If you’ve never read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, you should, especially if your view of the world today is as tainted as my own about government intrusion, overreach, and oppression. I’m not gonna lie and tell you it’s an easy read. At times, it is a ponderous work chock full of long descriptive passages that rival Tolkien’s environmental depictions in Middle Earth. The work, though, does come full circle literally to a single sentence near the end of the novel (and you can’t simply skip to the end to appreciate the enormity of the subject matter or its intent), but the fact is that after reading this novel, you’ll have a much clearer understanding of why the government is the way it is, why it feels compelled to remain that way, despite heavy opposition from the voting public, and why the government, like a cornered animal, will lunge outward at its attackers and fight any way it deems necessary to ensure its survival.
There are easier reads. Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell or Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. Or if you’re the movie type of person, The Purge, Gattaca, The Giver or Logan’s Run. All of these are superb examples of government power gone seriously awry while the rights of the individual have been forever altered to non-sequiturs in the mainstream thought.
Recently, another Orwellian nasty has been propagating the insistence that government is far superior in the judgment of who should be parents and who should not. More precisely, this law professor is insisting that the government should actually, literally choose which parent receives which baby! Read more of this astounding level of arrogance on the next page!
When it comes to arrogance, few can argue that Progressives don’t embody the very definition. There is a decided edge to every opinion they hold regarding social behavior and cultural upbringing. Despite the fact that they are abnormal and in every way contrary to human interaction, Progressives regard themselves as morally and philosophically engineered to be the prime decision-makers in social relationships.
The most arrogant of all these opinions centers around who should and shouldn’t be parents. Not only do they question the validity of a human being’s right to procreate (a right given to him/her directly from God), but they question as well why the government doesn’t seize children from their biological parents or their legal guardians and mandate who should actually raise them!
Of course, this thought is anathema to every natural law that exists on the planet throughout recorded history. Let’s not forget, however, that Leftists don’t care a wit about history, God-given rights, or factual evidence to prove that the parent/child relationship is one of the most significant interactions that impacts a child’s development throughout life.
Elizabeth Bartholet is a law professor at Harvard University who espouses these beliefs and more. At the present time, her exposure to impressionable children who are on their way to be the best of the best in their life endeavors is so formidable that it won’t be long before her radical far-Leftist thought patterns will be permanently subliminally embedded in the minds of these kids right out of high school.
In a recent article presented by Health Impact News, Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, wrote of some radical views of the family by Elizabeth Bartholet, who is a Professor of Family Law at Harvard Law School:
Bartholet’s ideas are so extreme that they include requiring every family with a young child to open itself to mandatory government surveillance. (That’s not an exaggeration. There’s a summary of her views in the section of this post to the NCCPR Child Welfare Blog called “Harvard’s resident extremist” and the details are in her own book, Nobody’s Children, pp. 170, 171).
Bartholet has worked with another radical whose views we have exposed here at Health Impact News, Professor James Dwyer of William and Mary College. Dwyer believes that there is no inherent right to parent one’s own children, and has stated:
The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws.
One of Dwyer’s books was even the required text for a course on Family Law that Bartholet taught.
This has always been a sore spot of contention for me and many other writers who have struggled throughout our careers to crack into the book trade. When a novelist writes a novel, the greatest hope he/she can have is that the book is read, first and foremost. If the book makes money for the novelist, awesome. If not, oh well, you just keep trying.
For professors and social science administrators, the idea of having as many people read the book is not a matter of writing materials that will cause the reading audience to reach out and search for the material based on its merit of thought or its innovative structure. The idea is to force that book upon people who are paying for a good education and, instead of having them afforded the freedom of independent thought and perception (as what universities were originally conceived to supply) and to ensure that their book and its ultimate agenda is indicated as mandatory reading for the course. This way, the professor not only feeds his/her own ego (which is always sizeable), but they can also portray a clear idea of what bent the students MUST espouse and regurgitate back to the teacher in good form in order to pass the course.
