UTAH-The Parental Rights Amendment & UNCR

[Advocatus Dei]

PARENTS DO YOU want to have a voice in raising YOUR CHILDREN?


Norway's children are already property of the state (a) vs. parents and setting precedence for Agenda 21 (b).
a-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iQgkDIoETM (Start at 26min. 40sec.)

b- (Start at 5min. 20sec.)

1-Sign the Petition on ParentalRights.Org
https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/385/per ... mid=signup" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2-Contact and support your state legislators:
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp ... 13D8897%7D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"ParentalRights.Org's mission is to protect children by empowering parents through adoption of the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by preventing U.S. ratification of UN Conventions that threaten parental rights:

(1) by securing citizen support for the Parental Rights Amendment;
(2) by securing cosponsors for the Parental Rights Amendment in the U.S. House and in the Senate;
(3) by encouraging state legislative resolutions in support of the Parental Rights Amendment;
(4) by securing legislative protections for parental rights in the States;
(5) by securing U.S. Senators to oppose ratification of dangerous UN Conventions.

Our team works to preserve the RIGHT of every current and future American CHILD to be raised and represented by PARENTS who LOVE them, and NOT by disconnected government bureaucrats."

[Advocatus Dei]

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: How to Contact Your Legislators


Dear Parents and Concerned Citizens,

Here is some information on how to contact your state legislators and senators. Please share this information with any members that you feel is necessary. Remember that just because someone is NOT your representative does not mean that you can not or should not contact that person regarding family law reform and legislation. As members of non-profit organizations, parents, and concerned citizens we have the responsibility to inform our state representatives as well as our US representatives of what is happening regarding family law in Utah.

If anyone does not know who their representatives are they can follow this link, enter their address and it will tell them.

http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How to Contact Legislators

Citizens can and SHOULD contact their legislators to express support or opposition to proposed legislation.

When you do so, there are several things you need to consider:

·Our legislators are EXTREMELY busy during the Legislative Session, so do all you can to conserve their time -- PLAN YOUR MESSAGE AND BE CONCISE!

·Our legislators are all good people who do their best to determine what is or is not good policy. They won't always agree you, but show your appreciation for their efforts -- BE RESPECTFUL AND POLITE!

·There are rules that you both must follow -- DON'T EVER OFFER ANYTHING IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR VOTE!


WAYS YOU CAN COMMUNICATE:

E-mails -- Remember to SEND YOUR MAIN MESSAGE IN THE SUBJECT LINE! Then expand on your basic message in the body of the e-mail. They do not have a lot of time to read through e-mails, so KEEP YOUR MESSAGE SHORT AND CONCISE (unless you have spoken with the legislator and they are expecting and watching for a long, detailed e-mail from you). Also, Legislators do NOT like to be blasted with mass e-mails. Your personalized e-mails (even if it is just addressing them by name are MUCH more amicably received and more influential!

Phone The Capitol Switchboards

-- You can call the House Switchboard at 801-538-1029 or the Senate Switchboard at 801-538-1035. The Switchboard Operators will take up to 5 SHORT messages at a time which will be delivered to the legislator's desk. This is also a good way to get your message across.

Personal Phone Calls

--Better than a message is an actual conversation. Most legislators have given their phone numbers out so that constituents can call them and discuss concerns, but keep your message short because you are interrupting personal time -- be sure to be respectful and appreciative that they've spent time with you.

Personal Notes at the Capitol

--When you come to the Capitol, you can pick up Senate Blue Notes or House Green Notes and jot down a quick message to be delivered to the legislator's desk. In the message, you can just say what you think, ask for a phone call, or ask then to come out and talk with you briefly. This is of the more effective methods of communication because it shows a greater degree of concern when you make the effort to be there and to be accessible


Face-to-Face meetings at the Capitol

-- You can call any legislator and ask for a meeting with them, but they are so busy, they can't give you much time. Many times the better thing to do is send the blue/green notes in and wait for them to sneak away for a moment for a brief discussion outside the Senate or House chamber. Be sure to be familiar with what the legislator looks like so that you can watch for them and approach them to facilitate the meeting.

[mes5464]

I do have a problem with section 3 & 4. Section 3 just looks like a loophole, and section 4 would deny the right to refuse medical treatment.

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a
fundamental right.

SECTION 2
The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home
schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one's child.

SECTION 3
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest
as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 4
This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.

SECTION 5
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to
supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

[Advocatus Dei]

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp ... BASIC&SEC=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;{DE675888-E60A-4219-8A5E-000083244D13}&DE=


"Understanding the Parental Rights Amendment


Section One | Section Two | Section Three | Section Four | Section Five




SECTION ONE

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.


SUMMARY: Parental Rights, currently recognized as implied rights, will become specifically enumerated in the text of the Constitution.



"The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children..."

In the 1925 decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a compulsory attendance act that required all parents to send their students to public schools, instead of private or religious schools. The court concluded that the act was unconstitutional because it "unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control."

"...is a fundamental right."

In 2000, the Supreme Court cited a long train of previous cases which showed that the right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children is a fundamental right. The following passage, taken from Troxel v. Granville, highlights the rich history of this fundamental right:


In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'come to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) ( "Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (discussing "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258 ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. (emphasis added)



SECTION TWO

The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within the public schools for one's child.


SUMMARY: Parents have a right to make reasonable choices for their child in public schools, such as opting their child out of classes the parents find objectionable. It does not give parents any power to dictate curriculum or other choices by the school for the student body at large.

In 2005 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a parent's fundamental right to direct their child's education ends at the threshold of the school door (Fields v. Palmdale,427 F3d 1197, 2005). This section will return to parents the right to make reasonable decisions for their child, even in the public schools. It does not include any right to make decisions for others' children or the school as a whole. However, it sets a low standard that parents need to reach to make decisions for their own student. To override this right, it would not be enough to show that, for instance, the request is not the best for the student or the school. The government would have to show that a parent's request was unreasonable.

The "reasonableness standard" is the lowest standard in constitutional law, and therefore the easiest test for parents to meet.


SECTION THREE

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.


SUMMARY: While parental rights do not include a right to commit child abuse or neglect, they are due the same high legal protection as other fundamental rights.



". . . demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person. . ."

Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government's case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged.

In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must "demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law 'to the person'--the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened."Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006). The text of this proposed parental rights amendment merely takes this well-established principle of law, and applies it explicitly to the fundamental right of parents.

". . . of the highest order and not otherwise served."

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order for the state of Wisconsin to override the rights of Amish parents, the government had to show that it had a compelling interest in requiring students to stay in school until age 16. Speaking of the right of the parents, the Court said that "the essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972) (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court has required the government to follow this standard whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right. Prominent examples of this are cases that deal with racial discrimination (see Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995): "All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. . . . Such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests"), restrictions on free speech (see Widmar v. Vincent, 254 U.S. 263, 269-270 (1982): Whenever discriminating against speech on the basis of its content, the government "must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end"), and invidious discrimination against religion (see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993): "To satisfy the commands of the First Amendment, a law restrictive of religious practice must advance 'interests of the highest order' and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests." In all these cases, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest, before the fundamental freedom at stake can be limited.




SECTION FOUR

This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.


SUMMARY: The amendment will not apply in cases where a parent's action or decision would end life.



Section Four stipulates that the Amendment will not apply to life-ending decisions. Current law will continue to control in that rare instance. This exclusion was a necessity to avoid the appearance that the PRA would affect the abortion issue either way, which would make its passage a political impossibility.




SECTION FIVE

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.


SUMMARY: Neither the Senate's treaty power nor the courts can subject parental rights to international law.



"No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed..."

According to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law is comprised of international treaties, international customs which have been accepted as law by general practice, the general principles of law recognized in civilized nations, and the judicial decisions and teachings of legal authors and scholars. All four channels of international law currently pose a significant threat to parental rights.

"...to supersede, modify, interpret or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."

The Parental Rights Amendment would prohibit the use of all four sources of international law in determining what rights of parents should be protected. Treaties that were ratified by the United States would need to be interpreted in light of what the Amendment guarantees to citizens, instead of using the treaty to interpret the meaning and extent of constitutional liberties. Furthermore, federal courts would not be able to impose harmful principles of customary international law on parents, because the rights granted in the text of the Constitution override and overwhelm conflicting principles of customary international law."

[Advocatus Dei]

Only 3 or 4 countries remain until the United Nation Convention Rights of the Child is applicable WORLDWIDE RELINQUISHING ALL Parental Rights.
Children Protective Services worldwide was Beta testing for Agenda 21 and most successful in the United States.
They first came for the black children.
Then they came for the Native American children.
Then they came for those of lower income.
They are coming after the single parent, 2 parent, homeschoolers, disabled, non-vaccine users healthy, naturalistic lifestyle Caucasians, etc.

