Parental Rights: Who Cares the Most?

 

Fedeline Morrow and Olivia Burton

In communist Russia the average parent was not respected or considered important.  Rather, children were considered “property of the state” since children were the state’s future.  In the system of government in Russia, parents were considered the genetic source for children and the state was the upbringing, even though the parents felt otherwise. Russia’s strict regimen of child upbringing during its communist era is seeping more and more into our time and is disrespecting the parents’ rights over their children to raise the child based on the child’s needs.

The communist pretense for such a strict regime was to benefit the state and society.  Fast forward to today, local, federal, and state governments expand their power in an effort to protect children, but that expansion of power is also taking away the power of the parents to raise their children.  So where do you draw the line between protecting the child and dictating to parents how to raise a child?

Increasing Government Over-Reach

Delaware just passed an anti-spanking law that could potentially jail a parent for 1-4 years for spanking their children since the spanking or discipline does not fall under the state’s regulations of child care.   The Ninth and Sixth District Courts stated that parent involvement in their child’s education ended and, “their influence stopped at the [school] door.”  This begs the question, “What exactly are child rights and when do parental rights begin and end?”

The following is an analogy we can glean from the modern history of Russia.  The goal of the modern Bolshevik movement was to create a utopian society.  The way to do this was to “[prepare] the way for a time when ‘the fetters of husband and wife would become ‘obsolete’.”  The goal was to make everyone united under the state and dissolve any associations to anything other than the state.  How has this been mirrored in our own society?  The U.N. issued an international binding law known as the Rights of the Child that gives national and local governments any power necessary to intervene for the “best interest for the child”.  The United States has yet to ratify this document and bind itself to this law.  But remember:  what or who defines what is the “best interest for the child”?

In November, Ireland approved an amendment to their national constitution that would put them in compliance with the U.N.’s Rights of the Child.  According to this new amendment, the state decides what the best interests of the child are.  Many believe that this amendment will diminish the rights of parents and give the Irish government nearly unbridled power to seize children.  Under this amendment, it is reported that the State can: place children for adoption against the parent’s will, decide to vaccinate children without parental or child consent, decide to give birth control to children of any age, bring children to other countries for abortions without parental consent, and the UN and the European Union can make any laws for children without the consent of the Irish Government.  Is this the future for parents in other parts of the world as well?  It may be if we don’t realize the threat and take action.

Currently in the U.S., children’s rights are decided state-to-state and court-to-court.  Child Protective Services (CPS) often holds the power to define what is safe for the child and in the child’s best interest.  If the state and the CPS define what is safe for the child, then the parents have no say.  In a case in Seattle, Washington a young woman started to get into drugs and sex and naturally the parents intervened and work to end the self-destructive behavior.  This created conflict, but under Washington law the Department of Social Health and Services had authority to take the young girl from her parents based on the fact that there was conflict.  The parents appealed the decision.  They lost the appeal and their daughter was taken away from them.  After the decision was made the judges admitted that they concurred with the actions of the parents, but the state law had to be enforced.  The law defined the rights of the child and it took precedence over the rights of the parent to raise their child.

Parents need to take responsibility for their children and exercise their rights as parents.  You have innate parental rights, yet it is important that we foster, teach, and display good parenting skills and habits.  Governments need to be reminded that it is parents, with few exceptions, that know their children and more than anyone else have their best interests at heart.  But we also must be focused on doing the best job of raising our children!   Children need to be raised by kind, involved parents who know them personally and what is best for them, not by some government agency that claims to be acting in the best interests of the child, but is taking power that is not theirs.

So get involved in your child’s life and guard against those who advocate to take away your parental rights.

 Fedeline Morrow is currently attending BYU-Idaho studying Child Development and will be graduating in April.   She is originally from Florida and has been married for just over a year.  She says:  “it was the best day of my life. “  Fedeline is passionate about the family and protecting our future generations, which are our children.  

Olivia Burton is currently in her senior year at BYU-Idaho.  She is studying Child Development with a minor in Piano Pedagogy.  She loves learning about children and the family and hopes to use her education as a means to protect the family as the essential unit of society.

Government Knows Best?

Amanda Mitchell

I am trying to get the word out about the CRPD and its long-term consequences. I believe this issue will be important to you. I believe the consequences for ratifying the CRPD are more grave than realized and urgent action needs to be taken. I hope that you will listen to my point of view and, I thank you in advance for your time.

