications:
Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC:
Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:
-
These statements are not figments of my imagination. They have not been boiled up in an iron pot by some wizard in the mountains. Once again, if you want to look at the actual treaty, go here.
What does this mean in plain English for you and your neighbors?
This would be a version of Child Protection Services on steroids, except with fewer restrictions and with international management. This would mean that the State would be considered to be a wiser caregiver and understand your child’s individual needs better than you or I would. This would mean that you would be responsible for raising your children unless, of course, it contradicted the way the the State says you should. If a child, for instance, was disciplined for a reason he or she deemed as “unfair” (as if that ever happens) and whose anger over the situation took them to acting out their emotions spitefully by calling the appropriate authorities, this would mean that your life could be a living hell, even if you had done nothing out of the ordinary. And this is due to the fact that “ordinary” would be a subjective term that the State would be able to redefine on the go.
For the third time, if you think that this is a joke or that I am overreacting, I again invite you to take a look at the actual treaty. See how nicely everything begins. But as each new article is introduced, the family-friendly facade starts to crumble and the true intent is revealed.
This is an act of war by our own government - fanned by the United Nations – against its own people. They are attempting to pull the rug out from under the American Family and replace us parents with an impostor (themselves) for the purpose of doing what they please with our children whenever they wish. All under the corrupt UNICEF logo and the guise of human rights.
You don’t think it can happen? It already exists in much of the world and many of us didn’t think that socialistic, government-controlled health care could happen either. But guess what?
Please don’t delay. Call your Congressman and tell them to not ratify the CRC! And tell your friends and neighbors too.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
Kmart,
Is it “rubbish” simply because you and I don’t see eye to eye?
Please don’t cherry pick the items of the treaty that assist your argument. Read the treaty in its entirety. Also, what makes you think that the State knows what is better for a child than the parents? What gives the State the right to determine what is good and bad or to make a subjective area into an objective one? If you care to take notice, see how many of the items are open-ended, ultimately giving the State a “change as we go” template.
Regarding the UN’s poster child – the UK – it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t have a problem with this treaty sine it was what you were raised in. Europeans largely accept socialism easier than do Americans. But a people’s acceptance doesn’t make the premise any less scandalous.
kmart,
You’re kinda late to the party, you know…
You said, “…and if it is in the best interest of the child we intervene. If a child is being abused, we intervene, if a child is being neglected, we intervene… You may be fantastic parents, and I’m sure a lot of you are… but what about those who aren’t? What about those who subject their children to horror?…”
In response to this, I would like to say this – in the U.S. each state has a Department of Human Services (or something akin to it). One of the primary functions of each of these agencies is to perform exactly the duties outlined here. However, they can only do their job when they’re provided w/ the information to do so. I know in Oklahoma, the Child Welfare workers are a very serious bunch of people who take their job very seriously.
My question then, is this – Since in the U.S. we already have agencies that perform the exact functions you describe, why should we have the U.N. looking over our shoulder? The U.N. refuses to address Human Rights issues among the worst violators on the planet and you think somehow they have what it takes to make us take care of our kids? That is inane.
I am English, I sit in a country that did actually ratify this. I was born in 1981 so I did spend some of my childhood under this convention, and you know what? At no point did it take away the rights of my parents. At no point did social services get involved with me or my family just because I had a teen drama!
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill… this is positive for both the child and the family. Article 3: in the best interest of the child…. here in the UK working within Social Services we use that mantra a lot, and if it is in the best interest of the child we intervene. If a child is being abused, we intervene, if a child is being neglected, we intervene… You may be fantastic parents, and I’m sure a lot of you are… but what about those who aren’t? What about those who subject their children to horror? Is that ok just because they are the parent? What about all those children who are abused and damaged in such a way that affects the rest of their lives? Is that ok because their parents saw fit to treat them like that?
I for one am incredibly proud to live in a country which treats it’s children and young people with rights. Where they have the freedom of choices and where, by working hand in hand with adults they can make the correct desicions. This is about promoting that equal right to decision making.
Going through the treaty and cynically re- wording them to create anguish and fear is ridiculous. None of your rights will be taken away as a parent, they aren’t here. Get a grip… children and young people deserve a voice, just as you as an adult do. In fact everyone deserves a voice and that is why you are allowed to spout off the rubbish that you are… because you too are allowed a voice, no matter how stupid it sounds!
You posted only one article. That is exactly what I was going on. The other information presented in your latest response wasn’t presented earlier. If you’re going to respond to me, you should respond the article I write, not what you want to think is there or what you want to read between the lines. In your pro-choice furor, you choose to read things that haven’t been written – it gives the appearance that you’re delusional.
“You need this girl and her mother to be a victim in order to justify a Planned Parenthood witch hunt and if not Planned Parenthood then the state. Bottom line- you are trying to make EVERYONE ELSE BUT the mother and daughter responsible for what happened, when the real blame rests on two shoulders–mother and daughter.”
Here you go again. Where was I trying to justify a Planned Parenthood witch hunt???!!! Where did I even mention that organization???!!! What did I write that could possibly have given you reason to say that???!!! I also didn’t attempt to lay blame at anyone’s feet. What I DID say was, “I can’t speak as to the relationship between the mother and daughter in this story. Neither can anyone else on this blog, unless you have personal knowledge of them (which I’m assuming you don’t have).I was simply pointing out that unless we know the individual parties, we simply CANNOT comment on any aspect of their relationship.” I also said, “For you to place the responsibility for this at the feet of the mother, while holding every other individual in this scenario blameless, is irresponsible at best.” Beyond that, where did I attempt to place blame an ANYONE???!!! Here is yet another example where you attack me over something I did not say.