German children were turning in their parents as they were inculcated and indoctrinated.
This type of Genocide has been and is still occurring for centuries in many countries.
The United States is on the brink of passing the United Nations Convention Rights of the Child (UNCR).
Ezra Taft Benson stated more than once that the UNITED NATIONS was NOT of God.
Much is written concerning the United Nations and contained in Pres. Benson's "Title of Liberty".
Interesting altar, temple inside the United Nations emanating anything but God's light.
I will try to locate the pic and post.

[Army Of Truth]

Thanks for the great post and the links, Advocatus Dei! I plan to get involved. I was appalled at the Common Core curriculum I saw at my boys school that seems to be changing for the worse. Much like everything else the Federal Gov't touches, right?

[Advocatus Dei]

God Bless You.

The FAMILY is PRIMORDIAL and being attacked through the children.
Fear has been and remains the weapon of control of the adversary.
Secret combinations will yield short term, yet not long term results.
"Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."

Matthew 10:26

LOVE HAS TO BE at the FOREFRONT in educating all of us and eradicating ignorance through God and his son Jesus The Christ.

Keep us posted.

[Advocatus Dei]

"January 15, 2014
Americans Unite to Demand Parents' Rights

Last Friday a group of parents gathered outside a Boston courthouse to protest the treatment of Justina Pelletier at the hands of Boston Children’s Hospital. Her parents, meanwhile, were inside waiting to learn when or if they could have their daughter back.

Parents coming together to protect the rights of a child who needs help – that is what ParentalRights.org is all about. And we are asking for your help this week as we again take this cause to the U.S. Congress.

The tragedy that Justina and her parents are facing is but one example of the threatened state of parental rights in America in 2014. We promised you an overview of parental rights’ status and that will be coming next week, as we are still wrapping up our research on the topic.

In the meantime, let’s call Congress again and urge support for HJRes. 50, the Parental Rights Amendment.
Seventy congressmen have already signed on (see the list at 4pra.us/House). Is your congressman among them?

If not, please take a moment right now to call. The House goes on recess from Friday through next week, so there is no time to put it off.

You can find your congressman’s contact information by clicking on your state at parentalrights.org/states or using the shortcut 4pra.us/[state], (where [state] is the two-letter abbreviation for your state; New York would be 4pra.us/ny, for instance). Or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your congressman’s office by name.

(Your message can be as simple as the following (but even better if it’s in your own words):

I am a voter concerned for the right of parents to make decisions for their children. Because of encroachment from over-zealous bureaucrats and international law, our families are more at risk than ever, and our courts are no longer protecting us consistently. That’s why we need to amend the Constitution to include traditional, common sense, rights for fit parents to make decisions for their families. Please contact Rep. Mark Meadows’ office and sign on as a cosponsor of HJRes. 50 (House Joint Resolution 50) to show your support for the protection of these rights. Thank you.

Remember to be courteous, even if your lawmaker or their staff do not agree with you.
Your demeanor could ultimately encourage them to reconsider their view on the issue.

Then, why not pass this email to your friends and family and ask them to call as well?
Together we can restore the legal protection for parental rights that the Supreme Court neglected in its Troxel v. Granville decision in 2000.

Thank you for standing with us to defend parental rights in the U.S. Constitution.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research"

P.O. Box 1090 Purcellville, VA 20134 * (540)-751-1200 * [email protected]
To share this email with a friend, click here.

[Advocatus Dei]

*Apologies for #edits in embedding video.

[Advocatus Dei]

State of Parental Rights: Spread the Word
February 5, 2014
State of Parental Rights: Spread the Word

If you have not yet read “The Unbelievable State of Parental Rights in America,” you need to read it today. It is perhaps too much information to take in in a single sitting, but the bottom line is this: violations of parental rights are no longer isolated events; they are common occurrences nationwide.

If you read the report last week, you know how powerful it is. Based on our web traffic and petition sign-ups since Thursday, it is having an impact.

Now let’s magnify that!

First, be sure to forward that newsletter to as many of your family and friends as you can. If you don’t still have the email itself, you can share the online version using the “Share This” button at the bottom of the page, which you can find at 4pra.us/sopra14. (To help you remember, that stands for “State Of Parental Rights in America ’14.)

Second, forward it to your U.S. congressman and urge him or her to address this epidemic by signing on as a cosponsor of HJRes 50, the Parental Rights Amendment. Here’s how you can do that, step by step:

1. Find your congressman’s contact information by clicking on your state at ParentalRights.org/States.

2. Email your congressman using the email address listed on our or his website. If his office uses a form instead, fill out the form and include the link 4pra.us/sopra14 in your message.

3. Add the following in your own words:

The article found at this link demonstrates that traditional parental rights are under attack, and it is affecting Americans of every demographic. Please take a moment to consider just one or two of these stories, then take another moment to contact Patrick Fleming in Rep. Mark Meadows’ office and sign on as a cosponsor of HJRes 50, the Parental Rights Amendment. We must halt the erosion of our parental rights before it is too late. Please protect your constituents by supporting this vital resolution.

4. Click send. You’re good to go!

Third, use that Share button to add the "State of Parental Rights" article to all of your social media accounts, including your Facebook wall, Twitter account, etc.

This shocking report is already opening many eyes to the fragile state of our rights today. Let’s work together to open even more eyes to the need for the Parental Rights Amendment in America.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research


Share This Online


Facebook Twitter More...

Donate

Volunteer

Join the Discussion

Facebook

Google+

[Advocatus Dei]

UN to Vatican: Your Theology Violates Child Rights
February 12, 2014
UN to Vatican: Your Theology Violates Child Rights

By now the Committee on the Rights of the Child (“Committee”), which is charged with overseeing the implementation of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), has made so many exaggerated claims of authority that they can’t even shock us anymore. Well, until they do.

Last month the Committee issued its review of CRC implementation by the Holy See, the political entity of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church. While the extreme leftist agenda of the Committee has never been much of a secret, it is on display at its most egregious in this “Concluding Observations” report.

The key issues of “concern” for the Committee were as one might expect: abortion, teen sexuality, homosexuality (and homosexual marriage), corporal punishment (spanking), and parental rights. According to Catholic Church doctrine, abortion is the murder of an unborn child; sex is intended only within the confines of marriage; homosexual activity or lifestyle is a sin; a moderate spanking is – or can be - a part of godly discipline; and parents have the ultimate God-given responsibility for their children.

But the Committee disagrees on all points. What’s more, they communicated the expectation that the Catholic Church must change its stance on all of these topics to comply with the Convention. In so doing, the Committee placed its own opinion above the Scriptures, traditions, and religious convictions of the Catholic Church.

Regarding abortion, the Committee calls for the Holy See to put a stop to the use of “baby boxes” in Europe. These boxes allow a mother in crisis to anonymously give up her infant for adoption. According to the report, such efforts violate “children’s right to live with their parents and to know their identity.” Instead, “[t]he Committee urges the Holy See to contribute to addressing the abandonment of babies by providing family planning (UN code for abortion and birth control), reproductive health, as well as adequate counseling and social support, to prevent unplanned pregnancies….” In essence, the Committee’s “fix” for a child who cannot identify his birth parents is to simply have no child at all – a position antithetical to Catholic pro-life doctrine.

On the issue of sexuality, the Committee calls on the Holy See “to support efforts at [the] international level for the decriminalization of homosexuality,” and to “recognize the diversity of family settings” (which is code for granting legitimacy to homosexual unions). It also demands that the Holy See use its influence to “overcome all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality,” while spreading “information on the harm [of] early marriage.” But the support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle is in direct conflict with Catholic theology, as is the promotion of sexual intimacy (homo- or hetero-) outside of marriage.

No problem, says the Committee. The Church should simply grant “the Convention’s precedence over internal laws and regulations.” Both Canon Law and the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture are specifically mentioned in the report as among the “internal laws” that should be changed to comply with the Convention. (Paragraph 12: “[T]he Committee regrets that the same approach has not been followed in relation to its internal laws, including Canon Law.” Paragraph 40(d): “[E]nsure that an interpretation of Scripture as not condoning corporal punishment is reflected in Church teaching and other activities and incorporated into all theological education and training.”)

To their credit, “the Holy See still does not consider corporal punishment as being prohibited by the Convention,” likely because no provision of the Convention says otherwise, and because only 25 of the 192 states parties to the Convention have laws against modest spankings in the home as a form of discipline (most of which adopted these laws in response to the browbeating of the Committee). Yet the Committee not only dismisses the view of the Holy See, but also attempts to dictate to the Catholic Church how its Scriptures should be interpreted.

This adds frightful undertones to its admonition as “The Committee…reminds the Holy See that by ratifying the Convention, it has committed itself to implementing the Convention…through individuals and institutions placed under its authority,” and that they must “ensure the Convention’s precedence over internal laws and regulations.” In essence, the U.N. claims the Holy See has an obligation to urge priests and teachers to follow the tenets of this Committee rather than the doctrines of the Scriptures.

