The following has been edited from its original version, originally posted at ParentalRights.org.<\/p>\n
The Unbelievable State of Parental Rights in America<\/strong><\/p>\n On Tuesday President Obama gave his \u201cState of the Union\u201d address, in which he gave his view of where our nation is right now and where we are headed.<\/p>\n But what about parental rights? Where are we and where are we headed? It turns out we are not as free and secure as we would like to be, and we\u2019re heading in the wrong direction. Here is an overview of parental rights in America as we begin 2014.<\/p>\n Medical Freedom – Hospitals:<\/strong><\/p>\n Boston Children\u2019s Hospital and the Massachusetts Department of Youth and Families take another<\/em> child hostage<\/a> because hospital staff disagree with the parents on the child\u2019s medical diagnosis.<\/p>\n In California, \u201cBaby Sammy\u201d was taken from his parents<\/a> because they left one hospital to seek a second opinion at another before subjecting the child to open-heart surgery.<\/p>\n In Ohio, an Amish family was forced to flee the country<\/a> to spare their daughter unwanted and dangerous chemo-therapy, including a cocktail of drugs not approved for children by the FDA<\/em>. Reports indicate the girl is in remission through natural means, but the Ohio hospital and child services department are livid.<\/p>\n The law is not on your side.<\/em> In every one of these cases the judge ruled against legally fit parents.<\/strong> As a result, more and more parents are afraid to even take their child to the emergency room, lest one wrong answer lead to the removal of their child and the loss of their parental rights.<\/p>\n Medical Freedom at Home:<\/strong><\/p>\n But keeping your child at home doesn\u2019t provide any protection, either.<\/p>\n In May, 2013, charges were reinstated<\/a> against Detroit resident Maryann Godboldo, who in 2011 was arrested after a 10-hour standoff<\/a> with police and CPS who claimed she was not giving her daughter proper medication. The state later discontinued the medication as well, returned the daughter, and dropped the charges \u2013 until the appeals court this year sided with prosecutors looking to go after her again.<\/p>\n The law is not on your side.<\/strong> In the last decade alone, legislatures in 26 states have made 36 attempts to increase mandatory vaccination requirements, the large majority successfully requiring the HPV vaccine for pre-teen girls.<\/p>\n Mental Health and Counseling:<\/strong><\/p>\n New laws in California and New Jersey<\/a> make it illegal for teenagers struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction to seek reparative therapy, even if the teen, the professional counselor, and both parents agree<\/strong> on the desired treatment. This viewpoint discrimination takes decision-making rights away from parents and tramples the doctor-patient professional relationship.<\/p>\n The law is not on your side.<\/p>\n Public School Access:<\/strong><\/p>\n In Tennessee, a dad was arrested<\/a> trying to pick up his special-needs daughter at the end of the school day. No fighting, no yelling. Just asking for his children and not backing down.<\/p>\n A Georgia Army vet was banned from her child\u2019s school<\/a> grounds for posting her newly earned concealed carry gun permit online. No threats; no plans to violate the \u201cgun-free zone.\u201d She simply has a permit, and was banned from the school.<\/p>\n The law is not on your side.<\/strong> Laws in a majority of states limit or entirely deny to parents any \u201cright\u201d to be present<\/em> on school grounds where their child is in attendance. What\u2019s more, some school districts have banned parents from sending a lunch<\/a> with their child, requiring that they buy school-provided lunch instead. And a bill in New York would require that all parents attend state-provided parenting classes<\/a> before their child can graduate the sixth grade.<\/p>\n But why do parents need to make decisions in the schools anyway? Surely they can trust the institutions where they leave their children every day, right?<\/p>\n Public School Content:<\/strong><\/p>\n Tell that to the Kansas father<\/a> who was livid last week over a poster in his daughter\u2019s eighth grade classroom that lists \u201cHow \u2026people express their sexual feelings.\u201d Some of the examples are light enough, but others are very explicit \u2013 and in a middle school setting!<\/strong> The principal and school district defend the poster, saying it is part of the school\u2019s abstinence-based sex education program, and in line with other schools across the country.<\/p>\n Tell it to the growing number of parents and organizations opposing Common Core, a new set of \u201cnational curriculum standards\u201d set up by the National Governors\u2019 Association and required for schools to qualify for federal Race to the Top education funding. The \u201cstandards\u201d were adopted over the summer of 2010 without any review by parents or state legislatures. Last week, even the New York State Teachers\u2019 Union voted to reject the standards<\/a>, saying \u201cWe will be the first to admit it doesn\u2019t work.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n But the law is not on your side.<\/strong> The Ninth Circuit in Fields v. Palmdale<\/em><\/a> (2005) held that, \u201cParents\u2026have no constitutional right\u2026to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise<\/strong>, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n Educational Choice:<\/strong><\/p>\n Still, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in its Parker v. Hurley<\/em><\/a> (2007) decision states, \u201cParents do have a fundamental right to raise their children. They are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state. [They] may send their children to a private school<\/em> that does not \u2026 conflict with their religious beliefs. They may also educate their children at home.\u201d (emphasis added) But this may not be the case much longer.<\/p>\n A judge in Texas took the Tutts\u2019 children<\/a> away at the urging of a guardian ad litem who confesses there are no signs of abuse or neglect. Yet she implicated statutory language likely to cause the children to be removed (which it did), apparently because she opposes the family\u2019s choice<\/strong> to teach their children at home.<\/p>\n In fact, several journals over the last few years have published articles by academic elites claiming<\/a> \u201cthat public education should be mandatory and universal.<\/strong>\u201d Says Emory University Law professor Martha Albertson Fineman, \u201cParental expressive interest could supplement but never supplant the public institutions where the basic fundamental lesson would be taught and experienced by all American children: we must struggle together to define ourselves both as a collective and as individuals.\u201d<\/p>\n In the last decade there have been at least 22 attempts to expand public pre-school education, at least 31 attempts to make kindergarten mandatory, and nearly 150 efforts in 43 states to otherwise expand the compulsory attendance age range for public schools. None of these measures has been shown to improve education outcomes; they only serve to give more control to the state and less control to parents<\/strong> as children develop and grow.<\/p>\n The law here may be on your side, but it is quickly retreating. And so is the government.<\/p>\n The United States Department of Justice seeks to overrule the asylum status<\/a> of the Romeikes, who fled Germany to keep their family together. Germany has rejected the parents\u2019 right to choose the form of education their children receive, and the U.S. Administration actually supports Germany\u2019s position!<\/strong> The case is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n