Again, tell me where, in my response, did I say anything at all regarding Planned Parenthood? Please point out where I have ever said ANYTHING derogatory regarding Planned Parenthood.
Why would you say, “But you wouldn’t know that because I’m sure you’ve never been to one and skipped over all that in anti-abortion furor.” Simply because I am opposed to abortion doesn’t mean I am all frothed up in anti-abortion furor. You don’t know enough about me to make that kind of statement.
I stand by comment ( on 3/29/2010) regarding Laura Bramble: “She will interject her own hypothesis and extrapolate endlessly until her response to an article (or response) is actually a rebuttal of everything except what’s actually in the article (or response).”
You, in your attack dog mode, have just helped me prove my point by making wild interjections and extrapolating at will without even the slightest bit of justification.
Ben,
The point of the clinic is not for emergency care, it is for well-care.
From the site- note you have to REGISTER specifically to be able to recieve services there.
“We are fortunate at BHS to have the Ballard Teen Health Center (BTHC), a full-service clinic associated with Swedish Hospital. They are conveniently located in my office area and can see BHS students who register with them.”
http://ballardbeavers.org/Services/Student%20Health/nurse.html
Here’s the website for the clinic- note what the top services are… http://www.ballardbeavers.org/Services/Student%20Health/bthc.html
Here is a link to the copy of the form. The abortion was not performed on campus, so specific permission for abortions to be performed on site is not required. Apparently mom didn’t read it.
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?sid=301972&nid=11
When she signed a consent form, Jill figured it meant her 15 year old could go to the Ballard Teen Health Center located inside the high school for an earache, a sports physical, even birth control, but not for help terminating a pregnancy.
“She took a pregnancy test at school at the teen health center,” she said. “Nowhere in this paperwork does it mention abortion or facilitating abortion.”
http://www.komonews.com/news/88971742.html#idc-cover
Note she even admitted that the form was not specifically for emergency care.
Health Department: Student’s abortion outlined in consent form
The mother of a Ballard High School student is furious over her claim that the school helped her daughter seek an abortion, but the King County Public Health Department says the service was outlined in a consent form.
Admitting she signed a form, the mother told KOMO-TV she figured services provided by the Ballard Teen Health Center included treatment for stomach viruses or even birth control, but not the termination of a pregnancy.
The student’s mother, who wishes to remain unidentified, said her daughter was given a pregnancy test at the school’s health center and then the school provided her with the time and transportation to a clinic, during school hours, to have an abortion.
“The form describes what the parent is consenting to, but also illustrates what a youth may independently consent to,” T.J. Cosgrove, King County Public Health Department Manager for School Based Programs, told KIRO Radio’s Dave Ross Wednesday.
Cosgrove read the consent form to Ross: “Youth may independently access reproductive health care at any age. They may independently receive drug and alcohol services and mental health counseling from age 13.”
The form doesn’t specifically list “abortion” and Cosgrove said it would be impossible to list all of the services, treatment options, and diagnostic procedures associated with pregnancy.
“I think there’s room on the form to list one or two conditions, but I think limiting it to one or two conditions is probably not practical.”
Cosgrove added that ultimately, the student could have gone out on her own to seek these services after school and they “encourage people to have that conversation with their kids.”
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=301930
You need this girl and her mother to be a victim in order to justify a Planned Parenthood witch hunt and if not Planned Parenthood then the state. Bottom line- you are trying to make EVERYONE ELSE BUT the mother and daughter responsible for what happened, when the real blame rests on two shoulders–mother and daughter. No one stole this girl away despite her protests and forced her bound and gagged into a car, drove her to a waiting clinic with locked doors, tied her down and forced her to have an abortion. NO ONE is placed in that situation. No one made the daughter not tell the mother, to sneak, to lie when her mother asked her how her day was, to pretend everything was fine when it was not- SHE did that.
Do you even know what the procedure is for an abortion, how it plays out? How long you are sitting in the waiting room with every opportunity to change your mind? How you have to talk to several people before you can have the procedure? And that’s not even when they are dealing with a kid. How many forms you have to sign? How you are free to leave at any time and would not have someone talk you out of it? How they make sure you know what the procedure is and what it means? No, you wouldn’t. I do, so I know that girl WANTED to be there and WANTED to have the procedure, so whether it was then or later in the day or week, she was going to have it.
Have you ever even been in a Planned Parenthood, period? Do you know that the majority of their clients are there for reproductive services that have nothing to do with abortion? That a good number of women without health insurance receive their routine gynocological care there?
I should know, when I was in my early 20′s and was without health insurance, I received my routine care and birth control at a Planned Parenthood. I got good care at a price I could afford. They were open six days a week and saw patients all day. They only performed “procedures” on Saturdays. That meant that FIVE days a week, they performed services that had nothing to do with abortions. But you wouldn’t know that because I’m sure you’ve never been to one and skipped over all that in anti-abortion furor. Quick to believe anything negative without thought that they may very well do good.
