![[Home]](home.gif)
![[Contents]](contents.gif)
![[Additional Info]](add_info.gif)
| We would be handing over to the federal courts unlimited power. --Dr. Charles Rice* |
Like sands through the hourglass... is a frequently used metaphor for indicating the inexorable forward movement of a process.
This phrase came to mind when contemplating the activity surrounding the effort to pass the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA). It characterizes the effort as continuing without thought or control, piling kernel upon kernel of misconceptions in an attempt to convince frustrated parents that there is an all-encompassing answer to our quarrels with government authorities in the on-going struggles to raise our children according to our values and beliefs. However, like the hourglass, when one aspect of our ability to control or conquer events is filled to capacity, invariably some circumstance will present itself to turn our worlds upside down and the process starts all over again -- "like sands through the hourglass." And so it is that the answer eludes us.
To think we have found in the PRRA some permanent, painless solution to the tug-of-war between parents and government is to build a house upon the shifting sands of politics, vulnerable to the winds of change. And ultimately one must ask: Is the cure worse than the disease?
As the "hourglass" tips across the country, and parents encounter diverse barriers to freedom of parenting, many established Christian and conservative groups point to passing the PRRA as the ultimate answer to these questions.
Could this be true? Do we really have a miracle tool to build a fortress of protection for parents? Or will we discover that we are building our fortress upon the sands of supposition?
Let's briefly examine the foundations of these cases. In the situation in East Stroudsburg, a state law dictates that a thorough physical examination be given to school children of the ages of the little girls involved; that examination may include the very procedure which was carried out by the school's attending pediatrician. Parents have the option of either having their children examined by a private, family doctor and providing a certificate to that effect, or of having the examination carried out in a manner similar to the one experienced by the sixth-grade girls of the East Stroudsburg school. While the issue of the possibility of a misplaced notice from one family will certainly be addressed independently, unfortunately, the basic issue of the examinations being given by a school-appointed physician is within the legal parameters of a state law. Because the parents had been given an option and notification (albeit possibly without full parental understanding of the consequences), this situation would not be helped by an existing or future federal Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act.
In fact the very opposite would quite likely be true! The PRRA could backfire in situations like East Stroudsburg! The crux of the PRRA, which is proof of the State's "compelling interest," would have already been answered by the establishment of the state law, and also by the school system receiving federal MEDICAID funding. (See the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Special Report in the March issue of The Christian Conscience.) When asked how the PRRA could have helped the East Stroudsburg parents, a Congressional Aide was reported to have admitted, "This is the best we can do." Indeed!
Actually, the State of Pennsylvania can do better -- by passing legislation before the Pennsylvania legislature in the form of a bill proposed by Representative Sam Rohrer. Rep. Rohrer has already considered the relationship of the State to the parents, and he has exposed the tyranny of the MEDICAID funding causing schools to do all sorts of unexpected things to meet requirements attached to administrative service refunds to schools which allow social services and health care to be delivered within the schools. At the state level, with specifically tailored solutions to individual, state, and local problems in the area of parental rights is the appropriate and effective method of addressing parental concerns, in the opinion of this author.
Yet, fund-raising mail fills the mailboxes of conservatives across the country. "Send us your largest donation so that we can help pass the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act and give back to parents their God-given rights to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord!" is the typical admonition. But the question needs to be asked: To whom are we giving the right to return our God-given rights to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? The federal government? The federal courts? Have we conceded that we don't have the rights unless the government gives them to us? On what sandy loam have we built this idea?
In addition, the Texas case involving the reporting of spanking could not have been helped by a federal PRRA. This case was not an intrusion out of the blue by a school counselor, but again, the officials were performing duties imposed upon them by state and federal law in circumstances which had been monitored for a long period of time for a variety of reasons. This definitely would not have been a case which would have qualified for a proposed PRRA solution. Even the assertion that had the students been attending a private rather than a public school there would have been a different outcome is a moot point because counselors and administrators in private school settings -- even in Christian schools -- are subject to suspected abuse reporting requirements. The proposed PRRA does nothing to interfere with the execution of these existing laws and regulations. The important issue to remember in this case is that the decision rendered against the parents was directed specifically at that family's circumstances and based on an historical record with the court which predates this particular complaint. It would be considered folly, at least by this author, to extrapolate that decision to represent a situation in which most families might find themselves.