The Committee’s interpretation of the Convention has never even been sanctioned by the nations of the U.N., yet now it ranks higher in the Catholic Church than “the Word of God?” And just to give it teeth, the Committee urges the Holy See to “ratify the core human rights instruments to which it is not yet a party, namely the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure….” (i.e. a complaint mechanism).

Also to their credit, the Holy See holds “that civil authorities should intervene in the family setting only in cases where a proven abuse has been committed in order not to interfere with the duties and rights of parents.” Again the Committee takes issue, claiming “that prerogatives of the parents should in no way undermine children’s right to be protected from abuse and neglect.” But this is not an either…or, and we are not talking about prerogatives. We are talking about the right of parents to make decisions for their own children, absent abuse or neglect. Innocent parents and their children share a right to familial privacy and integrity – something the Committee apparently denies.

The United States Supreme Court once wrote that “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.” Parham v. J.R. 442 U.S. 584 (1979). Yet that is the very notion being set forth by this over-reaching U.N. Committee.

Proponents of U.N. Human Rights treaties in the U.S. Senate would have us believe that these conventions do not bind American law or limit U.S. sovereignty. But the Committee responsible for overseeing implementation of this treaty holds a very different view.

In its defense of parental rights, the Holy See has expressed concern that Article 12 of the Convention, on the right of the child to express their views in all matters affecting them, and to have their views given due weight, “undermin[es] the rights and duties of parents,” a concern which we share. This vague “right” can easily be used by government actors to override the decisions of any parent anytime their child disagrees with said decision. But the Committee asserts “that ensuring this right is a legal obligation under the Convention, which leaves no leeway for the discretion of the States parties.” (emphasis added)

It only makes sense, if the Committee’s view supersedes the text of the Convention ratified by 192 nations, the opinion of the Holy See, and even the foundational scriptures of the Catholic Church, that it would “leave no leeway for the discretion” of the United States, either.

Which is one more powerful reason to reject this and any similar treaty.

Fortunately, the proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution will de-authorize the Senate and the President from ever ratifying any treaty that, like the CRC, would pose a threat to the right of innocent parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children in accordance with their own conscience and religious belief. This should be very welcome news for anyone who believes their religious tenets – regardless of which faith they hold – should not be held captive by an 18-member panel of “experts” on “child rights.”

If you have not already done so, please sign the petition now at parentalrights.org/petition to promote the adoption of the Parental Rights Amendment. You can also support our cause to protect religious liberty and parental rights with your donation at parentalrights.org/donate. Finally, you can take an active part in our efforts by signing the up at parentalrights.org/volunteer.

The more authority the U.N. seeks to grab from parents and pro-family institutions, the more important it is that we all stand together. Only then can we preserve our freedoms for the next generation.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

"Social Worker for Every Child" Bill Passes
February 21, 2014
"Social Worker for Every Child" Bill Passes

In Edinburgh yesterday, the Scottish Parliament passed the “Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill” by a vote of 103-0 with 15 abstentions. This legislation, which is specifically intended to fulfill Scotland’s perceived obligations under the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), includes a provision to assign a specific government worker to every child at birth. These “named persons” will be charged with safeguarding each child’s welfare and with representing the state to the family. Giving a state actor, in place of or alongside parents, responsibility for children is a drastic measure usually reserved for cases of child abuse or neglect – but Scotland has deemed it necessary to guarantee the “best interests” of every child as called for in the CRC.

There is no doubt Scotland’s provision will be praised by the CRC Committee and held up to the rest of the world as an exemplary implementation of the treaty. Nor will it take long for other nations, hungry for the approval of these UN “experts,” to follow in Scotland’s shoes.

Surely such a thing could never happen in America, though. Boston and Edinburgh are separated by 3,000 miles of Atlantic Ocean (and a bit of Scottish soil) – a daunting stretch of ocean which many of our forebears courageously traversed to secure for themselves and their posterity the freedom to raise their families in liberty.

What’s more, our Supreme Court once held that “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse or neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

Unfortunately, we are not in that America anymore. One need look no further than the latest headlines to find parents right here in America having their decisions overruled without cause by government workers.

Fifteen-year-old Justina Pelletier has been held by the State of Massachusetts for over a year against her wishes, her parents’ judgment, or the advice of her doctors, because of a diagnosis disagreement with Boston Children’s Hospital. Justina, who was diagnosed with Mitochondrial disease (or “mito,” a chromosome disorder that creates a broad range of symptoms), went to BCH in February, 2013, for flu complications. While there, attending physicians rejected her mito diagnosis and removed her from her prescribed regimen, claiming instead that she had a somatoform disorder -- that her problems were all in her head. When her parents disagreed, the hospital called in state actors to remove the girl from her parents’ custody. Although the prior mito diagnosis had been issued by a duly licensed physician at a respected teaching hospital, and although its treatment was effective for keeping her symptoms in check, the hospital accused the parents of medical child abuse for accepting their own doctor’s diagnosis over that of BCH.

Sadly, after a year under BCH treatment for her new diagnosis, it would appear Justina’s “imagination” is growing stronger; she is now wheelchair bound and deteriorating rapidly.

Desperate to save his daughter, Lou Pelletier last week defied a gag order issued by the court and took his story to political talk show host Glenn Beck. Now he has been charged with contempt for speaking up.

The Pelletiers return to Massachusetts family court on Monday (Feb. 24) in hopes that the judge might miraculously return their daughter to their care and let her get the help she needs. A trial date for the contempt charge has not yet been set.

Sadly, stories like this are not rare anymore, and there are more such cases every year. Maryann Godboldo in Detroit. “Baby Sammy” Nikolayev in California. Sarah Hershberger in Ohio. (These stories and more were included in our recent State of Parental Rights in America.)

Parents in America are losing their rights to, well, parent. How long will it be before our children, too, are assigned a social worker for life the moment they are born?

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment can halt this madness. It will erect a barrier around your parental rights that the state cannot violate. (In cases of abuse or neglect, however, the government would retain its rightful authority to intervene.)

And here’s how you can help.

First, if you are not yet receiving our emails, you can sign the petition to support the Parental Rights Amendment at ParentalRights.org/petition. Or donate to continue our efforts at ParentalRights.org/donate. You can also join the growing list of volunteers in your state by signing up at ParentalRights.org/volunteer.

Second, you can call your congressman and urge him or her to support HJRes. 50, the Parental Rights Amendment, by becoming an official cosponsor. They can contact Martha Van Lieshout in Rep. Mark Meadows’ office to be added to the list (which you can see at 4pra.us/House). You can reach your congressman through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or find their direct contact info by clicking on your state at ParentalRights.org/States.

Scotland will soon have a state worker assigned for every child, and other nations will no doubt follow. But here’s a better idea: How about a parent for every child? And let’s halt the government at the door!

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

February 26, 2014
Pelletier Headed to Foster Care, Romeikes' Fate Uncertain

ParentalRights.org was watching two court cases on Monday, and neither has been resolved.

The first case was Romeike v. Holder, the asylum case for the family who fled Germany over their right to choose the form of education their children receive. Given that every case on Monday’s list was denied cert (turned down for a hearing before the Supreme Court), we were thankful the case did not make the list. But the case’s absence from the entire report came as a complete surprise. To be on the discussion schedule for Friday (as it was) and not reported on the following Monday is exceptional.

The Romeike case has been scheduled for discussion again this Friday, February 28. So we will watch for the March 3 report to learn whether the Court will take up this case to defend parental rights.

The second case was that of Justina Pelletier, the 15-year-old Connecticut girl who was taken into custody by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families on Feb. 15, 2013 – more than a year ago – because her parents and doctor disagreed with a new diagnosis issued by a doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH).

Justina was diagnosed in 2012 with mitochondrial disease, a condition in which the cells are unable efficiently to produce the necessary energy for sustaining the body. It is a hereditary condition which she shares with her older sister. Through a special diet and supplements, Justina’s mito was under control, allowing her to do the things a normal teen would do, including her favorite: ice skating.

Then she got the flu, and was sent to BCH where her gastroenterologist has privileges. But when she got there, the hospital refused to let her see her specialist. Instead, a new doctor denied her treatment for her pain and other symptoms and sent in the psychiatric team instead. Justina was diagnosed with somatoform disorder – a psychiatric condition in which she is only imagining her health symptoms – and moved to the psychiatric wing.

When her parents protested and sought to take her to Tufts Medical Center – the respected teaching hospital where her own fully licensed physician practices – BCH called in Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, who took custody of Justina. The hospital accused the parents of medical abuse – for following the diagnosis and treatment instructions issued by her own physician!