“The mother acknowledges she signed a consent form at the beginning of the school year giving the school permission to administer health care off campus. She assumed that meant in cases of emergency. Nowhere on the form is abortion mentioned.”
My mother used to sign one of these for both my sister and I at the beginning of every school year. The reason is simple – should a child be injured and the school is unable to contact the parents or guardians, they must have authorization to allow emergency medical treatment. Abortion is not, by any stretch of the imagination, emergency medical treatment.
I can’t speak as to the relationship between the mother and daughter in this story. Neither can anyone else on this blog, unless you have personal knowledge of them (which I’m assuming you don’t have). For you to place the responsibility for this at the feet of the mother, while holding every other individual in this scenario blameless, is irresponsible at best.
For you to say, “She went to her mother and got permission for medical treatment, not telling her what it was for- strike three. The mother signed it, not taking the time to ask, investigate further, or take charge of her daughter’s health care by taking her to another doctor.” is taking the entire article out of context. The mother stated, as was quoted in the article, that she had signed the paper at the beginning of the school year.
You go on to say, “She was more than willing to give her parental responsibility over to a school and her daughter- strike four.” How you can surmise this from the article you quoted for your reply is beyond me. Again, not only did my mother sign one of those Authorization for Emergency Treatment at the beginning of every school year (in case the school was unable to locate her should I be injured and require emergency treatment), but I signed one for the daycare where my 22 mo old son attends, his grandmother, a substitute baby-sitter, and his god-parents. Due to the nature of my work (and my wife’s) there are times when I have to make a trip fro whatever odd reason and may be 2 or 3 hrs from home. Just because I have signed that piece of paper allowing them to get treatment and act in my stead in no way implies that I have abdicated my parental responsibilities. What it does say is that I have taken every precaution, should my precious child be injured, that he will be able to received the appropriate medical care in my and my wife’s absence.
Several years ago, I took a church group to Tulsa for a holiday Youth Convention. Prior to leaving, I made all the kids get an authorization for emergency medical treatment signed by their parents. One morning, one of the young men (who was 14 at the time) woke up with severe stomach cramps. Fearing the worst, I took the authorization and Shane to the ER, where he was diagnosed with strept throat – rather innocuous. However, had I not had that authorization and he’d had appendicitis (as I had feared), he would not have been able to receive treatment on any level until a parent had showed up to sign the authorization. The mother was almost 2 hrs away and the father lived 4 hrs distant. An eternity when faced with a crisis.
Again, with this topic, you have shown your willingness to read into the article things that are simply not there. Every point you make I can refute using only the article that YOU chose to post in your reply.
J,
The problem with your argument is right here-”It was also SUGGESTED this is a regular and secreted routine that most kids, teachers, nurses, and hospital staff and government paperwork readers ALL know about, EVERYBODY but the parents who love and care in a way that you seem to minimize if the child is ashamed or is (rightfully) reluctant to tell any parent.”
Suggested by the same people who got the facts wrong? Suggested by the same groups that have sponsored information that has been shown to be false in order to stir up sentiment?
I can SUGGEST all kinds of things and be rightfully called on it. This whole article is full of SUGGESTED interpretations of far-out scenarios that ,if you look at the laws already in place in this country,could already happen but don’t.
It does not change the fact that a child got pregnant under her parent’s watch and did not use protection- strike one. She used the school to hide the already decided upon consequences of her actions- strike two. She went to her mother and got permission for medical treatment, not telling her what it was for- strike three. The mother signed it, not taking the time to ask, investigate further, or take charge of her daughter’s health care by taking her to another doctor. She was more than willing to give her parental responsibility over to a school and her daughter- strike four. The daughter went out of her way to get the abortion in secret, going off the premises in order to do it.- strike five. Do you honestly think she would not have done it otherwise? And where was the boy in all this? She wanted someone else to pay for it so that she wouldn’t have to tell her mother- strike six. Had she never had unrelated medical issues, she never would have told her mother- strike seven.
And how close and trusting, how accepting and stable, of a relationship is there between this mother and daughter that she had no idea the daughter was pregnant and that anything like this “completely traumatic” abortion occurred? The mother even said that she thought that her daughter may use the clinic to get birth control. She suspected her 15 YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER (!) might be sexually active and she did nothing? She left it up to others? And then wonder why things ewere done within the law without her? She removed herself!Why wasn’t she wasn’t involved in the entire process, the process of making sure her daughter had the means and knowledge to be sexually responsible? PP made a deep scar in their relationship? NO, J, it was already there. PP didn’t make the mother negligent or the daughter a sneak. The worst they did was give them the tools to act on it.
Laura,
Your taking an example and using it to deflect from the forum in particular.
But for polite conversation, the mother was tricked. Common sense would tell any mother the form was in case of emergency treatment from an accident or an unexpected bust ing appendix, or asprin from the nurse, not to secretly have a major elective surgery without her knowledge or consent.
The fact is, while she walked to the taxi, office petty cash funds are used to pay for transport when the child needs or request it. Futher more the killing took place at Swedish BY A PLANNED PARENTHOOD employeed physician who ALWAYS brings school children there as to avoid exposure at the clinic, people do see and talk. The nurse did not advise the child, a Planned Parenthood Rep did. It was also suggested this is a regular and secreted routine that most kids, teachers, nurses, and hospital staff and government paperwork readers ALL know about, EVERYBODY but the parents who love and care in a way that you seem to minimize if the child is ashamed or is (rightfully) reluctant to tell any parent.