This tendency to paint all unfortunate circumstances which have befallen parents with a broad brush and claim that the PRRA could be a remedy is becoming a frequently employed tactic. As often happens when enthusiasm overtakes objectivity, the public is being led to believe that the PRRA can work miracles if it can just get passed by Congress. However, there are a few particulars which should not be ignored.
One such particular involves the existence of federal regulations and law which presently govern the area of "family planning." Title X of the Family Planning Act of 1978 provides the framework for the funding of activities which take place in health clinics throughout the country, both in school-based settings and in free-standing or general health clinics. Activities covered by grant funding and MEDICAID/MEDICARE reimbursement include the dispensing of condoms and other birth control devices, prescribing medication, and physical examinations, as well as education and counseling.
The most important issue regarding Title X -- at least for our purposes -- is the fact that under the umbrella of this Title's funding and regulatory control is found the full-blown application of the "doctrine" of the emancipated minor status. In other words, in any circumstance in which a child discusses or initiates any action toward informing, protecting, or seeking guidance in the area of his/her sexuality, the "child" is considered an emancipated minor under the law. Your twelve or thirteen-year-old daughter may have to have parental permission to have her ears examined by a physician or a nurse in a clinic, office, or hospital, but parental-absence-from-the-room is required when that same child wants to discuss her sexuality with a doctor or nurse!
The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act will not change this! In fact, an analysis issued by The Rutherford Institute agrees with this assessment. They said:
It has not been fully explained to us why just adding another federal law to the roster is not going to undo all the wrongs and inequities that exist. The emancipated minor status situation is one reason -- if not the main reason -- that the Stephens County, Georgia, case which was referenced in the hearings in support of the PRRA in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, failed to achieve any remedy for the parents of the two daughters who were transported to the health clinic by their school counselor to receive birth control devices and pills. What that school counselor did was legal! Not moral, not ethical, but legal! She, in essence, was transporting two "legal adults" to that clinic; she was not required by law, in fact, was prohibited by law, to inform the parents of her actions.
Is it any wonder, then, that this case presented before a court on the basis of the violation of parental rights was not going to be resolved in a manner to please the parents? Those parents were being asked to weigh in against a state's necessity to uphold its law and defend its right to receive and disperse family planning funds to its entire population. Plus, the superseding law was a federal law. There was not a chance that the parents could receive satisfaction in those circumstances. Would the presence of the PRRA in federal law have prevented those circumstances? There is no evidence that that would be true.
In this Georgia case I personally warned the attorney that his case would not hold up in court because of these issues. However, no one wants to address the root of the problem in such cases -- the Title X regulations and the emancipated minor doctrine. In fact, when I wrote to Senator Grassley's aide to say that even after "strict scrutiny" of the PRRA I found it to be in the "compelling interest" of parents NOT to support the legislation, I particularly focused my concern on the fact that many of the issues raised in defense of passage could be addressed and resolved by legislatively eliminating or altering the Title X Family Planning law and regulations. Even though that letter was sent over two months ago, I have not received an acknowledgement or reply; nor have I observed any activity that would indicate that these concerns have been taken into consideration. This is true even though my input had been solicited by this same aide and my letter was in response to her request for same.
Like sands through the hourglass..., so go questions and concerns raised about the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act when addressed to the author, legislative sponsors, and supporting organizations who are fund-raising and press-releasing attention-getting stories about cases which are sensational and painful, but cannot be resolved by the proposed PRRA. Why is this so? Why does any question or opposition raised always seem to be charecterized as "liberal," "stupid," "radical," "NEA- and Planned Parenthood-supporting constituencies," and "so-called `Christians"'? "So-called `Christians"' gives the deepest cause for concern. A Christian cannot question the wisdom of the passage of this law? Does that mean that if a Christian dares to question that wisdom that that Christian is reduced in status to "so-called"? Why? And who determines that status?
Following the writing of the article "Is Freedom Burning?" which appeared in the December 1995 issue of the Christian Conscience, I received a call from Michael Farris, President of Home School Legal Defense Association and author of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act. During our conversation Mr. Farris said, more than once, that the PRRA (HR 1946/S 984) was one part of a three-pronged effort to put into place "protective" legislation. "There are three bills that build on each other: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, and the Restoring Local Schools Act," he emphatically stated. Since that time the thought of what is built by these legislative acts has been a source or much random contemplation.
What do the Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA), the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act(PRRA), and the Restoring Local Schools Act(RSLA) build?
