THE NEW PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT PROPOSAL M-M
Commentary by Mary Smith
hsferret@yahoo.com

On April 3, 2006 J. Michael Smith of the Home School Legal Defense Association announced an offer for free memberships in HSLDA.  The stated purpose is to inflate the membership list with a goal of beginning "a push for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will secure our God-given right as parents to direct the upbringing of our children." (Parental Rights Are Under Attack—Together We Can Preserve Them.) The offer does not define who `our' is; presumably it is HSLDA.   With the membership expiring August 15th, it's doubtful any parent will benefit from the legal services of HSLDA to secure their right to homeschool their child. 

Appearing on HSLDA's website is a companion article by Michael Farris entitled, "Parental Rights: Why now is the time to act" (http://www.hslda.org/parentalrights/default.asp)

Mr. Farris begins his article with a six-paragraph warning likening the Parental Rights Amendment cause to homosexual marriage.  He indicates homeschoolers must act now because, "if we wait until the threat fully matures, we will have waited too long."

The article continues to ramble though James Madison's view of the Bill of Rights, Winston Churchill's comments on a lack of foresight, a mention of his 2002 novel, Tudor kings and King James, Hillary Clinton and Roe v. Wade. 

Historically, Mr. Farris and HSLDA have championed and funded the Parental Rights Amendment proposals since at least 1995 with little success.  (see accompanying article, "Parental Rights Legislation".) HSLDA and Mr. Farris have also written that the legislation is unnecessary: "The Supreme Court of the United States has made it repeatedly clear that the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (Michael Farris, "Federalism and the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act" HSLDA Resource Library document, no longer available). 

 "The U. S. Supreme Court has long held parental rights to be primary in American law. "This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition." ("Historic Parental Rights Bill passes Indiana House, "Home School court Report, February/March 1996, page 15.) "The parental Rights and Responsibilities Act has been introduced in the House (H.R. 1946) and Senate (S. 984).  This act affirms the rights of parents to control the upbringing and training of their children. Although guaranteed by the United States Constitution and upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, these rights have gradually been eroded by conflicting state court decisions".  ("The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, The Teaching Home, Mary/June 1996, page 21.)

It appears clear that Mr. Farris knows parental right legislation is unnecessary, yet he continues to promote a Constitutional Amendment that would impose his own personal religious values on all American people.

Mr. Farris further cites the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a potential threat to parental rights. 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was part of the United Nations World Campaign for Human Rights.  It was adopted on November 20, 1989.  It was the first international legal instrument to lay out guarantees for the spectrum of the child's human rights.  The full text of the Convention is online at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

 Among the rights it clearly spells out are:
•   "Parents have the primary reasonability for a child's upbringing, but States shall provide them with appropriate assistance and develop child-care institutions."

For the remaining provisions of the Treaty and HSLDA's Top Ten Reasons to oppose it, see the accompanying article, "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."

Overall, Mr. Farris' Doomsday Scenario points out the problem of homeschoolers becoming involved in issues unrelated to homeschooling.  His first page equates homeschooling with hatred of and bigotry towards homosexuals who desire to marry.  Further, he seems to assume that all homeschoolers agree with him.  Apparently, one is either `pro-family' or `anti-family' depending on their position on gay marriage.  And either one supports Mr. Farris' version of `parental rights' or one is – bizarrely – `pro-Hillary Clinton'. 

To be seduced by the offer of a free membership, with the added carrot of the family that recommended you perhaps receiving a free life-time membership, is foolish.  You would be trading your personal information for the opportunity to be counted as a supporter of HSLDA's, non-homeschooling, bigoted, religious agenda until August 15th.
###