When she said she WANTED to tell them, before the complication, she was told that if she made her parents aware, they would have to pay instead of the school. That’s freakin blackmail to a scared child.
Laura, who the hell do you think you are to justify this insanity. I begin to wonder how twisted the liberal mind must be to work so hard to justify a hellish and anti-parent action. I would think only the heartless government sickofant would stamp such sick actions.
Fine, you want to call babies blobs, parents who don’t agree with their slaughter abusive, but where is your compassion for this child. Cover PP backside, defend the school and the sicko law that allows it, fly the vanity flag of bigotry at all parents that value thier grandchildren (your blobs), but the poor child has had a deep scar inflicted between her and her parents who love her by sick government drones and low life organizations.
Good sleeping tonight Laura. It is sad to me that you will sleep just fine.
First I’ll address Laura and her cherry-picked articles:
Article 5 – please pay particular attention to the phrases “where applicable” and “….the rights recognized in the present Convention.”
This clearly demonstrates that the State will have the discretion to decide when parenting has been violated and there are no clear, distinct parameters that restrict the State in any capacity.
Article 7 (1) – “registered”? In what way? By whom? For what reason? The child would have “the right to a nationality”? What is that supposed to mean? When I last checked, we were already considered citizens of our nation if we were born in a particular nation or born of particular citizens. Why does the UN now give us a “right to acquire a nationality”? Would this mean that under the UN we would be considered world citizens until further assigned? Where is the national sovereignty in that?
(2) Look at the phrase “ensure the implementation”. How? In what manner? To what extent? This is due to the fact that the US would no longer be a sovereign nation.
Article 18 (1) I agree, no problem there.
But what about part (2)? What is the definition of “appropriate assistance”? Why are these terms so open-ended?
What about part (3)? What kind of facilities? Run by whom? Someone who the State deems worthy to watch our children? Maybe even someone another country deems worthy?
Article 29 (1) No problem there.
(2) Refers to the present article and Article 28. What does Article 28 say? It mentions the implementation of “free” education. We have “free” education, but at a huge cost in the form of taxation. Am I suggesting that this is unnecessary taxation? No. But my point is that the funds will have to come from somebody and that somebody will be us, except on a larger scale because this is a UN treaty. Whose education, then, will our taxes have to pay for?
Article 30 – “to profess and practice his or her own religion”. If we take this within the context of the treaty as a whole, that translates into “to profess and practice his or her own religion without parental interference”.
Article 37 (a) What is the definition of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” as per the UN? Could this include spanking? Take a look at this Leftist report:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-United-Nations-Our-Ch-by-Dana-Gabriel-090307-298.html
(b) What is the UN’s definition of “liberty”? It surely isn’t smaller bureaucracy since they are the self-proclaimed world moral police. “The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law….”. Of course it will. The law will have usurped the Consitutional laws of the American land via the Geneva Convention.
(c) Look at the last phrase “save in exceptional circumstances”. What is the definition of an “exceptional circumstance”? Why is it not clearly defined and why do I get the feeling that there would suddenly be a lot of “exceptional circumstances” that would “justify” the State’s separating children from adults.
(d) Does this mean that kids will start suing their parents? What will constitute the right to sue? Will the fact that Jenny’s mom read the bible out loud at the breakfast table be grounds for litigation? Will this heinous act fit the definition of a “deprivation of his or her liberty”? What is meant by a “competent, independent and impartial authority”? Based on what standard?
Article 41 – In other words, if the State laws don’t fit our criteria, we’ll use our own international ones.
School Abortion
March 24, 2010 – 4:46 PM | by: Dan Springer
The mother of a 15-year old Seattle girl is furious because her daughter had an abortion with some assistance from the nurses at her school and she was never informed. She only found out after the fact when her daughter had an unrelated health problem and finally revealed she had terminated a pregnancy.
The girl attends Ballard High School in Seattle which has a teen health clinic inside. The clinic is run by Swedish Medical Center and administered by the King County Health Department.
According to the girl’s mother, who did not want to give her name, her daughter was given a pregnancy test at the school clinic which was positive. She was then told by the nurse that she could have an abortion at a nearby clinic without her parents’ knowledge.
The girl then called a taxi, which picked her up at the school and drove her by herself to the abortion clinic.
The mother acknowledges she signed a consent form at the beginning of the school year giving the school permission to administer health care off campus. She assumed that meant in cases of emergency. Nowhere on the form is abortion mentioned.
A King County Health official would not speak about any of the details surrounding the case, but did say that no laws were broken. In Washington State a girl of any age can get an abortion without her parent’s being notified. It’s one of 15 states without either parental consent or parental notification laws.
The county health official also says that schools have sent kids in taxis in the past when they’re taken off campus for medical procedures. James Apa, a Health Department spokesman says it’s one of several modes of transportation used.
Note: In an earlier version of this story I incorrectly reported that the girl’s abortion was performed at a Planned Parenthood clinic. I have since learned that the procedure took place at a different private clinic in Seattle.
(OR Oh, by the way, sorry for trashing Planned Parenthood–OOPS!)