Parents Lou and Linda Pelletier have been through several hearings in the last year, each time hoping that reason will reign and their daughter will be returned to their care. In December, the judge ruled that Justina could leave the hospital – but that she would remain in the care of the state. She was later transferred to a non-medical care facility.

The latest hearing was Monday, Feb. 24 – the same day we expected to hear back on the Romeike case - and the family once again hoped and prayed that Justina would be returned home. Since the change in her diagnosis and treatment, her physical condition has worsened considerably, to the point that she can no longer walk, but is constrained to a wheel chair.

Instead, the judge ordered her into foster care, still under the direction of Massachusetts DCF, and still without the medical care she needs. Overwhelmed by sadness and stress, mother Linda collapsed outside the court room and had to be taken by ambulance to another Boston hospital, where she is still being kept for observation. Even more tragically, Justina continues to suffer the wrong medical care while the state pursues its case of “medical abuse” against her parents.

The Pelletiers return to court March 17 for the next hearing in their custody battle. Lou Pelletier is also due in court on March 24 on charges of contempt for appearing on Glenn Beck’s The Blaze program to talk about his daughter’s case, in spite of a gag order issued by the judge to protect the secrecy of the court. It is apparently Lou’s belief that the First Amendment protects his freedom of speech, and that his fundamental rights as a father make him the safeguard of his daughter’s privacy rights in such a situation. (It is also presumed that Justina appreciates and agrees with her father’s attempts to secure help for them both.)

According to the United States Supreme Court, “The law… historically…has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.” And again, “Simply because the decision of a parent…involves risks does not automatically transfer power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

While ParentalRights.org is not currently involved in the Pelletier case, we are working to promote statutes in every state to protect this right of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Ultimately, the answer lies in adopting the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution to forever protect this right of parents to be the first, best line of defense for their children’s interests.

To support our efforts, please pass this email along. If you are not already on our mailing list, you can join by signing the petition at parentalrights.org/petition. Or you can volunteer here. Lastly, you can support our ongoing mission financially here.

Thank you for standing with us as we work to halt government abuses of parental rights, especially related to our most vulnerable – persecuted families in need of asylum and children in need of medical care.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

March 6, 2014
How Can We Help Justina Pelletier?

The tragic case of Justina Pelletier has suddenly thrust the issue of parental rights into the national consciousness. But with all the attention, many of you are asking the same thing we were:

What can we do to help this family?

(If you aren’t already aware of this horrible case of government intrusion, read more about it here.)

We have been working to coordinate with lawmakers and other organizations to have the biggest possible impact for this family. We are already promoting both a general and a specific parental rights statute in the Massachusetts legislature. We also support the bipartisan resolution in the Massachusetts House that urges the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to return Justina to her parents’ care.

Below are ways you can help this family in these and other areas, plus ways to prevent similar cases in the future. Please look over the list carefully. I am confident there is something here that you can do!

1. Contact your state lawmakers and urge support for a parental rights statute. Don’t let the nightmare in Massachusetts come to your state! (To find contact info, do a web search for “legislature” plus the name of your state.)

2. Write a letter of encouragement to Justina through our friends at Liberty Counsel. If DCF won’t let her have them now, Liberty Counsel will hold them for her until she returns home. Mail to Justina Pelletier c/o Liberty Counsel, P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32754

3. Write another to her parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier. Liberty Counsel will have no trouble delivering these right away. Mail c/o Liberty Counsel at the address above.

4. Call your U.S. congressman and urge him or her to support HJRes 50, the Parental Rights Amendment. Find their contact info by clicking your state at parentalrights.org/states.

5. Make the most generous donation you can right now to continue our efforts to preserve parental rights for the Pelletiers and to prevent more cases like this in the future.

If you live in Connecticut or Massachusetts, in addition to the above you can:

1. Call your Massachusetts lawmakers and urge them to support the resolution of Reps. Lyons and Lombard that demands DCF return Justina to her parents’ care. OR

Call your Connecticut lawmakers and ask them to pass a resolution calling for Justina’s return to her home state. Why should they allow her to be held by Massachusetts without any showing of abuse or neglect on the part of her Connecticut parents?

2. Contact your governor and urge him to demand that Justina Pelletier be returned home immediately. (Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick)

Good news has already emerged as Justina’s medical care has been transferred back to Tufts Medical Center, removing Boston Children’s from the medical picture. Working together, we can see this girl returned to her parents’ care and, hopefully, returned to health as well. What’s more, we can stop her nightmare from playing out ever again.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

March 11, 2014
Michael Farris on The Romeike Aftermath

Other than the Romeike family themselves, no one could have been more thrilled than me with the sudden reversal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which allowed them to remain in the United States. Just one day after the Supreme Court refused to review the court order that demanded their deportation to Germany, the Romeikes were informed by DHS that they could remain indefinitely in the United States where they can continue to homeschool their children.

Farris photo
The DHS notification came to attorney Will Humble, who was the immigration lawyer assisting the Romeikes and HSLDA at all phases of these proceedings. Humble was lead counsel before the administrative judge, and I was lead counsel before the federal courts.

This administrative victory needs to be understood for what it is. It is a victory for the Romeike family alone. No other German homeschooling family can benefit from the administrative grace that was shown in this one instance.

Despite this welcome relief for this one courageous family, the damage done to our laws on asylum and the principles of religious and parental freedom remains.

We cannot slip into complacency and believe that all is well on all fronts. The dangers latent in this case must be understood, combatted, and reversed.

Some court decisions contain language that presents a self-evident danger to liberty. Other times the dangers are much more subtle. For example, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), the Court held that Congress could not regulate commerce once goods had come to rest within a state. It could only regulate commerce while in transit and—with words that launched a thousand regulations—those things that “directly affect” commerce. The “effects test” has been used by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive branch to impose countless regulations on all manner of activity that would otherwise be outside of federal jurisdiction.

The dangers to liberty that are embedded in the Romeike case are equally subtle. One has to take a closer look at the facts in the record, the arguments of the Obama Justice Department, and the decision of the Sixth Circuit to fully appreciate the very dangerous ideas that were embraced in this case.

But once these dangerous ideas are unmasked, it becomes apparent that they pose real threats to the principles of freedom that virtually all Americans would have believed were solidly established.

As with any asylum case, the Romeikes needed to prove two basic propositions to be entitled to asylum. They had to prove that they faced either past or future persecution and that this persecution was motivated, at least in part, on one of the grounds contained in our asylum statute. Religious persecution is one of these recognized grounds for asylum.

Thus, the case boiled down to two particular questions:

1. Was the punishment that the Romeikes would face upon deportation back to Germany sufficiently severe to count as persecution?

2. Was the motive of the German government marked, at least in part, by a desire to repress the family’s exercise of their religious beliefs?

On one level, the first question was not seriously debated. All parties agreed that if the family returned to Germany and continued to homeschool, they would face the threat of losing custody of their children.

Our government was not so callous as to suggest that losing one’s children would not be a severe punishment. However, the government and Sixth Circuit contended that it would not be persecution, because the family could just stop homeschooling and send their children to public schools in order to avoid the punishment.

In this context, the controlling legal rule is that persecution is proven when a government acts against a person either for an immutable characteristic or for a reason that one should not be required to change.

Our government contended that forcing a parent to have their children attend a school that violates their religious beliefs does not offend a conviction that one should not be required to change.

Hence, the first dangerous rule to emerge from the Romeike case is that governments may order children to attend schools that violate the family’s religious beliefs. It was not a direct ruling in this case anymore than the effects test was a direct ruling in the Schechter Poultry case, but the conclusion is present just the same.

The second issue—was Germany motivated, at least in part, by a desire to suppress the religion of the Romeikes?—requires review of some important facts from the record.

Both HSLDA and the Justice Department placed considerable emphasis on a finding by Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court that contained a discussion of the motive for the ban on homeschooling.

The general public has a justified interest in counteracting the development of religiously or philosophically motivated “parallel societies” and in integrating minorities in this area. Integration does not only require that the majority of the population does not exclude religious or ideological minorities, but, in fact, that these minorities do not segregate themselves and that they do not close themselves off to a dialogue with dissenters and people of other beliefs. Dialogue with such minorities is an enrichment for an open pluralistic society. The learning and practicing of this in the sense of experienced tolerance is an important lesson right from the elementary school stage. The presence of a broad spectrum of convictions in a classroom can sustainably develop the ability of all pupils in being tolerant and exercising the dialogue that is a basic requirement of democratic decision-making process.

Our Justice Department and the Sixth Circuit found no motive to suppress religion in this official description of Germany’s policy. Yes, Germany did say it was “counteracting the development” of religious and philosophical minorities. But look at the motive, our Justice Department and Sixth Circuit argued. Germany is just trying to promote tolerance by putting children of all viewpoints together in one place.

Tolerance? Really? The aberrational German theory of “tolerance” was clearly demonstrated by the facts in the record.

