§ Volunteer Form

§ What is Pro-Life Unity?

To achieve Pro-Life Unity we will establish standards that we all agree upon, and efforts that we all regularly participate in. By working together we can challenge the culture of death and the apathy which is pervasive in our society.

§ Action Code

Help promote the Pro-Life Action Calls which are put out by Pro-Life organizations nationwide.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) to email us and we will send you the Action Code & sign you up as a member of Pro-Life Unity. Your site will be listed on the Members page

§ Life Principles

Click here for the timeless Life Principles that were established over 30 years ago by the March for Life Education and Defense Fund.

§ Volunteer Form

Click here to fill out our volunteer form. We can help you identify what you would like to do to help the unborn and connect you with either our efforts our some other group effort somewhere near you

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Why a Parental Rights Amendment?

With years of experience and a prolific knowledge of law, constitutional lawyer Michael Farris well knew what he was doing when he defined the liberty of parenthood as a “fundamental,” rather than an “absolute” freedom in his Parental Rights Amendment. This means simply that the right to parenthood in any way deemed worthy by the parents is wholly ensured. However, even our First and Second Amendment rights are not absolute. We cannot resort to human sacrifice or murder while simultaneously claiming our rights to religion and arms. An amendment would only decrease the cases in which parents are wrongly accused of crime—-instances in which they have their children unreasonably taken from them. Prosecutors would be required to offer valid, seriously considered evidence in order to even initiate their causes. Parentalrights.org states:

“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 other words, rather than claim child abuse merely because of a humble means of living or feeding a child “junkfood,” legitimate abuse would actually surface to attention. I do think it would be much more beneficial to consider the implications involved should we not support a Parental Rights Amendment. Let us consider child abuse here. Innumerable statistics link child abuse/aggression (physical, emotional) with abortion—-which in itself is the ultimate child abuse (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07031301.html). The UN Convention On the Rights Of the Child (the Parental Rights Amendment’s legal opposer) asserts the child’s “right” to abortion. It also prohibits parental knowledge/imposition in such a decision. If we are truly concerned for the well-being of the child, we will connect the dots, and support legislation which would stop the ultimate child abuse, and give children the right to live.

Cases have also disclosed child abuse in foster homes—-concerning not only the parents, but the biological children involved, as well. From a website:

“Most foster parents want to do the best they can for the children in their care — like most parents, period. But the abusive minority is significant and probably growing. And abuse in foster care doesn’t just include abuse by foster parents; often it involves foster children abusing one another.”

Obviously, the attempts of so-called “Child Defense” organizations are not exactly error-free. If anything, the family-disintegrations resultant have proven only to increase abuse incidents. No, government imposition is not the answer. My point: No solution is perfect (we are all born in sin); only a Parental Rights Amendment would in contrast protect parents rather than abuse them.

Should good, loving parents who want the best for their children suffer for those who do not? In addition, who is to say that government officials have any more insight/capability in choosing replacement parents? Government officials, bureaucrats, and social workers are only people, too. I find it unfortunate that so many people deify these positions. God is to be the Standard of all behavior. He has commanded parents to the charge of their children (Proverbs 22:6). Any undue infringement upon this covenant would be an offense to another’s religious and natural rights. Just another thought: the majority of social workers are parents, too. Why would they have supreme interests in children (who are not even theirs) more at heart than the children’s own natural parents? As the Supreme Court in 1977 once ruled: “The liberty interest in family privacy has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights, as they have been understood in “this Nation’s history and tradition.” While parenthood should be protected, it is not currently explicit in the Constitution. I would encourage all to consider this issue, and ensure the happiness of children by encouraging the unity of the family, and by protecting parents!

—-Whitney Ann Dotson

Page 1 of 1 pages