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/24/school-abortion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Flatest+(Text+-+Latest+Headlines)
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/03/mother_upset_ballard_high_scho.php
http://www.komonews.com/news/88971742.html#idc-cover
Since I’m tired of hearing about this girl as the ultimate example of how awful Planned Parenthood and the policing of the state if in regard to abortion, I looked it up. Is this the case the pro-lifers on here have been referring to? If you notice, no one broke any laws- Wadhington is one of FIFTEEN states that does not require parental consent. No one at the school called a cab for the girl- she called it herself. No one bundled her into the cab- she was free to choose at any time. No one went with her to coerce her or continue to talk her into it- she was free to choose not to continue or to abort. While I think someone SHOULD have gone with her, even a friend, she chose to go alone. The abortion DID NOT EVEN TAKE PLACE AT A PLANNED PARENTHOOD! They were never involved in this whole thing. According to an interview with her mother on a local Seattle TV news program, the daughter specifically brought home a form she had to sign authorizing the school clinic to perform services on the daughter’s behalf -without it htere would have been no pregnancy test. Mom signed it and asked no more questions. This means two things; one, the daughter knew she was pregnant and was planning to keep the pregnancy secret and the abortion as well, and two, the mother signed a consent form for medical treatment and left it at that. She didn’t investigate and say what for? She never contacted someone about it or said, hey I’ll take you to another doctor. She was more than willing to hand over control of her daughter’s medical care over to her daughter and the school. She also describes her daughter as a “pro-life advocate.” Apparently she knows her daughter really well and the communication is stellar.
Are the blogs where you got these “facts” about Planned Parenthood and the Ballard case the same ones where you get the “facts” about the rest of your abortion statistics?
JFesta,
You are about as intimidating as an earthworm.
You have never seen me defend Reagan and I am not about to start today. Many regard him as a conservative god. I don’t. So your criticisms of him while pointing in my direction mean absolutely nothing.
I don’t have a right wing website.
Erik,
After reading the treaty and your “article” the only solid rebuttal would be rolling on the ground laughing until tears stream from your eyes.
No less than four of the Articles I posted list with different phrasing rights granted to all Americans under the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution. Unless you now have something against free speech, freedom of religious expression and no discrimination based on race color belief or gender. If you are now in favor of those things and taking a red pen to Constitutional freedoms please let me know.
You complained that Laura simply cherry picked articles to suit her argument, I simply started filling in the gaps. I stopped because I think it’s plain to see that this is once more you seeing someone sneeze and predicting a plague. And for the record, this space is reserved for public discussion. If I want to post every article with annotation and commentary I will do so. If you don’t like that, as you suggested to me, confine your writing to your right wing website.
As far as sarcasm, this country flipped out about a Constitutional Amendment saying women are equal to men. We STILL haven’t ratified a U.N. Treaty that says torture is bad and those that do it should be punished and freaking Ronald Reagan proposed that one, and you want to life verbatim the argument of a group that thinks it can get an amendment on parents rights. You couldn’t get congress to vote on a measure proclaiming baseball Americas pastime for fear they would offend football and nascar. So yes, in this case sarcasm works and I will continue to use it when I see fit and as long as you publish this alarmist drivel I will continue to laugh at you publically.
Why the discussion of foreign countries? This affects us HERE and our acceptance/rejection does nothing for all the examples above. Assuming this was a good idea, then it should be done with US law. Not bypassing our Constitution. Realize this, and its an easy answer. Hell no.
Laura,
It has been awhile since we crossed swords, but now’s as good a time as any I suppose. I will try to be brief, and again acknowledge your desire to see the right thing done.
You would be the first to say (as you have elsewhere), we should not be the worlds police. Shouldn’t you conversely reject the world policing US.
As this document holds so many specifications as to tie the hands of a juggler, allow me to look at it Google Maps Satellite view. This document affords the child the ability, no right, to basically “divorce” a parent, with so many ways, it could easily be seen as a “no fault” sanction. The child doesn’t agree with one of dozens of things the parent wishes upon a child, the state becomes, not the advocate of the parent, but the child.
Right now the divorce rate among grown, mature adults approaches 50%.
Add immaturity and a natural call of the wild for independence without stifling rules, and this divorce rate may stagger the US household.
I am most disappointed in you’re attempting to tie my right to life beliefs and respect for my religion into this matter. I realize perfect recall can not be expected from any of us, but remember, I said “the state should not enforce my deeply held beliefs at the point of law, rather the mother’s rights held stature above even what I know to be correct. I sought to persuade with all vigor”. Surely if I feel this way for the very life of the child, I would not want the state to step in and circumvent the mothers right to raise the child as she sees fit, short of course, of breaking current common sense laws such as sexual and physical abuse (not spanking, but like you have said about obscenity, you know it when you see it).
That brings us to community standards. You will need to re-read what you wrote (3rd para 3rd sentence), that I would sanction genital mutilation, don’t be silly. You say “Your religion”, as if my believing in God mandates such heinous filth, I say, take that back. As to the rape of babies, selling kids into sex slavery and so on, we have laws, and because of the common decency which I would argue, comes from my religion this is not an issue that our community has, so we are back to policing the world. I would love to stop abortion here, but will not violate the sanctity of the mothers womb. I would love to stop the grievous acts within the Congo, yet you would violate their sovereignty.
Like the gun laws here, you would take guns from all law abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless against those few who abuse guns. Likewise with parental rights being overseen by “The State”.
