House Bill Aims To Block U.N. Treaty On Children's Rights
Main Category: Pediatrics / Children's HealthAlso Included In: Public Health
Article Date: 14 Apr 2009 - 1:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
4.67 (3 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
1 (2 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 5 posts |
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) may be setting the stage for a "new conservative culture-wars issue" through his recently introduced bill (H.J.R. 42) to "stem the "slow erosion" of parents' rights and to circumvent the effects of a United Nations treaty he believes "clearly undermines parental rights in the United States," Politico reports. Hoekstra's bill, which proposes to amend the Constitution, has 70 co-sponsors, all of whom are Republicans. The bill is in part a response to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a 20-year-old document that was signed by former President Clinton in 1995 but never ratified. The treaty establishes international standards for government obligations regarding children in areas such as protection from abuse and preservation of a child's right to free expression, Politico reports.
Michael Farris -- a conservative Christian and founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association -- said on his Web site parentalrights.org that under the U.N. treaty, a "child's 'right to be heard' would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed." Farris, who helped draft Hoekstra's bill, said the treaty is "really about government empowerment" and "has nothing to do ultimately with the rights of children."
Advocates for the treaty, including Girl Scouts of America and the Christian Children's Fund, argue that 193 other countries have successfully implemented the treaty and that opponents have misinterpreted the treaty's purpose and overblown its potential impact, Politico reports. Meg Gardinier, chair of the Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, said the treaty "has been unfairly characterized as a kind of Big Brother apparatus, where countries could be shamed and penalized, but that was not the intent of it" (Coller, Politico, 4/8).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Visit our pediatrics / children's health section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/145832.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/145832.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (5)
73 Cosponsors - Not All Republicans
posted by Michael Ramey on 15 Apr 2009 at 2:40 amYour article states "...has 70 cosponsors, all...republicans." It had 70 such ORIGINAL cosponsors, but it HAS 73 cosponsors, and they are not all republicans. Thanks
All Republican Sponsors
posted by Sam Mason on 15 Apr 2009 at 7:04 amAccording to the bill summary at Thomas, there are 70 sponsors, and I did not recognize any Democrats, who are they?
Drug Intervention North Carolina
posted by william on 15 Apr 2009 at 11:09 pmHi,
I appreciate the concern which is been rose.The things need to be sorted out because it’s not about the individual but it can be with everyone.
William,
Answer To Who Are They?
posted by Michael Ramey on 16 Apr 2009 at 12:46 pmAn up-to-date list can be found at parentalrights.org or parentsrights.us. Those newer than the introduction date of March 31 include Rep. McIntyre (D-NC), Rep. Rogers (R-AL), Rep. Duncan (R-TN), and Rep. McHugh (R-NY).
Please Weigh The Evidence
posted by Eric Potte on 17 Apr 2009 at 4:08 amGood morning citizens of our great country.
Please overlook the rhetoric that is created by the issue of parental rights and study the issue yourself. I have spent several hours on this, reading both sides. From this study I believe that the amendment is a good thing while the UN treaty would be harmful in our country.
Example of rhetoric, "only republicans are supporting this amendment". That neither proves nor disproves anything except that we live in a partisan age. Rather than base your decision on rhetoric, take the time to understand this issue. Please.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.