Another German appeals court held that it is appropriate to use the family courts to seek “the removal of the right [of parents] to determine the residence of the children and to decide on the children’s education.” The same court held that it is “completely acceptable” for courts to “enforce the handover of the children, by force if necessary and by means of entering and searching the parental home.”

Why was it acceptable to use these strong-arm police tactics? That German court gave an answer: to prevent “the damage to the children, which is occurring through the continued exclusive teaching of the children of [sic] the mother at home.” The court conceded that it was not concerned with academic issues—homeschooling could successfully transmit knowledge. It was the philosophical development of children that was at issue.

The German court believed that it was “damaging” to children to be taught only the philosophy of their mother.

And so as to not leave any discretion for leniency by lower officials, this appellate court instructed the family courts that they have “the immediate task to take away all home schooled children.”

So, what does our Justice Department say about all of this?

The German court thus explained what it saw as the value of the law in bringing people of differing views together to learn from each other and to learn to accept those whose views differ from their own. The goal in Germany is for an “open, pluralistic society.” Teaching tolerance to children of all backgrounds helps to develop the ability to interact as a fully functioning citizen of Germany. It is scarcely feasible, with those stated goals in mind, to tease from the opinion a persecutory motive on the part of those who enforce the law.

There you have it. The German courts have said it is damaging for children to learn only the religious and moral values of their parents. The German courts say that they wish to counteract the development of religious and philosophical minorities. The German courts say it is appropriate to use force to remove children. The German appellate courts tell the lower courts that they have the immediate task to remove all homeschooled children from their parents. And our Justice Department says it is impossible to find in these facts anything other than an open, pluralistic democratic society teaching children to be tolerant.

The Justice Department’s view echoes the words of George Washington University Law Professor Catherine Ross:

In order for the norm of tolerance to survive across generations, society need not and should not tolerate the inculcation of absolutist views that undermine toleration of difference. Respect for difference should not be confused with approval for approaches that would splinter us into countless warring groups. Hence an argument that tolerance for diverse views and values is a foundational principle does not conflict with the notion that the state can and should limit the ability of intolerant homeschoolers to inculcate hostility to difference in their children—at least during the portion of the day they claim to devote to satisfying the compulsory schooling requirement.

Ross joins Germany and our Justice Department in believing that pluralistic societies may crush “intolerant” homeschooling parents to promote tolerance in their children.

History and logic prove, however, that tolerance will never be achieved by a government which is intolerant of religious minorities.

Incidentally, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights—a treaty that Germany has adopted—says this about the rights of parents in education:

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

This treaty was adopted in the aftermath of the horrors of Nazi Germany. The right of parents to ensure that their children have an education that conforms to the parents’ convictions is considered a fundamental human right—a right Germany currently rejects and considers dangerous.

The long-term concern for American homeschoolers arising from the Romeike case is obvious. If our government contends that Germany did not violate the principles of religious freedom when it banned homeschooling in order to gain philosophical control over children, then it implies that it would not violate religious freedom or parental rights if the United States decided to ban homeschooling for the same purpose. After all, we would simply be promoting tolerance and pluralism.

That is the subtle but dangerous message buried in the Romeike decision.

How should we respond?

There are two specific areas of concern that demand our attention. First, we need to deal with the specific problems in our asylum system that have led to a severely limited view of religious freedom and parental rights. Second, we need to address the underlying antagonism that our government is expressing against the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

Through HSLDA I have worked with leaders in the House of Representatives to secure language that would ensure an amendment to our asylum law that addresses parental rights and religious freedom. If an overhaul of the immigration system passes Congress, there is a very good likelihood that this correction will be adopted. We will have more to say on that topic, including calls to action, should this provision become a point of contention in that process.

We are unlikely to get engaged on the broader immigration issue. We simply want to ensure that if such a measure is moving through Congress, families like the Romeikes will find refuge in the United States.

The more pressing issue is the need to address parental rights in general. At the same time that the Romeikes were facing deportation, other pitched parental rights battles in our own country were taking place. Perhaps the best known of these battles was the Pelletier case in Massachusetts.

Doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) conspired with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families to seize custody of Justina Pelletier because the BCH doctors thought that they knew better than the doctors at Tufts Medical Center how to treat this young girl. Because the Pelletiers wanted to choose the doctor for their daughter, they lost custody to the State of Massachusetts.

I was asked to draft a specific statute that has been introduced in Massachusetts to fix the underlying law in that state. And such laws, which specifically address parental rights to choose a doctor, may become necessary in other states.

But there is a bigger and broader solution. The Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) is the ultimate form of protection for our family liberties. Just as the Second Amendment tells all levels of government that they may not interfere with our right to bear arms, the Parental Rights Amendment tells all governments to not interfere with our rights to raise our children.

We have also proposed state versions of the PRA in statutory form, which have recently been enacted in Virginia and Nevada. We also helped draft Michigan’s parental rights statute which was adopted in 1994. Utah, Kansas, and Arizona also have similar statutes on their books.

Everyone who believes that we need to ensure parental rights are protected at the highest legal level should join these efforts. Please go to parentalrights.org/petition and sign up to become a part of the team—which, at a minimum, is a commitment to call or write your legislators when bills are moving in Congress or in your state.

Do we want a nation where the government can tell us that they can take our children away from us—all day or during the school day—so that they can ensure our children develop the philosophy that the government wants to instill?

Liberty cannot be sustained in a nation in which all children are indoctrinated in the government scheme of homogenized philosophies. We must have a people who can think for themselves and believe in the religion of their own choice.

These freedoms are threatened by our own government. But only our silence and inaction will actually defeat us.

Stand up. Speak up. Show up.

Sincerely,

Farris signature
Michael Farris, J.D., LL.M.
President

[Advocatus Dei]

March 19, 2014
When Will the Pelletier Nightmare End?

The latest hearing in the Pelletier case decided nothing. Judge Johnston of the Suffolk County Juvenile Court in Boston on Monday declared that he will decide by the end of the week on a motion by parents Lou and Linda Pelletier that their daughter Justina be returned to their care. So they continue to wait.

The Pelletier Nightmare imposed by Boston Children’s Hospital and Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) has to end sometime. But “When?” is the crucial question, especially given its negative impact on Justina’s health.

In an earlier ruling, Judge Johnston ordered that Justina’s medical care be returned to Tufts Medical Center, where doctors years ago diagnosed her with mitochondrial disease and were successfully treating its symptoms. Until that order, she was languishing under the care of Boston Children’s, who insisted her issues were not medical but psychological. Unfortunately DCF, who still have custody of Justina, have yet to return her to Tufts for treatment.

“Our goal is to get Justina home with her parents as soon as possible,” says attorney Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “This case has been kicked down the road long enough. DCF has obstructed every effort to return Justina home. We will use every legal means available to end this nightmare the family has been living for the past 14 months.”

Liberty Counsel is a legal organization working with the Pelletiers’ lawyers, though Judge Johnston has not yet acknowledged Staver as an official attorney on the case. Staver’s comments are taken from a March 18 Liberty Counsel release.

Meanwhile, efforts continue in the Massachusetts legislature to pass a bill that would prevent this kind of “institutional kidnapping” from taking place in the future. One bill drafted with input from our own Michael Farris would prevent DCF from accusing a family of medical abuse for following the orders and diagnosis of their licensed medical practitioner – as DCF did in the present case. Another bill will protect parental rights in every setting as a “fundamental right” demanding “strict scrutiny” protection.

We will continue to keep you posted on the Pelletier case as we receive more information, and we will continue to work at the state level to promote good laws that protect parents from this kind of familial intrusion. Thank you for standing with us in the effort!

Brief Survey Can Also Help Halt Nightmares

The Pediatric Justice Association, “a national nonprofit organization with the purpose to protect children’s rights to medical care and eliminate discrimination against children with rare or undiagnosed diseases,” is conducting a survey in conjunction with the University of North Carolina at Wilmington to determine hurdles parents face in getting their child the diagnoses they need.

In light of the Pelletier case above, perhaps this study cannot come soon enough.

If you have a child under the age of 19, please take 5-10 minutes to participate in this anonymous survey.

The Pediatric Justice Association is an allied organization supporting parental rights.

Thank you for standing with us as we strive to educate and equip parents with the legal tools they need in the fight for their parental rights.

Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

March 26, 2014
Justina Now a "Permanent Ward;" Time to Empower Escape

Throughout history, parents have had to escape when their children were threatened. Consider Sarah Hershberger of Ohio, whose parents escaped with her to Mexico late last year to protect her from hospital-ordered chemotherapy that has not been approved for children by the FDA.

Consider the Romeikes, who escaped Germany in 2008 to protect their children from state-run schools that violate the family’s religious beliefs.

Consider Justina Pelletier, imprisoned by the state of Massachusetts for over a year. Yesterday, the judge awarded “permanent custody” to Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF), for no conceivable reason.