You spent a lot of time making implications about the school abortion. You implied much speculation. Let’s look at facts we do know. 95% of abortions are for “convenience”, so there is a 95% chance that was the case. And why speculate the parents to be unworthy to be consulted by the state, because you fear they may believe in something? Maybe evil pro-lifers who don’t care about genital mutilation in the Congo?
L, our president made a promise pre-election, to help stop the genocide in
Armenia. Not a word since, but we are going to help kids become self determinate throughout the world, and within our borders by an outside Swiss Board of Ultimate authority, Laura please.
JFesta,
For starters, there are 54 articles yet you and Laura have collectively only covered 20 of them (please do not use my article comment section as a battlefield for copying and pasting all 54 – it is not necessary since I have supplied the link 3 times within the context of the report for the readers to look at themselves. It would have been adequate to have simply referred to the particular article and then to have left your comment accordingly).
Next, sarcasm is a sure sign that a person is trying to water down a serious matter. Only real content truly refutes a claim, and the content within the actual treaty and the parentsrights blog have yet to be adequately refuted by either of you. Oh, you have definitely made your point that you think I’m a cookoo alarmist, but since all of the readers have an equal oppor- tunity to look into this subject as do you, wouldn’t your time and energy be better utilized by actually presenting a solid rebuttal instead of by spending precious time trying to discredit me? By doing so, you are only discrediting yourself since, again, nothing you have stated has proven to be contra- dictory to the content that I have submitted.
More to come soon.
Eric,
I want people to read the whole thing. I took the sections out that directly contradicted what you placed (not wrote since you pulled it from a blog) in your article. I wasn’t going to reprint the whole thing.
You and J are the ones pulling a contortionist act. The words are there, plain and simple, and you are the ones making doomsday scenarios out of it. I could do that with other documents you support all day long and would simply be told that I was creating ridiculous scenarios. I could do that with the Constitution, for crying out loud.
You and J want to know where the parents or their rights are in all this. Apparently you did not read the parts of the document that specifically the parents rights and responsibilities in regard to the child. Article 5 for example, spells it out in black and white that the state is to repspect the rights of parents.
The point of the rest of the document is to address the myriad forms of abuse that go on in the world, including ones that do not happen here. They address the issues that are commonplace elsewhere that rarely occur here to create a united international voice. Is it the right of a parent to sell their daughter or son into sex slavery, as they do in Maynmar? Is it right for adults to steal children in the middle of the night and program them into killing machines, as they do in the Congo? Is it the right of adults, due to your all-hallowed “religious practice,” to mutilate the genitals of their daughters? Do adults have the right to rape young girls because they believe that sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS, as happens in South Africa? These are just some of the things that occur on a daily basis in other places in the world, under the guise of “parent’s rights.” If children have an inalienable right to life from the womb because they are sovereign beings with rights, are you saying that their human rights don’t begin until they are 18? If children are the property of their parents until that time and are then subject to the whims of the adults who are supposed to guide, protect and nurture them, then as property, I have the right to abort mine. After all, it is MINE…The right of private property implied by the Constitution and defended by the Supreme Court says I can.
Funny, this is a sterling example of the hypocrisy among a section of the “right to life” movement. You claim to be so horrified by the plight of the unborn, yet couldn’t give a darn about what happens to them after they are born, especially what happens to children in other countries. They don’t live here-out of sight , out of mind. No problem.
If you are that concerned about your kid calling the cops on you, that says something about you and your parenting skills, as well as the parenting skills of anyone who would raise a child that would do that. They didn’t do a very good job bonding with their child. I don’t worry about my son doing that….
Besides, most of those things you are paranoid about happening could already happen here if your kid had half a mind and worked a teacher or two. I notice you spend no time addressing what this girl you love talking about, the one that PP “forced” to have an abortion as though it was against her will, told her teachers about her parents and family. I would be willing to bet that she said what was necessary to convince the adults in charge that she would be punished for getting pregnant in a sever way. She may have even hinted or told them that it was the result of rape or incest. Do you even know? And if you do, why did you leave that part out?
But you know what? For every girl that lies and manipulates, there are countless more who aren’t lying when they describe what goes on in their home and even more who don’t tell. Boys too. But, so that family’s like that girl’s, whose parents obviously were not the parents you would like them to be just by the fact that they created a child who would do that and who could not go to them, you would condemn children who do live in horrible conditions to having no voice or no means to help. And yet you are so concerned about the lives of “innocent” children…
Personally, while I think that the US needs to stop dictating courses of action in other countries, this is not the US getting involved in the cultural policies of another country. The world is trying to police itself, but the whole document is the placing cultural standards remarkably like ours onto other cultures. Since almost all of the precedents that are in this document already are already present in our law, then all we are doing is saying that everyone else who is taking a chance and ratifying this as an impetus to change within their nation should do it, but we are too good. Other nations that are committing human rights violations, who we try to force change upon (even with military intervention), need to bow down and place what is right in the eyes of the “world “(or the US-same thing to us) over their own culture, but not us. Sovereignty seems to be a one way street-our one way. Sovereignty is for the US-the rest of the world should live in our likeness. How bogus…and how hypocritical. And WHY do people in other countries have a negative opinion of us? Hmmmm, I have NO clue…
My previous comments where directed to JFesta. For some reason typing his name while having a wonderful breakfast on such a nice day must have caused me conflict. Now I made amends. Albeit with a touch of acid in the back of my throat, must’ve been the sausage.