Since there are three acts, I mentally envisioned something with three elements that are supportive in structure -- the three legs of a three-legged stool! The imagination strayed to visions of a farmer ensconced upon a three- legged stool, milking ...What could he be milking?
During this time of musing I drafted a page that dealt with the three legs of the stool (See sidebar). Not intending to be redundant, I would like to review that draft here. It was given the title "The Three-Legged Stool: `Imprudent, Dangerous' and Unconstitutional" in deference to Dr. Charles Rice's comments regarding the PRRA as expressed in more than one letter to Mr. Farris. Dr. Rice, eminent Constitutional scholar from the University of Notre Dame School of Law, used the words "imprudent and dangerous." I, however, take responsibility for the word "unconstitutional" as questioning the constitutionality of RFRA and PRRA, in particular. Since the Restoring Local Schools Act has not been assigned a number for lack of a sponsor presently, I leave its status open for conjecture, depending on what form it will take when -- and if -- it becomes a legitimate bill.
Lets examine each "leg" of the stool.
1. This bill passed the Congress and was signed by the President in 1993. A full test of its constitutionality has not been processed.
2. The United States Constitution, Amendment I, states that the "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." [emphasis added]
3. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a "strict scrutiny" or "state's compelling interest" test was established. This standard supposedly raises a higher hurdle for the state to have to clear if it challenges the right for someone to practice one's religion freely. However, in so doing, a "scale of justice" is constructed in which to weigh each side's interest; a position the State has never enjoyed before under our Constitution.
4. The state now has the power to establish the prohibition of certain religious practices for the first time in our country's history.
1. The United States Constitution, Amendment IX, states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall NOT be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." [emphasis added]
Parental rights are not enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, they stand as established outside the purview of the law governing enumerated rights. Most Christians believe that parental rights are established by God.
2. The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act establishes a "state's compelling interest" test to determine the validity of parental rights claims. While claiming, as in the case of the RFRA, to raise a higher standard to which the State must adhere in determining its interest in parental rights cases, in actuality a scale is constructed in which parents' rights must be weighed AGAINST the State's "compelling interest", but now with higher stakes.
3. Constitutional protection of parental rights as unenumerated rights under Amendment IX and other laws is null and void if PRRA passes, because, as in the case of the RFRA, the PRRA will have established a criteria for prohibition of parental rights.
By establishing the right of Congress to pass law regarding parental rights (The purpose of the PRRA is stated as being "to enforce, pursuant to section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, the provisions of the 14th amendment, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, protecting the right of a parent to direct the upbring of the child of the parent."), parental rights will have passed into the same arena as civil rights as "defined and protected" by the same type of legislation, thus surrounding the "protection" thereof with reams of regulations to come and hours, days, months, and years of time in courts to determine whose interest will prevail.
4. Under PRRA all issues would have to be resolved in a federal court if administrative remedies fail. The Rutherford Institute analysis of the PRRA acknowledges:
If the state can proffer a compelling interest and show that its interference with parental liberty is narrowly tailored to further that interest, the state will win.
Simple? Protective? Easily understood? We should be careful to not ascribe more power to this proposed legislation than it can deliver. The PRRA establishes for the first time a legal right for the State to stake its claim in the lives of children ("state's compelling interest"). Until this time, the State snatched what legal rights it could. If the PRRA passes, parents will face the State in court battles where the State will have an opportunity to prove its "compelling interest".
The Rutherford Institute analysis notes this new balancing act between parent and State:
"PRRA would have ensured that the Chelmsford parents had an opportunity to have their interest in excusing their children from this program ["Hot, Sexy & Safer"] BALANCED against the state's interest in forcing students to attend." [emph. added]
Just who do you think would win in this scenario? Who has the money, time, attorneys, and a new right to prove a greater "compelling interest"?
1. There is no constitutional provision for mandating government-funded or controlled education. This is strictly a congressionally mandated issue. (As in section 5 of the 14th Amendment, as basis for providing such, to ensure equal access to lawful due process.)
2. By passing the Restoring Local Schools Act, Congress reduces the educational bureaucracy that it established through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965/Improving America's Schools Act of 1994/Goals 2000-Educate America Act to a process of individualized education and training programs which would be financed through the General Fund and managed through charter/community education centers which will deliver human services and workforce training to meet national and international market standards and goals. Tracking of student progress toward these goals would be monitored through the "tentacles" of the Community Learning Information Network (CLIN) auspices, taking on whatever coloration necessary to conform to the particular CLIN distance learning and information storage entity which would be used in a local setting -- as, for example, the National Guard training center in a particular location.
