Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.
The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.
Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.
Is there a reason this has sat for 20 years? Through several sessions of Congress, through several Presidential Administrations? Why here? Why now?
Could it be that the underlying current we find ourselves in currently is not just a hard turn to the left but an actual frontal assault on our very Nation? Is the goal to erode the Nation, to level the playing field because it is unfair that we are a superpower, that we need to be ruled by the laws and mandates of the UN?
Boxer has made clear her intent to revive the ratification process under the Obama administration, which may be amenable to the move. During a Senate confirmation hearing last month, Boxer said she considers it "a humiliation" that the U.S. is "standing with Somalia" in refusing to become party to the agreement, while 193 other nations have led the way.
The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement, something which has rankled members of Congress, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said.
Yeah, children have rights. This from Senator Boxer who is a 100% ranked NARAL ranked politician.
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.
This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006
She has repeatedly voted against partial birth abortion bans, what about the rights of those children Senator? In this day, the miracle of modern medicine can deliver and maintain a baby born at 22 weeks with very limited success, at about 24 weeks the survival rate begins to increase dramatically. A full term baby is considered to be between 37 and 42 weeks. So in the later 35% of the pregnancy in many cases this fetus could be delivered and would survive. So again I ask Senator Boxer, Senator Sanders and a whole host of others, what of the right of THAT child?
The funny thing about rights is this, my rights are mine, and I am entitled to them, as long as the exercise of my rights DO NOT INFRINGE upon the rights of another.
The right of a woman to do with her body as she pleases is inherent, that right is not given by any politician. Although that right is not as clear cut as many would think.
In 2005, a then 16 year old pregnant girl (6 months pregnant) and her 17 year old boyfriend decided to self abort their fetus. The boy repeatedly struck the girl in the abdomen with a baseball bat and forced a miscarriage. Realize both of these kids decided on their own, together to do this, he struck her with her permission, and both of their intents were to end the pregnancy.
The Richmond Township boy, 16, who may be arraigned as early as today in Macomb County Juvenile Court, is at home with his parents. He was charged as a juvenile with intentional conduct against a pregnancy or stillbirth, which is a felony. If convicted, he could remain in custody until age 21.
But the girl, also from Richmond - who was a willing participant in the induced abortion, law enforcement officials say - cannot be charged under that law because it specifically excludes the mother from criminal liability.
The boy was sentenced eventually to probation, and the girl was not charged, although officials wanted to if you read the entire article. I’m sorry but I fail to see the difference between the boy and girl deciding to abort their child and doing it themselves or going to the local Planned Parenthood, the net effect is the same. There was consent given. Crude yes, could she have suffered injuries or even death from what they did, yes, but that is also something that can happen at Planned Parenthood, or any other “clinic”.
In 2006 a young lady went to a clinic to have an abortion, but the baby was born alive, the staff in the clinic bagged the living fetus and disposed of it. The medical examiner later found that the fetus had actually breathed before dying. The Doctor in that case has lost his license to practice (in Florida), and there is an ongoing investigation. Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case The baseball bat kid(s) could have gone to prison, the Doctor get slapped and we’ll see what if anything happens to the actual staff that did this.
Children do have rights, already, and common sense dictates that the parents of children are the primary sources of everything a child needs, from conception to the point where that child is ready to take on the world on their own. This UN Treaty has the potential to erode this parental role significantly.
The convention has established a Committee on the Rights of the Child, an 18-member panel in Geneva composed of "persons of high moral character" who review the rights of children in nations that are party to the convention.
But legal experts say the convention does nothing to protect human rights abroad -- and that acceding to the convention would erode U.S. sovereignty.
Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.
"To the extent that an outside body, a group of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined -- that is an erosion of American sovereignty," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Parental rights groups are similarly stirred; they see in the U.N. convention a threat that the government will meddle with even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit.
"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."
Groves said that erosion has already begun, as the Supreme Court has referred to the wide acceptance of the child-rights law in conferring legal protections on minors in the U.S.
So is this an inroad, or a possible loss of our rights, our sovereignty? I am not sure, it can be. Frankly, I’m not a fan of big government, it has NEVER been able to do anything efficiently and correctly, and in my opinion the UN is even worse than big government.
Proponents of the convention in the U.S. stress that it will help secure human rights abroad.
"Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face," Boxer said in January, implying that the U.S. refusal to come aboard has led to abuses elsewhere.
But when acceding to the convention, countries are able to sign so-called RUDs -- reservations, understandings and declarations -- that can hinder or negate responsibilities they would otherwise be bound to follow.
Most majority Muslim nations express reservations on all provisions of the convention that are incompatible with Islamic Sharia law, which takes much of the teeth out of the treaty. Acid attacks on girls continue in Afghanistan, which is already party to the convention.
The U.N. itself admits that there is no way for it to enforce its own laws and protect children.
"When it comes to signatories who violate the convention and/or its optional protocols -- there is no means to oblige states to fulfill their legal obligations," said Giorgia Passarelli, a spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights, which oversees the child-rights body.
Passarelli said that the committee has kept a constant spotlight on rights violators and fed into decisions made by the Security Council, especially involving child soldiers. But even then, she added, such pressure does not always prevail.
Despite these obstacles, Boxer has made clear that she intends to ramp up pressure to get the treaty ratified, a passion that may be shared by the Obama administration.
During the Oct. 22, 2008, presidential youth debate, Obama promised to "review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
So it is yet again our fault, we are responsible for everything, (except when it’s Bush’s fault). It is our fault that girls and women are beaten in Afghanistan, it is our fault that young woman have had acid thrown in their faces. I see that Senator Boxer, who seems to love this Treaty, hasn’t mentioned anything about the nations that refuse to abide by the Treaty the THEY signed. So yes the United States and Somolia have not signed it. One nation has been leaderless for quite some time, and now we shall see if our Nation has a leader on this topic or not. I fear I know where it’s going, but we shall see.
Leadership does not involve following the pack, unfortunately many think that it does. Leadership many times is a lonely road, with many disagreeing with you. As a true leader you try to convince those that disagree with you why they should join you, so far from our new administration I have seen little in the way of leadership, and a lot in the way of preaching and do as I say.
As the UN has admitted, this is a bunch of useless words, it is not enforceable, so in this age of we need to do this, that and the other thing, now, crisis, catastrophe, why should we be spending time on something that is nothing more than a proclamation?
Unless of course your ultimate goal is to crack the door open to allow the UN in to help us run our Nation. To establish even more precedent.