The CRPD stands for The Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is a United Nation’s treaty that may soon be going to a ratification vote by the U.S. Senate. I have done my own research and am horrified that we would even consider this. This treaty has many of the same problems as The Convention on the Rights of a Child which, rightly, has never been ratified by the U.S. – in spite of the fact it has been around since 1989.

Similar to The Convention on the Rights of the Child, the CRPD gives the UN and government agencies control over what is in the “best interests” of our children, this time specifically our disabled children. It also claims the right to make decisions for disabled adults – all in the name of protecting them. It supersedes many of our own fundamental rights like the right to self-govern, our laws and our Constitution. And instead of “We the People” it gives further control over to government to do what “it” thinks is best.

It scares me, because Hitler didn’t just come to power overnight and then start committing atrocities. People really believed in change and the “best for the Motherland”. It wasn’t about killing people, but about success, improvement and a better way of life for the people of Germany. If the people of the country were looking at long term consequences of their ideology, how many do you think would have stopped it before it got out of hand?

Some Examples

What is defined as best by government is not always what is best for individuals.Euthanasia is a good example. Belgium is one of the countries that have adopted these UN treaties. If a doctor believes the child under the age of one will suffer in life because of a disability, the government has given power to doctors to decide whether or not to end that child’s life. Parents can protest, but the doctor decides. This is not unlike what Hitler did. At first the disabled were taken care of and put in homes, and then they were given “merciful deaths.”

In Sweden, it is a “child’s right” to childcare outside the family home. The government provides maternity leave until the child reaches about 16 months of age and then expects that families place their children in childcare After all, the government knows the “best interests” of your child. If you home school in Sweden, you can look forward to being hunted down and your children taken. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I cannot think of a time in history where once government gained a foothold – often using the term “human rights” – that it ever let go of its prey. Human rights were defined no longer by individuals, but by the few on top who rule.

And is it really “human rights” at the end of the day or a way to sugarcoat another person’s beliefs that you will be forced to live by? Before we know it, we will have lost all that we have, by trying to do good, and only a few will have gained in the end. These treaties do sound good; they deceive many people and many nations.

I believe in families, kids, parents and individuals. It really saddens me to see our freedoms and way of life slip away. More and more governmental control only leads to oppression and suppression, even if it was started with good intentions.

What’s in The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Article 7 of the CRPD states:

1. STATES PARTIES shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

3. STATES PARTIES shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

There is no consideration in this article for parental rights and it states that “in ALL actions…the best interests of the child shall be the PRIMARY consideration.” And who is going to be considering what is in the best interest of my child? The government or “STATES PARTIES”. My child shall also “… be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.” That means government shall undermine and take over the parents’ role to “provide” the “assistance to realize that “right.” However, I still believe it is a fundamental right and responsibility of a parent to decide what is in the best interest of a child and to GUIDE their child. What is a parent without this right?

No one knows a child like a parent. A parent sees the small things that add up to big things in a child’s life. We make it our priority. Each child is different and every family is different. I know that we have to take unique things into consideration with each child in our family when deciding what is needed for our child’s success and happiness. There will never be a one size fits all.

How can a government begin to monitor and “ensure” the “enjoyment” of those with disabilities to be equal to others without establishing precedence for it? Firm standards would need to be established requiring defined rights, best interests and happiness of those with disabilities and those without. Thus, our freedom and liberty will be diminished in light of a government-controlled and pre-determined definition of “rights” and “happiness” and “best interests”; a one-size-fits-all cliché. Worse yet, the treaty gives power to an unelected group of international bureaucrats to dictate to countries what is required of each country to meet their obligations under this treaty.

Conclusion

A government does not consider differences in each child, individual or family and no one will do as much for our kids as we, the parents, will. No bureaucrat or politician’s beliefs should take precedence over a parent when it comes to a child. Please do not give anyone the right to overstep this boundary. It is not what is going to help our children, families or individual freedom. In addition, the CRPD is supposed to help secure the “fundamental freedoms” of those with disabilities, yet the UN doesn’t have the ability or power to protect even the most basic “fundamental freedoms” of people around the world.

I believe this issue touches every life regardless of our beliefs or circumstances. Opening the door for the government to decide what is needed to “protect us”, leaves unchecked power that can rob us of our liberty. The government taking control of our “best interests” will render us powerless and it will supersede our right to individual freedom, religious freedom, freedom of speech and the right to self-govern.

Please help spread the word and help stop this treaty. In so doing, you are considering the future of our children and our nation. Contact your Senators, tell them to vote “no” on the CRPD.

Editor’s Note:  We would like to introduce you to Amanda. It is so refreshing to meet people who, on their own, research the threats that exist and then do something with what they know! Amanda is a citizen and a concerned parent who keeps her eyes and ears open. When she learned of CRPD, she sat down and wrote of her passion for preserving our right to make decisions for and to protect our families – particularly those with disabilities – and then contacted UFI to see if we would help her alert other people.  We hope you enjoy reading her perspective on this treaty.

Another UN Treaty that Needs to Go Away

Another UN treaty that would put the U.S. in the cross-hairs of unelected international bureaucrats was passed out of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.  Supporters of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) hope that the Senate vote to ratify this treaty will take place by the end of this coming week (by August 3).

As with virtually all UN treaties that emanate from the Economic and Social Division of the United Nations system, a country gives up a lot and gets nothing in return. Although the name of this treaty would make you believe it is worthy of U.S. ratification, the devil is in the details.

United Families International was at the UN in New York during final negotiations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (December 2006) and we can testify that this treaty has all the problems and ideological baggage of the numerous other treaties that have been created by the UN and then never ratified by the U.S.

Here’s a brief list of the reasons why the United States should not ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

• The U.S. does not need to compromise their sovereignty to supposedly stand in solidarity with other nations on the issue of fair treatment for persons with disabilities.
• The U.S. has already enacted some of the strongest disability legislation in the world.
• The U.S. doesn’t need to sign onto this treat in order to provide leadership on this issue.
• This treaty compromises parents’ right to direct the education of their disabled children.  The language of “best interests of the child” is the language of those who would like to wrest control from parents.  Does the parent or the government know what is best for a child?  This document puts the power in the hands of government.
• This document contains language that can be easily misconstrued and misinterpreted to support reproductive health rights (code words for abortion).  As was mentioned earlier, UFI was there advocating for the family during the final negotiations of this convention and the reproductive language was highly controversial and hotly contested.
• A UN compliance committee (unelected international bureaucrats) is given the authority to monitor and issue edicts as to whether or not a signatory country is complying with the mandates of this convention.  Sovereignty would be compromised.

The U.S. is already a leader in its treatment and policies related to people with disabilities.  The ratification of this treaty does nothing to further the interests of the good people who struggle with disabilities.  Senators James Inhofe and Jim DeMint explain it best:

The globalist ideologues behind these treaties are either ignorant of or hostile to the universal human experience that problems are best solved by the people and institutions closest to them. So assured are these masters of their mandate to direct the lives and wealth of other people that they see their routine failures to do so efficiently at the local, state and national level merely as reason to ascend to new heights of international command and control.

Contact your senators today and let them know that you don’t support another meaningless UN treaty.  Tell the UN bureaucrats “NO.”

 

 

 

Such a Thing as Corrupt Laws

Diane Robertson

Recently, I have been informed by a couple of nice people how important it is to keep ALL of the laws.  I know what they are telling me is kindly meant. But, I do have to laugh, because well– I don’t even speed. I haven’t for years. Several years back, I got a speeding ticket, and that was enough to convince me that I would rather be late then spend a weeks’ worth of groceries on getting there on time. So, why would some people inform me that I should be following all of the laws?

It is due to many of the political things that I have been writing over the last couple of years. Some of these things, I submit to UFI, and some I just put onto my own little family blog. Recently, I ran into a couple of news articles that I found disturbing, and downright frightening! So I wrote about  them and had some nice people politely, yet strongly, rebuke my opinion.

In this news article, a father, in Pittsburg, PA, left his 6 and 9 year old at a park to play while he showered and ran some errands. A woman at the park watched the kids for an hour and then called the police. The man was cited for two counts of child endangerment, and Child Protection Services is investigating his family.

In this other article, a mother left her two children in her car, in the winter, while she went into the store for ten minutes. When she came out, a police officer had her three year old daughter outside of her car and would not let her come near her daughter. The family is now involved in serious court battles and the mother may end up facing jail time.

I feel outraged about this type of thing. Yes, I do think having laws are good and we should obey the laws. BUT, there is such a thing as corrupt laws. Laws that rip families apart or send otherwise good parents to jail are corrupt laws. Laws that threaten lives or take away basic liberty are corrupt laws.

No one would argue that the Jim Crow laws in the Southern United States were corrupt laws. I haven’t met anyone who believes that Rosa Parks should have given up her seat on the bus even though that happened to be the law.

No one would argue that many of the laws in Nazi Germany were corrupt laws. I haven’t met anyone who felt like Corrie ten Boom, author of  The Hiding Place, shouldn’t have hidden Jewish people in her home because that was against the law.

Now, I am not saying that everyone should just send their children pell-mell to the park and leave them, or that everyone should leave their children in the car at the store.  I am saying that perhaps we should have more trust in the decision of parents to determine what is safe and what is not safe for their children.  I am saying that I think children are better off with parents who have determined it is safe to leave them in a car for 10 minutes in the winter than with an arrested parent or foster parents. And I am saying that children are better off living with parents who send them off to the neighborhood park while they run errands than with a parent in jail or with foster parents.

Many of these laws are known as “Child Endangerment Laws.” These laws are then left to the interpretation of a police officer, social worker, and judge. Leaving a child at a park could be counted as child endangerment as well as taking a child ice skating, owning a trampoline, having a dirty bathroom, giving a child candy for lunch, letting a child climb a tree, sending a child late to school over many days, or allowing a child to walk alone to the neighbor’s house. When children are being taken away from otherwise good parents because of a law that is left too open for interpretation, then that is a corrupt law.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the lady in the park stood up for the parent rather than taking action to break up his family? Would you have stood up for Rosa Parks or wished in her jail for breaking the law?

The good news is, some people are trying to help.

In my home state of Utah, State Representative LaVar Christensen, wrote and successfully passed HB 161 during the Utah legislation period. This law requires the state to provide in-home services for struggling parents and seek qualified extended family kinship placement, before pursuing foster placement. I say hurray for Utah for protecting your families. Now social workers and judges can’t just remove children from their parents without real in home evidence of abuse and a proven inability of the parent’s to change.

Citizens in other states can find a state representative or senator to sponsor a similar bill in their state legislatures. Corrupt laws can still be worked against. Good parents should not have to live in fear of having their family broken up because they allow their children to play without an adult at a neighborhood park.

Reader Poll: “Should Child Protective Services be allowed to remove morbidly obese children from their homes?”

Here’s the question we asked readers:

“Should Child Protective Services be allowed to remove morbidly obese children from their homes?”

Here’s how readers responded:

10 Percent                   Yes

90 Percent                   No

Are the parents of morbidly obese children not properly taking care of their child?  That is the question.  This would be an extremely difficult determination and the methods to determine the answer would have to be very draconian.  There are far too many variables that can play into this type of situation.  Most of those who responded to the poll sided with a parent and parental rights.   We have to agree; government intervention is not the answer.

 

Overruled: Invasion of your parental rights

Although the music and acting is a little overdone, the message of this documentary is important.  The cases are well-known and legitimate and the analysis of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is accurate.   There is definitely a mindset and movement abroad that continues to diminish parental rights.  Whether or not you’re on board with a parental rights amendment, you should be concerned and be educated on the things that may be happening in your community and state.

Take a few minutes and watch the trailer for this documentary and if you have 30 minutes watch the entire documentary.  You owe it to yourself and to your children.

To see the entire documentary, go here:    http://www.overruledmovie.com/# 

Reader Poll: “Is it a good idea for schools to require parental consent in order for students to participate in a school club?”

Here’s the question we asked UFI readers:

“Is it a good idea for schools to require parental consent in order for students to participate in a school club?”

Here’s how readers responded:

98 Percent               Yes

 2 Percent                 No

We asked this question in response to a news story about a high school in Idaho doing away with a requirement that parental consent forms were necessary as part of participation in school clubs.  Some have argued that the school did away with the requirement as a result of pressure from gay activists, but the school insists that because their policy was inconsistently enforced, they decided to do away with it entirely.

We would argue that it is more critical than ever to have parental involvement in the schools and do not see it as onerous or difficult to require that a parent be aware of and give consent to what a student is doing before or after school.   Our children and our schools would be better served if administrators returned to a focus of keeping the parents in the loop instead of a continued encroachment upon parental rights.

Victory for Children and for Educational Choice

In a victory for parents, children, and for education as a whole, the U.S. Supreme Court has left intact the state of Arizona’s 14-year old individual tax credit provision that allows a $500 contribution to be made to private schools – including religious schools.  In a 5-4 decision, the court found that the plaintiffs lacked legal “standing” to challenge the tax-credit provision.

The tax-credit was designed to help parents pay for education outside the publicly-funded education system.  This allows for parents who are footing the entire bill for their child’s education to be compensated in a small way and makes a major contribution to the understanding that parent’s have a choice in their child’s education.

Opponents of the tax credit insisted that helping in any way to pay for a private education – particularly to a religious school – violates the First Amendment and that they as citizens were being harmed by being forced to, in effect, contribute to religious institutions.

Attorneys defending the system had counter-argued that since the law only allows taxpayers to direct their own tax dollars to religious schools, the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue because their tax payments were not being used.‪‪   The court ruled that the defendants needed to show specific individual harm.

Alliance Defense Fund attorney, David Cortman said in a statement:  “Parents should be able to choose what’s best for their own children. This ruling empowers parents to do just that.”  He continued: “The ACLU failed in its attempt to eliminate school choice for hundreds of thousands of students nationwide and also failed to demonstrate that it had any constitutional basis for its clients to file suit in the first place.”

The ACLU sees it quite differently.  ACLU Legal Director, Steven Shapiro:  “Today’s decision ignores precedent, defies logic and undermines the role of the courts in preserving the core constitution principle that government may not subsidize religion.”

The Arizona Tax credit program is the third-largest school choice program in the country and the nation’s oldest tax credit program.  This is an important victory for school choice programs around the country.  United Families International offers congratulations to all involved.

More information:

Supreme Court Upholds Educational Choice

Supreme Court Rules Arizona Taxpayers Lack Standing To Challenge Tax Credit System Used To Fund Religious-Based Scholarships

School Choice Program Prevails. Kids & Parents Ultimately Win

How do you want your child educated?

One of the most important rights of parents is the ability to choose where and how their children will be educated.  That parental right becomes even more crucial as we watch the problems in society and culture spiral downward and the quality of education has diminished.  The last decade has seen major strides in providing options for parents in K-12 education as the “school choice” movement has begun to blossom.   January is the month for numerous pro-life and pro-family commemorations and celebrations and this week has been deemed “National School Choice Week.”

We encourage you to consider the quality of your child’s education.  Are you content?  Is your child learning and flourishing?  Did you know that you have options?  For example, the State of Arizona just recently released a new website arizonaschoolchoice.com to aid their citizens.  You can go here to learn what options might be available to you in other areas of the country and to join the effort to promote school choice.

There is no right or wrong answer as to where your child should be educated; but it is definitely important that as a parent you have the right to make that decision.  There are some parents who don’t.  Watch the video below.

 

Your children and their “Right to Comprehensive Sex Ed”

The UN ideologues are at it again! This week a special UN Rapporteur or “expert” will be presenting to the UN General Assembly (GA) a report promoting yet another fabricated human-right – the “right to comprehensive sexual education.”   Comprehensive sex education is a movement promoting a curriculum that seeks to minimize abstinence while promoting what amounts to early sexualization of our children. The report, The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, outlines how children have a right to sex education unfettered by parents, religion and outdated notions of patriarchy that were designed to oppress sexuality.

Religion and patriarchy are barriers to sexual fulfillment

In the report’s opening statements it is made clear that Mr. Vernor Munoz, the UN special Rapporteur on Education, views religion as a stumbling block to sexual fulfillment.  He states that religion promotes patriarchy and patriarchy seeks to control sexuality; it is “a system of social order imposing supremacy of men over women…determines strict roles for men and women and even divides the sexes against themselves.”(para 7)  The reports also purports “that young people who believe in full gender equality have better sexual lives.”(para 21)

“[T]he Special Rapporteur considers that pleasure in and enjoyment of sexuality…should be one of the goals of comprehensive sexual education, abolishing guilt feelings about eroticism…  restricting sexual education to the issue of sexually transmitted diseases gives a limited view of sexuality…reducing sexual education to these aspects may create an erroneous associate between sexuality and disease, which is as harmful as associating it with sin.”(para 15)

The report warns that in some cases “sexual education has been obstructed in the name of religious ideas” and outlandishly states that “comprehensive [sex] education acts as a guarantor of a democratic and pluralistic environment.” (para 6)

Parents are not to have a say in their child’s sexual education

One of the more disturbing aspects of this report is the Rapporteur’s efforts to diminish parental involvement in their children’s sexual education.  You, as a parent, are not to have a say. The report pays special attention to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and openly states that a barrier to sexual education is “allowing parents to exempt their children from such education.” (para 27)

The report notes that various UN treaty monitoring have “called upon States to provide sexual education in a compulsory and systematic manner in schools”[emphasis added] (para 25) and that sex education should be a mandatory part of primary education.  It appears the author believes that even elementary students should be taught “their right to sexual pleasure.”  No mention is made of the importance of teaching young children and youth that sexual relations should occur within the bounds of marriage and instead refers to teaching children about “responsible partnerships and parenthood.” (para 35)  Marriage is mentioned one time and only in a negative context. (para 69)

Government’s role is to provide “better sexual lives”?