The disbursing of this information to industrial/commercial and higher education and training centers would be accomplished by using the SCANS (Secretary's Commission on Necessary Skills, U.S. Department of Labor, profiles for the workforce) competencies and suggested record-keeping procedures, transmitting them via SPEEDE EXPRESS (the National Center for Educational Statistics and Council of Chief State School Officers' contracted "railroad" on which school and training information would travel) to the potential "customer" for a student's skills -- industry, military, or higher level of education or training.
3. Under the proposed RLSA, the functions of the existing U.S. Department of Education would be taken through a termination process under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. During the prescribed four-year termination period, HHS (possibly under Donna Shalala's direction if Clinton wins again) would be free to merge any of the educational programs which matched or with which HHS's programs were compatible into existing HHS on-going programs! This is akin to Joel Chandler Harris's Brer Rabbit adventures -- "Please don't fling me in that briar patch!"
We have already alluded to the complications of Title X regulations as related to access by children to "family planning" information. training, and accouterments. Could we possibly believe that these issues would not become even more clearly defined and the controls more strongly imposed under such an arrangement?
4. Business "partnerships" already being formed under community collaborative arrangements to accommodate GOALS 2000, and co-ownership of some educational/training facilities set up under charter school legislation proposals will determine curriculum standards and outcomes to match business needs. These outcomes have already been preliminarily delineated in U. S. Chamber of Commerce publications, UNESCO's ISO 9000 and 1400 standards for international business/industry, UNESCO's international workforce profiles, individual standards, and are being set forth in literature governing Tech-Prep education, apprenticeship guidelines, and performance-based assessment.
5. Under the proposed RLSA there will be no establishment or restoration of "local schools," but the establishment of local control of the populace will guarantee a trained workforce for full employment, bypassing constitutional rights altogether, thus establishing a new form of government and social structure. The elements in H.R. 1617 which conservatives find most objectionable, and which will bring forth the most radical changes in our traditional relationships between elected officials and the public, would be given a wide open field in which to run under the changes proposed in the Restoring Local Schools Act.
There is a biblical injunction that warns not to clean "demons" from a house until one is prepared to fill it with another spiritual presence, thus guarding against the return of those same "demons" and more besides. In other words, to apply that injunction to this situation, the warning should be not to throw out an existing program unless you have something with which to replace it which will be better and designed to enhance the lives of all involved. Blanket efforts to terminate the Department of Education at this time, attractive as that may seem to some, are exercises in futility until there is some concrete, useful, and workable proposal with which to replace it.
The three "legs" of the above stool support a "seat" upon which the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child can be enthroned. While all outward efforts by individuals and organizations supporting the above legislative "legs" certainly lead us to believe that the UN treaty involving children's rights is an undesirable and abhorrent entity, the same legislative "legs" can actually support the effort to elevate children's rights to a level beyond the control of, particularly, Christian parents. This outcome may be inadvertent, but it still carries the element of danger.
[An important point to establish at this juncture is that any UN treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by the President of the United States is considered to be on par with the U.S. Constitution, thus maintaining precedence over state and federal law.]
To summarize the effects of the three "legs" as they support the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, lets look at each legislative effort in the light of aspects and goals of this document.
With regard to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, religious rights protection could be threatened by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 14, which states:
The wording of this portion of the Convention makes the primary point that the child will have freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Government will "respect" the rights and duties of the parents to
provide direction ...Consistent with the evolving capacities of the child ...Subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law...To protect public safety, order, health, and morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
One could certainly assume that the efforts to establish religious and parental rights as "fundamental" by placing into law the "strict scrutiny" standard was intended to hold up under the weight of such requirements in international law. However, the mechanisms used to do so, the RFRA and PRRA, provide a "compelling interest" test which requires the citizen to weigh his/her/their interests against the State's. This being the case, the citizen(s) most assuredly will become the perpetual loser due to the level of law at which the challenge would be directed -- that being the level of the Constitution by way of the UN Convention.
Would not the "state's compelling interest" in these cases be to uphold the Constitution or its equivalent? That being so, would not the child consistently win over the interests of the parent, or the State win over the interests of a religious practitioner if his/her rights were consistently pitted against an international standard of "fundamental rights and freedoms of others"?