It’s a wonderful set-up and ensures that the professor is perpetuating a set of ideals in the minds of the students that align specifically with the radicalization of our children in college. Hence, the popularity of Antifa on campuses.
Read on the following page about how one way for the ideas and popular radical far-Left views of professors are being implemented by doctors who now have the legal justification for stealing children through a practice that critics are calling “medical kidnapping!”
These professors who are making the calls for the rest of society is a very dangerous precedent that we’ve allowed to be set up because we’ve given our children over to a broken education system right at the very beginning of their lives and wiped our hands clean, not realizing the radicalization that is about to take place in their lives. Is it any wonder that we now have pre-school being recognized as a prerequisite to kindergarten? Did you know that there is a Leftist movement ruminating now to ensure that a pre-pre-school is being pushed as well? We’re not talking anymore about waiting three to four years anymore before turning our children over to the good graces of the state. Now, they’re contemplating taking them at one or two years old!
It’s insane. The most enduringly impressionable years of a child’s life have now, by and large, been replaced with surrogate parenting in the arms of a willing government entity who can’t wait to indoctrinate these kids with their far-Left radical ideas of what’s right and what’s proper.
There is also the danger of our doctors and pediatricians who are now becoming an activist arm of the federal government, directly influenced by the teachings of law professors like Bartholet and Dwyer. If a doctor feels empowered and entitled, they now have the means of stealing your child from your home. Welcome to “Medical Kidnapping 101.”
If these law professors’ radical views were isolated and contained to a few classes and lectures attended by a handful of elite college students, their views might be dismissed as irrelevant to most of us.
However, both Dwyer and Bartholet appear to have a great deal of influence over public policy, and their views trickle down to the very people who have the power to make the equivalent of life-and-death decisions over families. These radical views that supplant parental rights in favor of government control of children are behind many of the Medical Kidnap stories we publish.
Professor Bartholet’s work appears to have greatly influenced the philosophy of a pediatrician who, until very recently, practiced in Jacksonville, Florida.
Dr. Sherry Shenoda cited Bartholet in her own journal writing, demonstrating an alignment with the philosophy that it is acceptable for doctors to usurp parental rights.
Dr. Shenoda is also the doctor whose allegations of medical neglect were recently used by Florida Child Protective Services to seize custody of the Odonnell twins – allegations which are demonstrably false.
The removal petition said that Dr. Shenoda “stated that she is concerned for the children’s health, due to severe medical neglect, and that the child, Abbie, is at risk of death, due to her disorder.”
The twins’ mother Laura Dalton has ample email, text, and other documented evidence that she has done everything in her power to get help for her daughters’ bulimia.
It was the insurance company, not the mother, who stood in the way of adequate medical care.
From the beginning of the twins’ care with the doctor, she recommended treatment in a facility that does not have eating disorder specialists, a component which the mother sees as crucial to her daughters’ health.
When they disagreed, the doctor worked with CPS and the insurance company to remove the teens from their mother’s care – a clear usurpation of parental rights.
How many other child removals from loving parents have been influenced and enabled by the radical philosophies of Elizabeth Bartholet and James Dwyer and others like them?
When my fourth daughter was born just last year in Ohio, the hospital staff had waited until I was out of the room to come to my groggy wife and slip paperwork under her hands, asking her to sign them in regards to the baby. My wife is very well aware of the dangers of medical practitioners and the birth of new babies when it comes to signing things (we’re not first-time parents) and she deferred until I returned. Then, she slept.
Upon my return and her waking up, the nurse returned with the paperwork. As it turned out, they were very insistent that we sign papers that required certain vaccines and return care at the clinic of the hospital, in addition to a census survey about the baby’s culture, ethnicity and other Leftist babble.