One of the more bizarre aspects of the report is the continual reference to the government’s necessary role in providing “better sexual lives” for young people. “   With all of the supposed jobs of government, we’re not sure we would have ever thought of that one!  The reports regularly references the “goal of education for sexuality”–read that again a second time and note that it is significantly different from traditional sex education.

The report, in general, slams men and states that “the goal of education for sexuality is also to construct affects and develop a transforming role for men by going beyond the strictly genital and physical aspect.” (para 22)

Playing the “diversity” and sexual orientation card

The report seems to not miss an opportunity to promote “sexual diversity” and prominently features the Yogyakarta Principles as “a fundamental tool” that the “Special Rapporteur fully endorses…” (para 23, 67)  This document was created by sexual rights activists in 2006 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia; it seeks to redefine gender and promote governmental, legal and societal recognition–including protection and promotion–of all types of sexual orientation. Now, this report wants to ensure that the Yogyakarta Principles will be applied to the education of children all over the world.

The report adds that it wants you, the taxpayer and civil society, to pay for their brand of sex education:  “These policies should focus on rights, gender, and respect for diversity; provide for coordination among agencies and with civil society; and provide the resources necessary to their implementation;” (para 87)

The report finishes up by calling on the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to “investigate specific problems relating to barriers and challenges to effect enjoyed of the right to Comprehensive Sexual Education…”  These radicals appear to be very serious about enforcing their dogma. (para 88)

Conclusion

UN “experts” this very week are promoting to international policy makers a mandated role of promoting and providing sexual rights -including sexual pleasure along with sexual health– deconstruction of male/female roles, and support for “sexual diversity” and the normalization of a range of sexual behaviors.  We cannot allow this particular document to be accorded any credibility or support.  The radical “sexual rights” agenda is gaining momentum within the international system and it must be stopped.

United Families International will have a representative at UN headquarters again this week addressing these issues and promoting a pro-family, pro-life position to UN delegates and committees.  The crucial “Third Committee” meetings continue to take place and UFI will do its part to ensure that documents such as this report do not get traction and that positive, family-affirming language finds its place in the ever-developing UN and international body of law.  As long as the UN system exists, and as long as that system promotes a radical, sexualized agenda, there is no other choice.

Please contact the U.S. State Department or the Foreign Affairs Ministers in your country to express your displeasure and objection to The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education.  Remember too, that in many nations elections will be held yet this calendar year.  Remind your elected leaders of how important the institution of the family and parental rights are to you. Urge them to specifically reject this report –it is aimed directly at you, your children, and your faith.

UPDATE!

The incoming Special Rapporteur for Education presented the above mentioned report to the UN General Assembly late on Monday afternoon.  Many UN member states were quick to criticize the report:  The Russian Federation, the Holy See, The Arab and African Groups, the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) and Caricom (coalition of Caribbean member states).  Our colleague Patrick Buckley, UN consultant for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, reported that “the U.S. [delegation] while expressing support for the right to education agreed that there is no such international right to comprehensive sexuality education.”

The Caricom group’s delivered statement harshly criticized the report:

“According to CARICOM’s understanding, “a right to sexual education, a right to comprehensive sexual education, or a right to sexuality education”, does not exist in any internationally agreed human rights instrument…  We therefore wish to put on record our strong disapproval of this attempt by the Special Rapporteur to create a new right within the universally established right to education, far exceeding his mandate and the mandate of the Council itself in the process…  [W]e take umbrage at the license taken by the Special Rapporteur in indulging his personal interests at the expense of Member States.”

The UN General Assembly took no action on the report during Monday’s gathering.  UFI will continue to work to keep this outrageous report from continuing through the UN system.  Watch our UFI blog and Tuesday alerts for up-dates.  For more information on some of the statements delivered in response to The Special Rapporteur’s Report on Education, visit Patrick Buckley’s blog here.

---