One of us is playn a solo game of see-saw. Do you not see what I saw?
I could go into a long point by point explanation, but there is just an overwhelming amount of particulars, and perhaps there is just too much sky in your eyes (being on the grounded end of the playground toy),
Abbreviated: There is a standard and power difference between superior and subordinate. “The State, the local governing body, with primary responsibilities, however subject to the larger governing authorities, until the ultimate (Supreme Court equivalent) the writers of this document who’s head counsel is located in Geneva.
Kind of like our court system, but in a bureaucratic form. The child, the focus of all this bureaucracy is at the bottom, with the lowest court of opinion (while granted the highest amount of responsibility) the parent.
This is thought universal for this document, but let me nutshell one of two examples so that we may have a meeting of the ayes.
Article 13: Where the hell are the parents? Artistic and cultural input are primary to those to whom gave birth and love the child. Playboy magazine for example is not obscene (legally), doesn’t rise to dangerous because of that. The state could well maintain, who the hell are the parents to restrict the child’s curiosity?
If the child doesn’t want to participate in the family religion, the state could be there for them, as religion is a choice, not something of imposition.
Article 10.1 The state….shall deal humanly…with expedience…..in a positive manner…. with parents and child.
Who the hell do they freakin think they are! The state will be nice. I don’t need the state being anything between my kids and me. The state can go F itself. They should guard the boarders and maintain law outside of my castle.
Article 12. State Parties (NOT Parents) shall ensure the little tikes can take oppressive mommy and/or daddy to court if they feel they are being oppressed in their views. What kid doesn’t! Can you understand usurping authority? Should you someday create evil spawn, trust me, you’ll live in court. Do you know how many kids already defiantly stare down weak kneed parents and say, “You can’t spank me”, or I’ll call CPS”, usually throwing a fit for candy in the supermarket.
Article 9. Children shall not be separated from parents by the state (without good cause, like making the tike go to church), but the child has the right to ask for severance at anytime for any reason.
When you libs have hormonally challenged brain malfunctioning teens, you’ll realize what a nightmare this is.
These are not even the most egregious, just random pickings.
Bottom line. The state shall be your child’s advocate. Whatever rules they make, that will trump parents should the child cry to the right school counselor for just about ANY reason.
If you libs want Spock Rules on steroids, enforced by government workers, I say, You will get what you deserve and I feel sorry for your state protected child.
Leave me and mine out of you insane plans, please.
Ok Erik,
Let’s take a look at those other articles.
Article 1
For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
Sounds reasonable, but as you say, it gets more sinister as we go on.
Article 2
1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.
No discrimination based on race color render, religion or belief…sounds a little radical, you might be on to something. Let’s go on.
Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.
The state should always consider what is in the best interest of the child, and ensure their wellbeing is protected. Further, all state facilities for children should be staffed by the best people to look after the childs best interests and well being. You’re right, substandard facilities and whatever is easiest it is. Forget what’s best for the child.
Article 4
States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation.
You’re right! We have the right to have the lousiest juvenile courts, child welfare, and foster care system in the world if we want, and no foreigner should tell us we need to do better. We have a sovereign right to be mediocre
Article 5
The fiery red head with the rapier tongue beat me to this one. Thanks Laura.
Article 6
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
Inherent right to life?? Now we’re getting into that touchy feely liberal stuff. Who are they to tell us an infant mortality rate behind most industrial countries, and an astounding number of children murdered every year isn’t ok?
Article 7
Laura again.
Article 8
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.
Kids play make believe all the time, they don’t need an identity anyway.
Article 9
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.
4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.
You’re right, this is getting really outrageous. How are the purveyors of Child slaves, soldiers and sex slaves to ply their trade if the government insists on interfering. It’s the free market, the government should stay out of it.
Article 10
1. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.
2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their own country. The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention.
Rush through passport applications for every sobbing mother that wants to see their kid? We have procedures you know, they can wait in line. National Security is important. That baby may have a bomb in its diaper.
Article 11
1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.
2. To this end, States Parties shall promote the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or accession to existing agreements.
See, this is just us lopsided lunatic liberals messing with free enterprise. These are small business owners and they are free to make a profit.
Article 12
1. 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.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
Free Speech? What kind of whacky liberal blather is this?
Article 13
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
How will these children ever accept censorship as adults if we don’t censor them as children? These foreigners and their wacky ideas.
Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Freedom of Religion? WOW the liberal lunacy is really getting thick. You’re right, this is all sounding really sinister.
Article 15
1. States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Ok, this is really going to far! Any document that gives anyone the right to assemble with reasonable restrictions is just totally off the wall radical. Watch, next they will want to seek redress of grievances from the government!
I would keep going, but I think I’ve proved my point. However I am more than happy to repost every other article Laura skipped.
From Laura to me, Erik the Red,
“Your self-delusion and bogus arguments are getting very tiring.”
Easy solution:
Don’t read my stuff.
J,
I told you so. They came out from underneath their rocks and tried, once again, to disprove something I wrote even though links to the actual document have been supplied 3 times for the whole world to see.