Have we not already experienced tremendous resistance, even in our own country, to certain evangelistic efforts? Allowing Congress to make law in the area of religious liberties, as in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has, in the opinion of the author and others, actually reduced the level of protection for the free exercise of religion in the face of pending international treaties like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In the area of conflicting interests in the matter of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the same concern applies which has been stated in regards to the religious liberties question. The UN Convention's Article 13 entitles the child to the right of freedom of expression.
which shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ides 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.
Article 13 further states the restrictions to that freedom:
shall only be such as 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 or of public health or morals.
Nowhere in the scenario presented by these words can we inject an opportunity for prevailing parental choices to be honored above the child's choice. Again, because of the "state's compelling interest" test written into the PRRA, parents have a reduced position before the court. This is because of the State's obligation to uphold the International law, and because PRRA would allow Congress to pass law specifically outlining the court's parameters with regards to upholding parental rights. It amounts to a reduced standard before the UN Convention.
Most alarming in this regard is Article 23 of the UN Convention which states
...That a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance, and facilitate the child's active participation in the community.
Part 2 of Article 23 states:
States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child's condition and the the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child. [emph. added]
Please acquire the March issue of The Christian Conscience which contains a detailed report on parental rights and responsibilities. It explains in great detail the implications of the above wording in law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and companion legislation are largely responsible for parents finding themselves in the position of the East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, parents because of service delivery mechanisms which involve more than the children who would ordinarily be eligible for assistance. When a school (or community, under new wording) has a certain number of students served by the above-mentioned entities, those same services become available to entire populations on grounds other than need. The implications of this wording are horrendous when one considers that some governmental entity will determine "appropriate" care that should be provided, regardless of parental wishes.
Other sections of Article 23 and other articles in the UN Convention give serious reasons for pause before supporting the PRRA. The PRRA contains a definition for the term "direct the upbringing of a child" which includes in Sec. 3 (3)(B)"Limitations Concerning Parental Decisions On Health Care" the following wording:
The term `direct the upbringing of a child' includes withholding consent for any medical service or treatment for the child, EXCEPT FOR -- (I) a medical service or treatment that is necessary to prevent an imminent risk of serious harm, or remedy serious harm, to the child; or (II) a medically indicated service or treatment for a disabled infant [Ed. Note: `infant' undefined in the bill] with a life-threatening Condition.
While the PRRA purports to protect parental rights under a high standard, the wording of the bill itself limits those rights and contradicts itself at several turns. This particular loophole in the protective fabric of the PRRA leaves parents vulnerable to proposed international standards and values of health care and sanctity of life as proposed under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In light of recent UN conferences on quality of life and human rights and their resulting proposals, alarm bells should be ringing in the land! (See the sidebar to Berit Kjos' article on page 51, which details the UN definitions of "rights" and "responsibilities.")Further, this language is so wide open that one could drive a truck through it. It may harm rather than help Baby Doe cases and bears extensive scrutiny by right-to-life leaders.
The enactment of legislation such as the Restoring Local Schools Act would provide exactly the framework for delivering the provisions called for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. By destroying the existing framework in which we still have elected officials attempting to make decisions on issues affecting local schools and communities, we open our families and communities to direct intrusion by entities designated as "public" to set standards of delivery of education, workforce training, medical, nutritional, safety, social, mental health, daycare/nightcare services through "community centers" designed to deliver these services according to an international standard.
THUS, THE LIBERATION OF THE CHILD IS ACCOMPLISHED JUST AS THE U.N. TREATY DEMANDS!
As stated in "Talking Points in Answering Objections to the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act" recently circulated by the National Center for Home Education (NCHE), the research arm of Michael Farris' Home School Legal Defense Association:
Since 1963, there has been no clear example in which the Supreme Court has applied a strict scrutiny analysis when balancing the government's compelling interest against a parent's fundamental right under the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. [emph. added]
Because the last case -- Wisconsin vs. Yoder (1972) -- had a mixed plea which joined the constitutionally unenumerated parental rights to the constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of religion, it cannot be used as an exact pattern by which to cut the cloth to make a whole garment to protect parental rights. In fact, Yoder actually acknowledged the compelling interest of the State of Wisconsin to provide education to the people of Wisconsin and did nothing to nullify the compulsory attendance laws therein. It was the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion which allowed the Yoder family to remove their children from the public school after the eighth grade to finish their education within the training provided by the Amish community to prepare the young people for life within their religiously-dictated cloistered habitat.