I wish we were in a position to mastermind her physical escape from the state’s clutches and send her home.

We cannot impersonate Seal Team Six against DCF, but with your help, we can do much more for many more families: We can protect their children in the first place.

Michael Farris was asked by those involved in the Pelletier case to help draft a bill now in the Massachusetts legislature to stop these abuses. But we need your help to keep the effort going.

That’s why right now through our March 31 fiscal year-end only, we are offering a free print of the painting Rest on the Flight into Egypt with your one-time donation of $50 or more. Even better, the first 400 people to donate $100 or more will receive a print signed by the artist.

Donations must be made online by 11:59 p.m. PDT on March 31, or postmarked by March 31 and received in our office by April 7 to receive this offer.

A Portrait of Parental Protection

Classical painter Charles DeAntonio painted Rest on the Flight into Egypt especially for the parental rights cause. He chose this subject for its powerful display of parents escaping to protect an endangered child.

According to the Bible, King Herod sought to destroy the young Christ before he could grow into the promised King of Israel. But God warned Jesus’s parents in a dream, and Joseph led the escape into Egypt. There the child grew in safety until Herod’s death.
Please give today to help us finish our fiscal year strong and stop the Massachusetts insanity -- and bring home this beautiful picture of parents’ sacrifice to keep their child safe.

Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

Florida Notice: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING TOLL-FREE (800-435-7352) WITHIN THE STATE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.

Maryland Notice: A copy of ParentalRights.Org’s financial statement is available by request to ParentalRights.Org at the address below.

Virginia Notice: A financial statement is available from the State Office of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services upon request.

Washington Notice: The registration statement required by the Charitable Solicitation Act is on file with the Washington Secretary of State.

[Advocatus Dei]

April 2, 2014
Call on Congress to Stop the Madness!

The horrific state kidnapping case of Justina Pelletier has gained tremendous attention all over the country. And while we have made ourselves available to Liberty Counsel (as they represent the Pelletiers) and worked with several allies to draft and promote a bill in the Massachusetts legislature to stop such abuses in the future, there is still only one way to legally halt this tyranny against parents once and for all.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment (PRA), HJRes. 50, would place into the text of the U.S. Constitution that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right. Further, it would protect this liberty at the federal or the state level with “strict scrutiny,” the highest legal standard of review.

Under the proposed PRA, cases like Justina’s – where a child is taken from parents with no finding of imminent harm, abuse, or neglect – would virtually become a thing of the past.

Let’s face it: Parents should not be afraid to take their child to the emergency room!

That’s just one reason leaders on the resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives have set in motion a plan to get the PRA before the House Judiciary Committee for a formal hearing in the upcoming months. But we need your help.

Right now, 72 members of Congress have cosponsored HJRes50. That’s a respectable number, but not nearly as many as we need if we are looking for a committee hearing.

So we need to get your congressman on board.

Action Item: Call Blitz!

Please take a moment today – and maybe three times a week for the next two weeks – to call your congressman’s office and urge him to sign on. (To see if your congressman is already a cosponsor, check our list at 4pra.us/house.)

Your message can be as simple as the following, in your own words (you might consider using only one of the three examples provided):

I am deeply troubled by the state of parental rights in America. Justina Pelletier’s parents lost custody to Massachusetts because one doctor disagreed with another on her medical diagnosis. Sarah Herschberger’s parents had to flee the country with her to protect her health and preserve their parental rights. And while parents and even the NEA are opposed to the rise of Common Core, the courts have now determined in the Romeike case that parents don’t have a prior right to determine the type of education their children receive.

With these and other stories drawing such attention to the parental rights issue, I would strongly urge my congressman to take immediate action by cosponsoring HJRes 50, the proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The liberty of parents to make decisions for their children is so fundamental that this Amendment shouldn’t even be necessary, but clearly it is.

I would be very disappointed if my own congressman won’t support the right of innocent parents to raise their children without government interference. Please contact Mark Meadows’ office and sign on as a cosponsor right away. Thank you.

You can reach your congressman through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or find their contact information by clicking on your state at ParentalRights.org/States. (Or use our shortcut: just type 4pra.us/ followed by the two-letter abbreviation for your state. For instance, 4pra.us/ks will take you to our Kansas page.)

Right now we have 72 cosponsors. Let’s see how many we can add by April 15. Together we can preserve the liberty of parents to protect their children – but even working together it will not be easy.

Thank you for standing with us and calling to encourage your lawmakers to stand up for your rights as well!

Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

April 8, 2014
Keep Calling for Parental Rights

Last week we asked you to call your congressman and encourage him or her to support the Parental Rights Amendment by becoming a cosponsor of HJRes. 50. But the House is scheduled to launch a two-week spring recess on Friday.

So for the next two days we need to redouble our efforts.

Please take a moment and call your congressman again, urging support for HJRes. 50, the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

You can find your congressman’s contact information by clicking on your state at parentalrights.org/states. Or you can ask for their office by name through the Capitol Switchboard, 202-224-3121.

If you don’t know what to say, you can find a sample message in last week’s newsletter available online here.

Pelletier Update

There have been no official changes to the Pelletier case. Justina remains an official ward of the state as decided in Judge Joseph Johnston’s family court on March 25. The family is scheduled to return to court in June.

However, efforts outside his courtroom are ongoing. Liberty Counsel, which represents the Pelletier parents, has alluded to the possibility of an appeal to federal courts or to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. They have also mentioned the possibility of filing for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court – that is, an order by the federal court requiring that the state of Massachusetts immediately surrender Justina Pelletier back into her parents’ care.

Additionally, a bill has been submitted to the Massachusetts legislature to demand Justina’s immediate release by the state. And then there is our own bill, yet to be introduced, which would protect the right of parents who are following medical advice by one physician, from being charged with medical neglect for disagreeing with treatment prescribed by another physician.

While Liberty Counsel works in the courtroom, we will continue to work in the halls of the legislature to protect the right of parents like the Pelletiers to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.

Of course, the best solution is the Parental Rights Amendment. So please take a moment now to call, and then to pass this email on to anyone you think would be interested. Working together, we can protect children by empowering parents against an intrusive, power-hungry government.

Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

April 15, 2014
Habeas Corpus for Pelletiers: Trump Card or 'Hail Mary'?

On Monday, Liberty Counsel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of Justina Pelletier. Justina Pelletier is the 15-year-old who was taken from her parents last February because doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital disagreed with her prior diagnosis of mitochondrial disease. But is the habeas corpus a trump card, or more like a ‘Hail Mary’ pass?

“Habeas corpus demands a high standard, a very high standard,” ParentalRights.org president Michael Farris explains. “It is very rarely used. It is difficult to prove, to meet the standard.” But then he adds, “It’s for cases like this.”

The concept of habeas corpus, which in Latin means “you have the body,” dates back to the English Magna Carta, which turns 800 next year. A writ of habeas corpus is an order issued by a court to an agent of the state, to present a prisoner or ward at a certain date and time, and to be prepared to defend its legal decision to hold that person in custody.

In this case, Liberty Counsel is asking the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to order the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to bring Justina to court and defend its actions in keeping her from her parents for more than a year. If DCF fails to do so, Justina must be returned to her parents on the spot.

So is it a trump card or a ‘Hail Mary’? In some ways it is both.

The habeas corpus is like a trump card in that it moves Justina’s case out of the court of judge Joseph Johnston, who has repeatedly kept Justina from her parents (though, as Liberty Counsel points out, never in a written order as required by state law). As an added advantage, a habeas corpus petition is also likely to be heard sooner than an appeal would be.

It is like a ‘Hail Mary’ in that success can be hard to achieve. As Farris pointed out, the standard is very high. The new court would have to find that DCF has essentially no reason whatever to take Justina out of her parents’ care. In this instance, from a lot of angles that seems to be exactly the case. But getting the judge to agree could prove a long shot.

It is not like a ‘Hail Mary,’ however, in one key respect: In football, that desperate pass play comes at the end of the game when there is no time for any other option. A failed ‘Hail Mary’ means a loss of the football game. In the case of the Pelletiers, however, options remain open even if the habeas corpus should fail.

ParentalRights.org is proud to be collaborating with Liberty Counsel on legislative solutions to this case, including the drafting of a bill currently being vetted for introduction in the Massachusetts legislature.

As you are able, please donate to support our ongoing efforts to preserve parents’ legal rights all over America. Even if you cannot give financially, spread the word to your family and friends and urge them to join the petition at ParentalRights.org/petition.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

April 22, 2014
Another State on the Brink of Protecting Parental Rights by Law

Oklahoma’s Senate last week voted unanimously in favor of House Bill 1384, codifying legal rights for parents in the state. Called the “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” HB 1384 is sponsored by Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City) and Sen. A.J. Griffin (R-Guthrie).