When my wife refused to fill out the paperwork, the nurse grew very angry and began to insist that we couldn’t take the baby home until we sign the papers. I asked to speak to an administrator. She obediently and defiantly stormed off to find one. When she returned with the administrator, the boss explained in a softer tone the reasons why they required the information. We said simply, “We’re choosing not to fill out that paperwork.”
The administrator paused for a long moment and then tersely replied, “Well, I’m going to record that you’re not cooperating with this study on the baby’s file, then.” We smiled and nodded. She stormed off with the nurse. Finally, on the last hour of our visit, the doctor arrived to explain all the outgoing procedures and of course, as anticipated, had brought along a copy of the packet which we earlier refused. As it turns out, he pretended not to have spoken with the nurse and the administrator and was trying to pass off the information to us once again.
Instead of arguing or explaining ourselves once more, we took the packet with us and departed the hospital. As it turns out, the information was not “required” as they threatened and, in fact, wasn’t even legal.
Another strain of the Leftist virus out there in regards to parenting is the belief that government may pick and choose who can and cannot be parents and who the babies SHOULD go to rather than whose babies these actually are. This is also a Bartholet-held belief system, that government knows better than God, and that some people should never be allowed to procreate. Can you say “forced sterilization?”
Turn to the following page to read about these “guiding principles” on the part of government entities and their toady enablers, the professors and the doctors!
Elizabeth Bartholet is a symptom of a larger sickness that plagues the new radical government platform on parenting. How many of you actually believe that the Left is all about women’s rights and women’s issues when it is the foremost kidnapper of children from their mothers at an increasingly earlier age? How many of you believe that the Left vehemently supports the “right” to kill their unborn babies because they care about the health and welfare of the woman and not about the control of the population of whom they deem fit and not fit to raise children?
Does anyone really believe that when Margaret Sanger was creating Planned Parenthood clinics throughout all the African-American neighborhoods that she was doing it to help young Black mothers-to-be in being more healthy?
If any of these questions are making you wonder or start to be confused about what the true purpose of all these parenting social issues are, then join the millions of women across America who are learning the hard way why the Democrat Party and Leftists don’t care a wit about women’s rights or children, but about control of the population and who gets to procreate and who does not!
Professor Elizabeth Bartholet published, “Guiding Principles for Picking Parents” in the Harvard Women’s Law Journal in 2004. In it she wrote:
Law decides who is and who is not a parent and whether and on what basis someone who is a parent is allowed to stop being one. Some today talk as if something they might call natural law governed—as if once you know the DNA you know who is and who is not the parent.
She argued that, even in the cases where DNA shows that a man is not the biological parent of a child, it is still right to compel him to pay child support if he has functioned in the role of a father.
In Harvard Law Review, Bartholet responded to Professor Martin Guggenheim’s review of her book, Nobody’s Children. She took issue with a mischaracterization of her position, and as she clarified her position, she only made it clear that she was even more radical than her fellow professor accused her of being.
She believes that the government should universally visit all families to ensure that families are “functioning successfully.” She has written:
My argument is that the state should play a generally more activist role in the family by providing upfront increased support services aimed at enabling families to function successfully, and by being more willing to protect children from abuse and neglect when families break down.
I focus on intensive home visitation as a particularly promising example of early intervention, devoting an entire chapter to it. Guggenheim ignores almost everything I say on this topic, and when he finally mentions my proposal, he mischaracterizes it.
He claims that I would impose home visitors only on the “highest-risk families,” when in fact I stress the importance of not limiting such programs to the high risk population and argue instead for a “universal home visitation system.”
In that same article, Elizabeth Bartholet laid the foundation for the reality that faces many innocent parents today – that of the nebulous “neglect” charges used as justification for taking their children and funneling them into the foster care/adoption industry:
Central to my discussion of the nature of the current child maltreatment problem is my claim that child neglect must be understood as just as important as child abuse, if not more important.
I argue that today’s neglect cases are typically cases in which children simply do not receive the active nurturing that all children need….