It is the belief of this author that the PRRA is an attempt to bypass the constitutional amendment process to move parental rights to a level equal with the protection provided by the Bill of Rights -- in a stand-alone capacity. The question arises as to whether that is an elevation of status or a diminution of status.
One must fully grasp the extent to which those enumerated rights are regulated and controlled before making that decision. As stated by Dr. Charles Rice in a personal telephone conversation of May 15, 1996, "We would be handing over to the federal courts unlimited power."
Do we really want to do this?
In the same packet of information from NCHE, there is a listing of "What the PRRA Does Not Mean." Considering all that has been learned about what is not known about the long-term effects of the PRRA, this author submits that most of the assertions made in the handout are meaningless. Lets take their fourth point:
The PRRA does not mean that the federal government can push federal regulations or mandates relating to parental rights. But it does mean that Congress has a right to protect parental rights pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourthteenth Amendment. Protecting the Bill of Rights is one of the few legitimate roles of the federal government. This is identical to Congress' role in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to prevent states from limiting the First Amendment free exercise of religion. [emph. added]
We still do not know exactly how the courts or the states will carry out the RFRA in all its implications, so to copy it at this juncture has the potential for folly. Also, the point that is made by this author is upheld by NCHE's statement: "But it does mean Congress has a right to protect..."
The manner in which Congress has legally and traditionally "protected" the Bill of Rights is to pass law and enact regulations.
Once more, I would reiterate: the PRRA can be interpreted and enacted by parents/citizens who are both liberal and conservative, Christian and non-Christian -- for their own purposes. This is, after all, the American way. To naively believe that the PRRA would only benefit God-fearing parents, and would only further a Christian moral foundation, is tantamount to believing that a Christian state can be established within the borders of the United States.
A May 28th mailing from NCHE further states that
...we are adding language to the PRRA which will essentially trump the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child!... we have added a clause in the PRRA which simply indicates that the PRRA will automatically apply to all federal acts and treaties unless the federal act or treay specifically exempts itself from the PRRA...
First of all, no such wording is presently a part of any official version of the PRRA and can only be added by a member of Congress, and then only with the agreement of other members of the sub or full committees which are discussing this bill.
Secondly, the dubious assertion that such wording can effect the outcome proclaimed -- that this would make the PRRA more effective than before -- is to ignore the double-edge of the sword used! That is, if the PRRA would "automatically apply to all federal acts and treaties unless the federal act or treaty specifically exempts itself from the PRRA..." then at any time a federal law could exempt itself from the PRRA! It would only take an act or amendment to an act in Congress to do so! This is hardly the level of protection provided by our Constitution for any other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. How better to describe a Catch-22 situation, and one that could entrap parents in an untenable situation permanently. The idea that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child could be foiled, if that is legally possible as outlined by NCHE, pales in light of the implications of what could befall us under the newly proposed wording.
Again, I point to Dr. Charles Rice's comment: "We would be handing over to the courts unlimited power." Do we really want to strengthen the idea that the Supreme Court can make law through interpretation? Isn't this a violation of the separation of Powers Clause in the Constitution?
We must examine more closely these proposed bills. These bills are certainly not alone in the legislative bin; there are many more which bear watching and addressing. However, since these three were linked together by their chief author and proponent as "building" on each other, it became imperative to analyze them as thoroughly as possible.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive effort to explain all facets of these three bills -- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, and the Restoring Local Schools Act. However, this effort is meant to offer another view of what is proposed and a warning not to proceed until having "looked both ways"!
Those readers who are members of organizations taking positive positions on these bills (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is already law) please ask your leadership to address the concerns raised herein. This author is open to correction if proven wrong, and an open invitation stands to those holding other views to debate the issues raised herein.
The hour seems late for this country to retain its Constitution and its balance on the brink of chaos. Let us pray and work together to ensure that the contributions we, as Christians and conscientious Americans, make toward preserving this Republic -- "one nation under God" -- are as welI-considered as those made by our forebearers.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matt. 18:6)
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; And the rain descendeth, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matt. 7:25-27)
*Dr. Charles Rice to Cynthia Weatherly in reference to PRRA on May 15, 1996
Sidebar - The Three-Legged Stool: "Imprudent, Dangerous" and Unconstitutional
Sidebar - MADD About the PRRA?
Sidebar - Excerpts on the New Global RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES
