Here is a way to share the importance of the Parental Rights Amendment with your community. Visit Parentalrights.org to see how to get a copy of the DVD and host a viewing today.
Dear Parental Rights Champion,
The highly acclaimed Zogby Poll has just released the results of the first in-depth analysis of our efforts to protect the right of American parents to raise their children free from improper governmental interference. I am thrilled to be able to present to you a summary of the findings from this brand new .
First, here are some of the highlights from this poll:
The American public stands strongly behind parental rights. America does not want governmental or UN interference in the American family. The public supports a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of all parents.
Those are the headlines. And these findings are true—in varying degrees, of course—for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Support for parental rights comes from all regions of the country, all racial and religious groups, and at every level of income.
Here are the survey questions, in the order they were asked:
Poll Question 1
Do you agree or disagree with parents having the legal option to give their child a modest spanking?
The government elites are adamant in their opposition to traditional parenting practices. Chief on their list is the elimination of even modest spanking. The UN wishes to ban spanking through the
But the American public thinks otherwise. On Question 1:
58.7% strongly agree
26.4% somewhat agree
6.0% somewhat disagree
6.9% strongly disagree
2.0% not sure
These are political landslide kinds of numbers.
Various subgroups view this parental right slightly differently (see the in-depth breakdown online), but a large majority of all groups agree. Americans are solidly united in support of parental rights to traditional, modest discipline..
In general, parents have the constitutional right to make decisions for their children without governmental interference unless there is proof of abuse or neglect. Do you agree or disagree with this view of parental rights?All American voters
Would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to permanently protect parental rights, allowing them to make decisions for their children without government interference, so long as there is no proof of abuse or neglect?
All American voters
45.9% strongly support
17.1% somewhat support
8.5% somewhat oppose
18.3% strongly oppose
10.2% not sure
It is important to note that this question does not make any argument as to why the Amendment is needed. If people were told that the had begun to move away from the traditional standard, the support would almost certainly be much higher. As it is, 63.0% of Americans support the Parental Rights Amendment with 26.8% opposed. Keeping in mind that well over 90% support the goal of the PRA, the opportunity to increase this number above 63% is very strong.
The sub-group views on this question are online here.
Again, a political election that is decided 63% to 26.8% is a called a landslide. America supports the PRA by numbers that represent a landslide even without an explanation of why it is needed.
A United Nations treaty on children’s rights is currently being considered by the United States government. If this treaty made international law, it would trump some existing state laws on parents and children. Do you support or oppose this treaty?
All American voters
3.4% strongly support
8.2% somewhat support
9.9% somewhat oppose
44.5% strongly oppose
34.1% not sure
This question reveals a great amount of uncertainty, but for those that had an opinion, 5 Americans oppose the UNCRC for every 1 American that supports it. The question may have been confusing, because the next question clarifies the treaty just a bit and the results are very clear indeed.
If you knew that the United Nations treaty on children’s rights would give government broad discretion to overrule parents and decide what it thinks is best for a child, would you support or oppose this treaty, or does it make no difference to your opinion?
1.5% strongly support
4.9% somewhat support
11.6% somewhat oppose
66.7% strongly oppose
4.5% no difference
10.9% not sure
With a single explanation of the effect of the CRC, the opinion of the vast majority of Americans becomes very clear. 78.3% oppose this treaty, and only 6.4% support it.
Opposition to the CRC is found in every political faction. Republicans oppose it 90.1% to 3.9%, Independents 78.5% to 5.2%, Democrats 67.0% to 9.5%. Even liberals opposed the CRC 56.3% to 15.7% - again, a landslide.
AnalysisThe vast majority of the American electorate is on our side in this issue of parental rights. The level of support varies a bit from the “landslide” level on the low end up to “nearly unanimous” on the high end.
Parents of 50 Million U.S. Children Soon to Lose Parental Rights
If your children attend public school, you are among those parents whose rights will end the moment your child enters the school. That’s because in 2005 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in Fields v. Palmdale School District “that the Meyer-Pierce right [of parents to direct the upbringing of their children] does not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”
This is the first of several court cases we plan to review for you in the coming weeks. The courts’ disregard for the traditional formative role of parents in a child’s life needs to be brought to light. And while the Parental Rights Amendment will not give parents any greater power to control the school’s choice of curriculum, it will protect their right to pull their individual child out of any program of an outrageous or offensive nature, like the program in the Palmdale case. (To read more from this case, click here.)
Dear Supporter of Parental Rights,Last week, I asked for your participation in building our network of parental rights supporters so that we can make a push to pass the Parental Rights Amendment in the next Congress. If you meant to pass on last week’s information, but forgot to do it, it is not too late. We really need your help.But, it is very obvious that a great number of you did participate with great success because we had our all time record for new petition signers in one week. Over 10,000 new people signed up to support the parental rights cause because of your efforts last week.And like we promised last week, we are going to continue to supply you with good information that you can use to help promote our mutual cause within your circle of influence.During the last week, a well-respected leader in the pro-family movement, Terrence McKeegan, Vice President and Senior Counsel for C-FAM, shared with me his research about the UN’s latest efforts to attack the moral foundation of families and children. In the last week a major youth conference was held in Mexico which was aimed at creating a new declaration for youth to be enacted by the UN General Assembly in connection with the “International Year for Youth.”One of the things called for in the proposed resolution is full access for all youth to “universal access to reproductive health.” These words are loaded with hidden meanings. However, McKeegan has unmasked these hidden meanings by gathering copies of UN brochures that it distributed at its youth conference in March, 2010. Click here to look at the actual sections from these brochures. The content of this material is shocking. It is not pornographic, but the behavior that it is encouraging is lewdness and immorality personified. I would strongly suggest that only parents look at this material. Here are just a few examples:· Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure· Some people have sex when they have been drinking alcohol or using drugs. This is your choice.· There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself.· Sexual and reproductive rights are recognized around the world as human rights.Now you know the kinds of ideas that are offered when the UN calls for “safe sex education and awareness-raising activities among adolescents” (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006, Concluding Observations, Lebanon).There is already a political movement in the United States to offer these egregious forms of sex education without parental knowledge or review. But, if the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is adopted in the US, then the debate is over—we would be required to implement the kind of adolescent “health” education dictated by the UN.We must preserve our families. We must preserve common sense and morality. We must preserve American self-government.If you have already joined our efforts to stop the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child thanks so much. Would you continue to share this information with your friends as we build toward the next session of Congress? If you have not joined with us, Click here and do so today.Thanks so much.PresidentParentalrights.org
Full Senate to Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan
William A. Estrada, Esq.
Director of Federal Relations
July 26, 2010
On Tuesday, July 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send Elena Kagan’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court to the full Senate for approval. The committee vote was 13–6. It is expected that the full Senate will vote on Ms. Kagan’s nomination sometime this week or next week.
HSLDA has previously voiced our concerns about Ms. Kagan’s nomination due to her support of international law. These concerns grew after Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) asked her pointed questions about her reliance on international law.
We have now found out additional information that may reflect Ms. Kagan’s views on homeschooling. In the 1980s, Ms. Kagan—fresh out of law school—clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. At that time, HSLDA was battling in state courts for homeschool freedom. One particular case we handled in Ohio was State v. Schmidt, 505 N.E.2d. 627 (1987). In that case, a homeschool family was convicted of failing to send their child to school, and the conviction was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court. HSLDA petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was denied.
Ms. Kagan reviewed the case for Supreme Court Justice Marshall. You can view a copy of her memo below. She recommended against the Supreme Court taking this case, saying:[The Schmidts] are self-described born-again Christians who adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible and have little sympathy with the secular world. When their child reached school-age, they decided to educate her at home. They did not seek the permission of the school superintendent; they simply did not enroll her in school.
Ms. Kagan went on to imply that the family’s expression of religion had not been infringed upon by the school district because the family was not being compelled to attend public school. She said that asking permission to homeschool was reasonable. The Schmidt family objected to asking for permission to homeschool because of their religious beliefs.
During Ms. Kagan’s confirmation hearings, Senator Jeff Sessions asked Ms. Kagan what she meant in her memo. Kagan didn’t back away from her memo. Read the full text of Senator Sessions’ questions and her answers online. Question 17 deals with the Schmidt case.
The full Senate will vote on Ms. Kagan’s nomination sometime before the August recess. We encourage you to call your two U.S. senators and share with their staff your thoughts about Ms. Kagan’s confirmation.
You can reach your two U.S. senators by calling the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or toll-free at 866-220-0044. You can find your U.S. senators by using HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox.
We Need SR 519 NOW!
…and here’s why.
With November elections coming up, timing is everything. If we can focus on the Parental Rights Amendment during the August recess and beyond, we can add more cosponsors between now and November, as candidates looking to win their seats begin to feel the popularity of our cause. August through is a crucial opportunity for the Amendment. But we can’t take advantage of that if we have to spend August (or worse, September and October) finishing up with Senate Resolution 519 (SR 519).
And we don’t dare save SR 519 until after the elections. The current leadership have made clear that they will use any chance to push their agenda, which is unwanted by the majority of Americans. Historically, a lame duck Congress such as we are likely to have for November and December is just such an opportunity. Voters have “won the election” and let their guard down, and BOOM – lawmakers on the way out leave behind one final mess. This year, that mess could very well include ratifying the ’ .
But not if SR 519 reaches 34 cosponsors before then.
And that’s why we need to get just 9 more senators on board this month!
1. Call your Senators and urge them to support U.S. sovereignty and here.) For your senators’ status and phone number, visit parentalrights.org/Status.
2. Give generously to our Declaration Campaign to fund ads decrying the CRC, and making your senator’s position on it public knowledge. Ads will run August 2, so time is running out!
3. Pass it on. Time is pressing, and more calls will mean faster success. Please forward this email to family and friends, post it on bulletin boards, add it to Facebook, Twitter, and so forth.
Together we will win to secure America’s future!
Elena Kagan Confirms Her Support for International Law
William A. Estrada, Esq.
Director of Federal Relations
Congressional Action Program Director
July 12, 2010
HSLDA urges our members and homeschoolers nationwide to call their two U.S. senators and express their opinions on the nomination of Elena Kagan for Supreme Court.
Elana Kagan was recently nominated by President Obama to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Ms. Kagan underwent a four-day confirmation hearing held by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee ending July 1.
HSLDA has been concerned about Ms. Kagan’s nomination because of her support of international law over the U.S. Constitution while she was Dean of Harvard School of Law. Our concerns were not alleviated, but only grew with Kagan’s answers during her hearing.
For instance, Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) asked Ms. Kagan on the second day of the hearings, “Should judges look to foreign law for ‘good ideas.’ ”
Ms. Kagan responded, “I am in favor of good ideas wherever we can get them.”
Senator Grassley later asked, “If you were confirmed, would you rely on or cite international foreign law when deciding cases?”
Ms. Kagan’s response: “It depends. There are some cases in which the citation of foreign law or international law might be appropriate.” (Watch the hearings in their entirety online.)
We are concerned about Kagan citing foreign or international law as a Supreme Court justice because of the danger that could ensue if she ever cited the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as precedent in a Supreme Court opinion. This treaty could severely limit parental rights. To learn more about why Kagan citing the CRC as a Supreme Court Justice would be dangerous please read “Will Elena Kagan use International Law as Supreme Court Justice?”
We encourage you to call your two U.S. senators and share with their staff your thoughts about Ms. Kagan’s confirmation. We expect that the full Senate will vote on Ms. Kagan's nomination in the next couple of weeks.You can reach your two U.S. Senators by calling the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or toll-free at 866-220-0044. You can find your U.S. senators by using HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox.
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
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.