Right back…full circle…to Huxley’s Brave New World. This is a chilling statement. This sets the table for the justification for stealing children from the home. And the government is doing it on a more widely accepted basis than ever before, particularly in areas of the country where people are poor and cannot pay a lawyer to fight the system.
Turn to the next page to read about the justification that allows Child Protective Services (CPS) to invade the home and steal the children on a REGULAR basis!
Here’s another little-known statistic. Did you know that most of the children being taken from the home by CPS are White? Bet you didn’t. Why, you might ask? The adoption and foster care systems are designed to house the children in a safe environment and the government (although not admitting to this) would more easily place a White child than a Black child and the more affluent homes in the United States are White households. Therefore, the racial undertones of the CPS-collection system scoops up by far more White children than Black children. That solves their problem of placing these children once they’ve been absconded with and helps the government to pat themselves on the back for a job well done after they’ve destroyed a family in a single, catastrophically unfair, frightening, and sometimes violent home invasion.
A woman I know actually had her children taken from her home with the help of her pastor at her church, despite the fact that she had a steady job and paid her bills. Because she smoked marijuana, the state replied to the complaint against her by an anonymous source, waited for her as she exited the church, put her in handcuffs and took her two children, right there in the lot of the church while the pastor told her not to resist.
It appears that this thinking has worked its way throughout the Child Protective System, because data in recent years shows that from 75 to 80% of children taken from their parents are not taken for any kind of abuse.
The majority of children continue to be taken for “neglect.” In many cases, neglect simply means “poor.”
In 1993, Bartholet wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times, entitled “Blood Parents vs Real Parents,” addressing the controversial case of “Baby Jessica” who was returned to her biological parents after a lengthy court battle, during which the child lived with an adoptive family.
She called for laws to change and even called for a reinterpretation of the Constitution to protect the rights of the family with whom Jessica lived over those of her biological parents:
The law should stop defining parenting in terms of procreation and recognize that true family ties have little to do with blood. First, the Constitution should be interpreted to protect the interest that Jessica and the DeBoers have in preserving their relationship….
Finally, lawmakers in states throughout the country should take the DeBoer case as a signal to rethink the way their policies define family.
Courts, legislatures and welfare agencies ought to recognize that families are tied together not by blood but by the bonds of love.
Professor Elizabethe Bartholet joins Professor James Dwyer in teaching rhetoric that argues for the “best interests of the child” in protecting them from abuse and neglect, all the while ignoring the fact that one of the most basic needs of the child is to have a bond with their parents.
Their philosophy results in the abuse of children who are taken unnecessarily from their parents, and often are placed into situations where they are more likely to be abused.
Of course, there’s the question of God-given rights to the parent versus what the state believes is government-granted permissions. Government radicals actually believe they are the administrators of children and parents are only allow permitted to receive these children in their homes from the hospital by the good graces of the state! Read on the following page how this philosophy has gained national superiority over natural law!
One of the first things you learn as a teacher’s assistant in the school systems today is that the parent is the poison and the school system is the cure. It’s a nasty way of saying what the school administrators believe to be the truth: that the parents are literally polluting their children’s minds with the wrong ideas and it’s the job of the teachers to set the children’s minds straight. If, in the case that they cannot set the minds straight, then by all mean, set the CPS dogs loose to mop up the situation.
Michelle Malkin of CRTV first exposed Dwyer’s radical philosophy in an interview where he told her:
The state needs to be the ultimate guarantor of a child’s well-being. There’s just no alternative to that.
The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws.
That’s the state that empowers parents to do anything with children, to take them home, to have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that.
As alarming as his words are, it is clear that his ideas carry influence.
One of Dwyer’s books was the required text for Bartholet’s class on Family Law at Harvard Law School. According to the class syllabus, posted online, the discussion on the first day of class was “State Creation of Parent-Child Relationships,” followed by the “Assignment of Children to their First Legal Parents” on day 2.