While we have offered very basic model language to help state lawmakers get started in preserving parental rights in statutory law, some legislatures have gone far beyond our modest and simple wording. (This is a good thing in those states that can get more detailed and robust protections passed!) Oklahoma’s 25-page bill certainly qualifies as one of these, and seeks to cover parental rights in every possible aspect of Oklahoma law.

Because the Senate adopted amendments to the bill, it has to return to the House for another vote. An earlier form of the bill passed the House on a vote of 89 to 3 (with 9 excused) on February 19, and no opposition to the amended version is anticipated.

With passage of HB 1384, Oklahoma will join a small but growing list of states that protect the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children as a matter of statutory law. Kansas included those rights in a religious freedom bill last year, while Nevada and Virginia adopted parental rights statutes of varying lengths and levels of detail. Other states, including Michigan, Texas, and Utah also protect parental rights by statute.

The vast majority of states recognize traditional, fundamental parental rights as a matter of judicial precedent. Without a statutory basis for those rights, however, they are subject to erosion as state courts follow the lead of their federal colleagues. The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to apply the “strict scrutiny” standard of review in the Troxel v. Granville case in 2000 has especially led to confusion of this standard in lower courts which, as a result, treat parental rights as less than fundamental.

Massachusetts, where Justina Pelletier is in her fifteenth month of captivity at the hands of the Department of Children and Families, is among the states least friendly to parental rights. Yet even there, the tragedy of Justina’s case may open the door for some form of parental rights legislation.

We recently worked with Liberty Counsel to draft a bill that would make it illegal for DCF to accuse parents of “medical neglect” if they are following the diagnosis and treatment plan from a licensed medical provider. Such a law would have protected the Pelletiers from losing custody of their daughter when Boston Children’s Hospital disagreed with her diagnosis from Tufts Medical Center, then removed her parents from the equation for siding with “the wrong hospital.”

Thank you for standing with us in the effort to pass these state laws to protect children by empowering their parents to make these critical decisions on their behalf. Thank you, too, for supporting our ongoing effort to secure the ultimate solution to this problem, the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

April 29, 2014
Concerned Parents Victorious Over National Student Database

In an article last Monday, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) announced the demise of the inBloom software firm as a result of parental opposition to its national student database. Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, inBloom is the company that planned to manage and store personal data on public school students from across the nation.

At its height in 2012, inBloom boasted that nine states were ready to participate in the service, either through statewide efforts or localized pilot programs. Pushed by Common Core and Race to the Top, that number promised to grow. But as word got out, including through articles on our site and that of our allies at HSLDA, parents became involved. And those parents were overwhelmingly opposed to the plan.

The WSJ report quotes Leanie Haimson, mother of a former New York City public school student, who said, “Hopefully, today’s announcement that inBloom is closing its doors will make government officials, corporations, and foundations more aware that parental concerns cannot be ignored.”

We agree wholeheartedly.

It has long been recognized in our country that parents are the best defenders of a child’s privacy and other rights. The Supreme Court more than 40 years ago held that “[t]his primary role of parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972) But in recent years, educational elites and deep-pocketed special interest groups have been working to undermine this principle.

InBloom, coupled with the Race to the Top-funded Common Core State Standards Initiative, was only the latest effort to delete parents from the education equation. But with the database failed and the Common Core gasping for life in several states, there may be more than hope for victory in the fight against nationalized education.

Let's celebrate this victory of active citizens and parents who made a difference in protecting children by preserving their own decision-making rights!

We also recognize that, like Common Core in certain states, inBloom could simply return under a different name. Given the track record of Common Core proponents, another covert effort to monitor students and mine their data for an advertising edge is not only possible but likely.

So, like you, we will not be taking our eye off the ball. We will celebrate this victory with caution.

Action Item

Victories like the fall of inBloom demonstrate that concerned parents will respond to the threats when they arise. But even greater is our potential to preserve parental rights before the danger is imminent. There is no better way to accomplish this than by passing the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In the last 3 weeks, two new cosponsors – Rep. Dan Benishek (MI-1) and Rep. Lou Barletta (PA-11) – have added their support for the PRA. The full list of 74 cosponsors is available at 4pra.us/house.

If your congressman is on the list, please send them a note of thanks via email. (You can find their email address or web form link by clicking on your state at parentalrights.org/states.)

If your congressman is not on the list, please call them today and ask them to become a cosponsor of HJRes 50, the Parental Rights Amendment. Tell them the case of Justina Pelletier in Massachusetts proves parental rights are not protected as they should be. And the fall of inBloom demonstrates that standing against parents in America is never a wise business decision.

Thank you for taking the time today to stand for parental rights, as you have stood throughout recent months to bring down this attempt at a national student database. Congratulations on this wonderful victory!

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

May 6, 2014
State Status Update: Is Justina Finally Going Home?

While our primary goal is to adopt a U.S. constitutional amendment to preserve your parental rights, we are also diligently at work at the state level for the same purpose. But because our state efforts are localized, you generally don’t know what is going on in states other than your own. So here’s the run-down, including an update on the case of Justina Pelletier in Massachusetts – or is it in Connecticut?

Taking a Stand in the States

Colorado

As April dawned, we were working in Colorado to push legislation that would roll back a bad law from last year regarding a parent’s choice of medical care for their children. In 2013 the legislature passed a law to forbid parents from taking any child under the age of 2 years to any kind of health professional except a pediatrician. Everyone from naturopaths to chiropractors was banned under the bill, greatly limiting parents’ options. Even a general practitioner is currently unacceptable according to the state, whose lawmakers think they know best for all children.

This year’s SB14-032 would have reversed that part of the law, and we asked those of you in Colorado to call and support it. Unfortunately, the House Committee on Health, Insurance, and Environment voted 6-3 on April 3 to “postpone [the bill] indefinitely.”

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania legislature is considering a bill that would throw open the doors of information sharing between medical professionals and Child Protection Services (CPS) workers in cases of alleged abuse or neglect, even if the medical professional is not connected to the case or even if the case does not involved a medical element. This would put child privacy and family integrity at risk. Senate Bill 27 would even permit CPS to gather private medical records of child siblings who are not alleged to have been abused or neglected.

ParentalRights.org was able to coordinate with other organizations who provided testimony at the April 29 hearing of the House Committee on Children and Youth to oppose this bill. We also alerted Dr. Rodger Sayre, a Pennsylvania licensed physician and member of the ParentalRights.Org board of directors, who wrote a letter to the committee offering his own professional, expert testimony against the measure.

The committee has not yet voted on this bill, but we hope they will refuse to send it to the full House. If they do pass it on, we will alert our Pennsylvania readers and ask you to contact your member of the House to vote against this intrusion of your child’s medical privacy.

California

California Senate Bill 909 was scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, May 6. This bill would allow a social services worker to take a child for a medical, dental, or mental health screening, even before a mandatory detention hearing in which a judge might authorize the worker to take custody of the child. ParentalRights.org opposes this bill out of concern for parental rights, Fourth Amendment due process rights, and the inclusion of the subjective term “mental health.”

SB909 would infringe parental rights and due process rights by allowing the social services worker to take control of the child’s medical decisions before the parents or the child have received a hearing by the court: before abuse has been validated, before a child is adjudged to be dependent on the court, and before parental rights have been formally limited by the court’s decision.

The bill would also include “mental health” as one area of care that social services workers would specifically be permitted to secure for children in the state’s care. This is troubling when one considers the highly subjective nature of “mental health” and the fact that “mental health” has been the excuse behind Massachusetts’ taking and holding of Justina Pelletier from her parents for nearly 15 months.

We contacted our parental rights champions in California on Monday to call members of the committee to halt the advance of this bill. We are still waiting to see the outcome of our efforts.

Oklahoma

Perhaps our most exciting state-specific news comes from Oklahoma, where a 12-page bill called the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” has just passed the House for a second time. [Ed. note: We originally referred to this as a 25-page bill, but the 25-page document includes the 12-page House version, the 12-page Senate version, and a cover sheet.] HB 1384, authored by Rep. Sally Kern and Sen. AJ Griffin, passed the House on an 89-3 vote on February 19. In the Senate, it passed 43-0 (5 excused) on April 14, but with amendments. So it returned to the House and seemed destined for a conference committee that would work out differences between the two versions. Then, on May 5, the request for conference was rescinded; the House voted 88-3 to pass the bill with the Senate’s amendments.

As of today the Parents’ Bill of Rights is on its way to the desk of Governor Mary Fallin, who is expected to sign the measure into law. [Ed. note: Gov. Fallin signed the bill into law on May 9, 2014.] This new law will respect the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing, education, and care of their children in every imaginable setting. Further, the bill asserts that the state cannot infringe these rights “without demonstrating that the compelling governmental interest as applied to the child involved is of the highest order, is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.” This is a carefully worded application of the “strict scrutiny” review standard that we call for in all of our legislation and our proposed Amendment.