Ben,
Not yet. But if the UN and many representatives within our own govt – headed by Barbara Boxer – get their way, it will not only be worth the paper it is printed on, but will also be worth more than the paper on which the Constitution is printed on.
Laura,
I not only read the actual document, but posted the link three separate times within the context of the article because I knew that someone like you would try to challenge it. If you are going to go to the trouble of reposting some of the articles of the treaty, why don’t you also post the ones in between.
The actual treaty which, again, the link was provided for 3 times speaks for itself. You can try your contortionist act all day long if you wish. But and any of the intelligent readers who choose to look into it further will clearly see that what I am saying is true. Even in spite of your lame (yet entirely predictable) effort to convince them otherwise.
Yes, everyone, READ THE DOCUMENT but please read the ENTIRE DOCUMENT, not just the articles of the treaty that Laura conveniently cherry-picked to try to prove her point.
Here’s a point I’d like to make…
No treaty, regardless the parties to it, the authors of it, or it’s intended consequences can or will ever make parents do what they won’t already do. Either a person has it in them to be a good parent, or they don’t. All the treaties in the world can’t force someone who has no inclination to be a good parent to take up the practice just because some entity has developed a treaty that says they should.
Regardless the intended OR unintended consequences, this document simply isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Eric,
Again, you take your talking points not from the source document, but from a blog. Why? Read the document yourself and you will see they are either exaggerations that skirt on the very outside edge of the truth or outright lies. These quoted sections are from the document itself, not a “rewrite” of it. I recommend that everyone read the document itself, as I have, before they take your words as fact. I don’t have to rewrite the document to show the falsehood of your statements, the evidence is it is right there in the document itself.
Article 5
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.
Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.
Article 18
1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
Article 29
1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;
(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;
(c) The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;
(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;
(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.
2. NO PART of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article and to the requirements that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.
Article 30
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.
Article 37
States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
Article 41
Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the child and which may be contained in:
(a) The law of a State party; or
(b) International law in force for that State.
Again, PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENT. You have a link to it right there in your article…I don’t understand why you insist on making a fool of yourself by arguing talking points that AREN’T EVEN IN THE DOCUMENT, then insulting anyone who takes the time to read the document in question and point that out…Your self-delusion and bogus arguments are getting very tiring. As is your condescending, nasty and personal words for anyone who (gasp!) disagrees with you and who exposes your arguments for what they are.
To everyone else-
READ THE DOCUMENT FOR YOURSELF! I don’t know why Eric does this- he seems to otherwise be an intelligent person except when it comes to the “spin” and diatribe that support whatever it is he wants to believe into reality. At that point, for some reason, he will swallow anything anyone has to say- the Devil came down to Georgia and created his stone 10 commandments, anyone- and repeat it verbatim as though it is the gospel truth.
Do your due dilligence and READ THE DOCUMENT FOR YOURSELF! The link to it is right in the article…
Matt,
I should have more directly addressed you from the content within the article.
Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC:
(9) Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
J,
Right on, man. But don’t get ahead of yourself. I’m sure that at least one of them is working hard rewriting the CRC as we speak so that, if for no other reason, they can tell everyone how off my paranoid rocker I am.
To Whom It May Concern,
Is it me, or when the irrefutable facts of Progressive Insanity silently pushed or at least ignored by the Liberal Left, are presented, there’s not nearly enough rocks to hide under.
Pro-Palestinians blow up innocents with innocents to make political advantage, silence.
Obama breaks most pre-election promises, hushed wind.
Obama chief education advisor gives 12-15 year olds rubber gloves, lube and instructions for safe fisting at a private “publicly funded” education event, echo.
15 year old girls secreted out during the school day for abortions funded by school dollars, from advise to taxi fair to surgery, no comments.
Now, the Federal Government takes the rights of the parents and seeds that authority to a tribunal that doesn’t even speak English, Not a Progressive Liberal to be found. Come out, come out, where ever you are.
Your President needs your support! Be Bold, Take at least this one on.
Be a proud liberal progressive and put these bible thumping zealots in their place! These child beating, religious brain-washing, arrogant Nazi’s need taken down (Oh, bad example, the Nazi’s had the state take the authority from the parents also, sorry), But damn it, Stand up and shut up the small minded conservatives!
Matt,
Here is an addendum:
Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.
A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
Blowhard,
I believe this is more of a parenting issue than it is an abortion issue. Abortion law already has iron-clad claws dug into our sides and will never loosen its grip without a tremendous fight. CRC is on an international scale and has to do with things like a child’s discipline, leisure, and freedom of religion w/o parental interference while, at the same time, giving the State not only greater authority to enforce these items and others, but the leeway to tweak definitions to fit their cause at the time.
Matt,
The fact that it is important to halt the ratification of this treaty in America due to the lingering possible consequences demonstrates that UN proponents understand what will happen if it passes. The Constitution, though still a concrete document, would be largely usurped giving state authorities more freedom. If you think the Constitution (which I love) really has the kind of power you claim, just take a look at the IRS and income tax law and the fresh-off-the-grill health care bill for starters. Both are entirely unconstitutional yet we all must abide by them anyway- or else.
Not that our courts, congress, or Obama care but no treaty can legally override out Constitution. The only way to override the Constitution legally is for three quarters of the states to vote to amend the Constitution. International law is not our law of the land, the Constitution is.
Article 6
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
Erik,
Will this effect the abortion rights debate?