In just 2 days of class, students learned philosophies about the role of parents that are antithetical to all of American historical teaching, as well as the cultural, religious, and historical beliefs of virtually every society in the world.
The professors worked together in 2013 to lecture on “Child Advocacy Program – Art of Social Change: Child Welfare, Education, & Juvenile Justice.”
Professor Bartholet alluded to Dwyer’s work in a 52-page paper published in the Buffalo Law Review, entitled, “Creating a Child-Friendly Child Welfare System: Effective Early Intervention to Prevent Maltreatment and Protect Victimized Children.”
In it, she argued against diligent efforts toward family preservation. She posed a question:
A child-friendly system would be interested in finding out whether maltreated children would do better in a system in which their parents are provided voluntary services, or in a system in which CPS can require that parents cooperate with the service plan and can remove children and terminate parents’ rights if parents fail to cooperate and improve their parenting capacity.
It is apparent from the paper that Bartholet favors the latter approach.
Parents’ experience with CPS tells us that the latter view is now the standard practice. Parents who attempt to choose not to accept the “voluntary” services often find their social workers proceeding with termination of parental rights.
There is nothing voluntary about it. Disagree with the government about how you feel your children should be raised, and you risk losing them.
This is an important statement here of which to take note. The fact is that, like a professor, the state expects those lectured to spit out exactly what is taught to them, and if they don’t, epic fail. In the case of the professor, the student fails the course. In the case of a parent, however, the stakes are much more severe: Lose your child!
This is evidenced by the many traps that are set for homeschooling parents. I learned through the lessons of many other homeschooling parents that you try to be as low-key as possible in your dissension of the state’s view or you risk the wrath of the system. And believe me when I tell you that the system almost always wins. I am not a toe-the-line kind of guy, but when your kids are at stake, you’ll do almost anything to ensure that they remain in your custody.
There are ways to make the arguments against the school administrators and state officials that allow yourself a little leeway in so far as an argument that’s difficult to deny. Try sitting before a panel of four administrators and facing a series of questions about why you will not send your child to that school and you sober up real quick to the underlying insidiousness of it all. Their bottom line isn’t the children, nor has it ever been. Their bottom line is green and it involves how many children they have in their care. The more children, the greener. Homeschoolers threaten their funding, their pensions, their job security, and their belief systems. Need I say more?
Turn to the following page to read about how the bad parenting of the few is used to be the overarching theme of justification as to how the state may come into the lives of any ordinary family and upend it forever!
In the annals of crime, few have committed them in a serial way without eventually stopping their spree or being caught. Yet, in the annals of criminal behavior on the parts of governments and their ability to justify through a compliant legal system the stealing of children from the home, the activity continues to this very day and has increased in its frequency.
Law professors should be the very last people who are able to write our statutes and laws, yet they are the premiere source of philosophical and cultural basis of our child protection mandates.
In yet another paper by Professor Elizabeth Bartholet, the first person she thanked was Dr. James Dwyer.
She wrote a 72-page piece, “Differential Response: A Dangerous Experiment in Child Welfare,” which was published in Florida State University Law Review.
An underlying theme is that, because some parents abuse their children, all parents need to be scrutinized.
She believes that the CPS “system is currently guilty of under-intervention, rather than overintervention.”
More state intervention into families is what she sees as needed in order to protect children.
It is clear that she is not a fan of family preservation or parental rights, and that she believes that more child removals, not less, are needed.
In all of this, both Bartholet and Dwyer seem to ignore the well-documented statistics that children who are removed from their families and placed into foster care are at least 6 times more likely to be abused, molested, raped, or killed in foster care than if they were left with their biological families, even in a less-than-desirable home.
They also ignore the fact that children in foster care suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder at rates higher than combat veterans.
They are 7 times more likely to develop an eating disorder.