Justina Pelletier: Massachusetts or Connecticut?

We have also been working in Massachusetts to craft legislation that will protect the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children. You are probably aware of the case of Justina Pelletier, a Connecticut teenager taken from her parents’ custody at the request of Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) because an intern there disagreed with the medical diagnosis of Justina’s own physician. The parents agreed with her doctor from Tufts Medical Center that Justina suffers from mitochondrial disease, while the staff at BCH decided she was suffering from somatoform disorder, a form of mental illness in which her symptoms are imagined.

We have also worked diligently through our social media network and through emails like this one to draw attention to this family’s plight. As a result of the pressure which we have helped to generate (we cannot nearly claim all the credit for ourselves!), the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) has announced plans to move Justina to a different treatment facility next week, this one in her home state of Connecticut.

“We want Justina to go home,” Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary John Polanowicz announced on Monday. “We think, at this point, with all the family dynamics that are going on and the media attention to it, that getting her home with the appropriate services is going to be the best thing for her.”

Unfortunately, DCF will continue to have custody of Justina until her parents have met certain goals to the department’s satisfaction. Still, this announcement is a large step in the right direction. If it leads to her going home permanently very soon, then we are certainly glad to see it.

Remember: Expanded Constitutional Literacy

Don’t forget that we are currently offering the newly expanded Constitutional Literacy DVD set with your donation of $50 or more to ParentalRights.org. This limited-time offer ends Sunday, May 11, at 11:59 p.m. PDT. [Ed. note: This offer has expired.]

Note for Constitutional Literacy owners: Mr. Farris is working to make the added or amended episodes available online to those who already own the set. You will be able to stream the video for free, and only need to secure the expanded edition if you want to own them in disk form. We hope you are willing to donate to protect parental rights anyway – but we do not want to mislead you.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

May 12, 2014
Not a Hero, Just a Mom

“There’s a chance I won’t ever be able to walk again,” says Christina Simoes, 23, of Haverville, Massachusetts. “It’s so worth it because he’s okay.” “He” refers to her 18-month-old son, Cameron, who was with Simoes in her third story apartment when the building caught on fire last Wednesday.

“I saw the flames were only 10 feet from where I was standing,” Simoes recounted for CBS Boston. “I grabbed my son and I held him as tight as I could to my chest and I gave him a kiss and a hug, and I told him I loved him and I jumped out the window.”

Cameron suffered a bump on his head but was otherwise just fine. Christina was less fortunate. The landing was excruciating, as she broke her back and lost feeling in her legs. Then she still had to crawl away from the building with her son to escape falling debris.

“I didn’t think about it,” Simoes continues. “All I was thinking about was getting him out of there. He mattered way more than I did.”

Clearly, elitists who think bureaucrats can make better decisions for a child than his parents have never met Christina Simoes. Or Mindy Tran, for that matter.

Tran, 22, of Lawrence, Massachusetts, had loaded her 2-year-old twins into the backseat of her Honda Accord in March when the car slipped out of gear and started rolling toward traffic.

To save her girls, Tran laid down her own body – literally – to save theirs. “I laid down horizontally, using my body as a speed bump to stop the car,” she told ABC News on March 18.

When a neighbor rushed over and asked what he could do, Tran told him to “make sure my daughters got out of the car safely.” Never mind that Tran herself had suffered a crushed knee, injured hips, and a dislocated shoulder. Her concern was for her little girls, not for herself. (Tran would soon be airlifted to a Boston-area hospital for her injuries.)

“I don’t consider myself a hero,” Tran explained afterward. “I am just a mother.”

Simoes said pretty much the same thing: “I don’t think that I’m any special hero at all. I’m just Cameron’s mom.”

In my experience, the difference between heroes like these and nearly every other mom is in the circumstances. Most mothers will never need to leap from a burning building or throw themselves under a car to save their children. But as we watch mom daily sacrifice her own desires to meet the needs of her children – fixing their meals, shuttling them to rehearsals, saving for their education, teaching them vital life lessons – there remains no doubt that if the need arose, she would respond exactly as Christina and Mindy did.

“Natural bonds of affection,” the Supreme Court once wrote, “lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.” It is this fact that makes the words “hero” and “mother” so synonymous.

With Mother’s Day just passed, it is not too late to remember the moms you know who have been a hero in your life. Like you, we salute these moms (and the dads just like them) who inspire our efforts to preserve parental rights.

Constitutional Literacy Offer Extended

Due to popular demand, we have extended our Constitutional Literacy offer through noon Eastern this Friday, May 16. If you have not yet ordered the newly extended version for your donation of $50 or more, view the offer and make your donation here.

To those who have already donated and made this campaign a success, we thank you.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

[Advocatus Dei]

May 21, 2014
PRA Celebrates 76 Cosponsors, Sets Sights on 100

In the last week Representatives Ted Yoho (R-FL) and Mike Pompeo (R-KS) have become the 75th and 76th cosponsors, respectively, of HJRes. 50, the Parental Rights Amendment. They join lead sponsor Mark Meadows (R-NC) and other recent sponsors Dan Benishek (R-MI) and Lou Barletta (R-PA) in upholding the traditional liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children as a constitutional right.

This marks the third straight Congress in which the Amendment has reached this level of support.

“Parents know what’s best for their children, and I’m pleased to support their right to raise their families as they see fit,” Rep. Pompeo explained in a statement. “Washington shouldn’t meddle with America’s families.”

Congressman Mark Meadows agrees.

“I’m pleased to see that so many of my colleagues recognize the importance of protecting parental rights from the whims of federal courts and international organizations,” Rep. Meadows said. “Government is constantly encroaching more and more into the private lives of Americans. This Amendment will ensure that government only be involved in child-rearing in the rare cases where the family has failed.”

“On behalf of all American parents and their children we are grateful for the diligent leadership and faithful support of these congressmen for the Parental Rights Amendment,” ParentalRights.org President Michael Farris says. “This level of support not only from lawmakers but from their constituents demonstrates the tremendous importance Americans place on the liberty of parents in directing the upbringing of their children. This liberty is the most important safeguard by which to ensure freedom for future generations.”

Excitement for reaching this milestone, however, is tempered by the realization that more cosponsors are needed as the measure moves towards a likely committee hearing in the coming months. To push it along, Rep. Meadows and ParentalRights.org have set a goal to bring the total to 100 cosponsors in the next two weeks.

Action Item

Please call your congressman and urge him or her to cosponsor HJRes 50, the Parental Rights Amendment, especially if he or she is listed below. This list contains those who have already cosponsored the Parental Rights Amendment in a prior Congress, but who have not yet signed on to HJRes. 50. These former cosponsors include:

Representatives Bachus (AL-6), Blackburn (TN-7), Mo Brooks (AL-5), Cassidy (LA-6), Fleming (LA-4), Gosar (AZ-4), Kelly (PA-3), Latta (OH-5), Candice Miller (MI-10), Tim Murphy (PA-18), Nunnelee (MS-1), Olson (TX-22), Palazzo (MS-4), McMorris-Rodgers (WA-5), Ross (FL-15), Royce (CA-39), Schweikert (AZ-6), Sessions (TX-32), Shimkus (IL-15), Aderholt (AL-4), Boustany (LA-3), Kevin Brady (TX-8), Burgess (TX-26), Campbell (CA-45), Conaway (TX-11), Crenshaw (FL-4), Gohmert (TX-1), Sam Graves (MO-6), Hall (TX-4), Doc Hastings (WA-4), Hensarling (TX-5), Issa (CA-49), Sam Johnson (TX-3), Kingston (GA-1), LoBiondo (NJ-2), Lucas (OK-3), Luetkmeyer (MO-3), Kevin McCarthy (CA-23), McCaul (TX-10), McHenry (NV-10), McIntyre (NC-7), MeKeon (CA-25), Gary Miller (CA-31), Paulsen (MN-3), Petri (WI-6), Poe (TX-2), Posey (FL-8), Tim Price (GA-6), Roe (TN-1), Rooney (FL-17), Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27), Scalise (LA-1), Shuster (PA-9), Simpson (ID-2), Terry (NE-2), Glenn Thompson (PA-5), Turner (OH-10), Whitfield (KY-1), and Walden (OR-2).

You can ask for you congressman’s office by name through the Capitol Switchboard – 202-224-3121 – or find more information by clicking on your state at parentalrights.org/states.

When you call, let them know that you support the traditional high standard of parental rights, and that you are asking your congressman to do the same by contacting Mark Meadows’ office to cosponsor HJRes. 50. Tell them you would appreciate them making this a priority by signing on before their next recess on May 31.

Then, pass this email along to family and friends who may join you in calling to protect this crucial liberty.

Thank you so much for standing for parental rights and helping us to get this vital resolution into committee this summer!

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research