They are prone to more depression, and have higher rates of dropping out of school, teenage pregnancy, homelessness, and incarceration when they age out of the system.
Yet they spout their rhetoric to students, social workers, policy makers, and legislators behind parents’ backs.
Turn to the next page to read about how even churches and religious organizations have had to toe the line with these radical laws and their inhibiting influence in spirituality!
One of the foundational functions of the church is the welfare and well-being of the family unit. Its fellowship allows for a set of values, ethics and beliefs that punctuate a healthy family and a healthy congregation. The church setting gives validation to the unity of a body that furthers societal change in a positive way. If not for the church, specifically Christianity, the world today (especially in America) would look very different. The spiritual awakening of an American nation happened because of Christianity and the openness of its doctrines.
However, in today’s litigious environment and with the government’s increasingly intrusive behavior into the affairs of the church and the family unit, these congregations and their leaders are more apt to line up and ensure they are following the behavioral patterns that the state is using as its baseline. Christian schools are being demanded upon to remove scripture from its teachings. In Canada, a Christian academy was called homophobic and intolerant for its scriptural passages in its website and was summarily axed from the provincial funding…just this year!
This sets up yet another precedent of ensuring that every single aspect of a person’s life influences in a way that doesn’t match the state’s perceived views is squashed and delegitimized…even at times, illegalized!
Even churches and religious organizations are listening to these radical law professors.
Professor Elizabeth Bartholet was one of the main speakers at the 2014 Together for Adoption Conference in Greenville, South Carolina (a city where numerous Medical Kidnapping stories have taken place.)
The theme of the 2014 conference was “Urgency & Complexity: Biblical & Ethical Approaches to the Orphan Crisis,” and it was sponsored by such well-known groups as Focus on the Family and Lifeline Children’s Services.
With more emphasis on removing children from their biological parents and placed into the government-sponsored foster care system, continuous recruiting is needed for foster parents and foster homes.
The government finds Christian churches and Christian organizations all too willing to participate in such efforts, as these groups collect checks from the government as payment for their participation in the government-run foster care system.
Academic professors such as Bartholet and Dwyer seem to have a stronger voice into the laws and practices of the system than do parents whose children are being stolen and traded like stocks to the highest bidder.
Those with the most to lose – loving parents with children who fall into the system – have their voices drowned out and fall victim to the frightening policies enacted by those who listened to voices such as Bartholet and Dwyer and others like them.
In general, these victimized parents, most of whom are poor, will find no help from Christian churches, where they are often stigmatized as unfit parents once the state intervenes and removes their children.
When Laura Dalton moved to Florida in search of medical help for her twin daughters’ eating disorders, she had no way of knowing that the primary care pediatrician that their insurance assigned them to had been influenced by Professor Elizabeth Bartholet’s extremist views on parenting.
She had never heard of the professor. All she cared about was getting help for her kids.
From the beginning, Dr. Sherry Shenoda tried to railroad them into a treatment program that was not going to meet their needs.
She ignored Laura’s “mother’s intuition” and the fact that she knows her kids better than anyone.
Instead of helping the family to get approval for a specialist team trained in dealing with serious eating disorders, Dr. Shenoda worked with CMS insurance and Child Protective Services to override Laura Dalton’s parental decisions and had the girls removed from their mother’s care.
The state, hand-in-hand with the education system, hand-in-hand with the medical community, hand-in-hand with the church…
This is what disaster looks like. This is how the collapse of the family ultimately happens. There are so many aspects of the hoops through which a parent must leap in order to be considered “acceptable” by the government. This group of officials, politicians and administrators cannot balance a checkbook, cannot institute successfully any program to which they attach their names, they cannot educate our children to a point where they are not shamed by other less economically secure countries, they cannot see fit to take care of the demonstrably unfair system of welfare that plagues this country with rampant across-the-board corruption and fraud, yet…THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION AS TO WHO IS “ACCEPTABLE” AS A PARENT?
I’ve always been fascinated by the audacity of the school systems who look down their noses at parents who homeschool, yet cannot seem to teach a child by the standards set pre-1975. In the old system, you as a student were taught how to read, write and do arithmetic. Now, the ability to read effectively is a “racist” endeavor. The SATs are racially charged to allow White students to do better than Black students. The ability to write is to print down on the paper (print because we don’t teach cursive writing anymore) the words in any way you deem them understandable because it’s no longer important to know how a word is actually spelled. The ability to do arithmetic is so erratic and convoluted that teaching the method that actually worked back in the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s is a non-issue, even though students today are in greater numbers failing mathematics than ever before…
These are the same people advocating these methods who have the audacity to tell me (while their school systems are failing and their drop-out rates are abysmal) that I am not qualified to teach my own children?
These pediatricians as well, going from those before who were some of the most caring and family-friendly physicians to now where they view every parent as a monster who is trying to destroy the child. There is no family-friendliness anymore. A visit to the doctor nowadays is a hope that you don’t slip up and say or do the wrong thing and cause that physician to look at you as an abuser or a molester or a spanker!
Dr. Shenoda, who moved to California almost immediately after accusing Ms. Dalton, was an apparent fan of Professor Bartholet.
In her own journal article, “Children and Armed Conflict,” Shenoda cited Bartholet’s “Ratification by the United States of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Pros and Cons from a Child’s Rights Perspective.”
Both Shenoda and Bartholet argue for overriding not only parental decisions but also the decision of the U.S. government to refuse to ratify the dangerous and tyrannical Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty – a treaty that many parental rights groups have warned would be a severe blow to parental rights. Dr. Shenoda wrote:
Although the United States remains the only country that has not ratified the CRC, this exclusion does not preclude its use by pediatricians as a powerful tool to advocate for and advance the health and well-being of children affected by armed conflict and violence. …
It is thus important for the American Academy of Pediatrics and other pediatric professional societies such as the Academic Pediatric Association, the American Pediatric Society, and pediatricians as citizens to redouble their efforts in support of ratification.
In this regard, pediatricians should be prepared to address the most frequent legal, political, and cultural objections to ratification.
Although a detailed discussion of these objections is beyond the scope of this article, they include, among others: (1) opposition to the United States being subject to international law; (2) hesitancy to extend socioeconomic rights to children that would have financial consequences; (3) objections to allowing children and adolescents any capacity for independent decision-making, such as accessing family planning, choosing religious affiliation, or friendships; and (4) arguments that extending rights to children will negatively affect parental rights.
For example, the group Parental Rights has raised concerns about the potential for the United Nations to usurp the rights of parents to raise their children if the United States ratified the CRC.
The MedicalKidnap.com website has now been part of the Health Impact News network since 2014. We have published hundreds of stories documenting how the State kidnaps children from loving families and then abuses them in State-funded child social services and foster care programs.
It is a billion dollar child trafficking system that enslaves children.
These radical ideas of parenthood and government tyranny are not simply ideas discussed in classrooms in American colleges and universities, they are being used today to rip families apart where children are abused and trafficked by a corrupt Child Protection Services social program and foster care system.
More laws are not needed to protect children. Instead, current laws influenced by this radical way of thinking need to be de-funded, and law enforcement needs to be trained to uphold the Constitution and not allow social service agents to remove children from their homes without warrants, and with full due process of the law being followed.
No one can deny or will argue that there are plenty of parents out there who are not fit. And no one who is a good parent will deny the state the right to go in and investigate charges. But at the rate at which these administrators are attacking parents, there will come a point when no matter how good a parent you are, eventually one thing that you do will be your undoing.
“John and Denise, while we see that you have a stable home life, both of you appear to be decently educated, the children are of good weight and measure, and they are well-fed. It seems that they get along with each other and that their friends find them jovial. Your friends as well find you to be good parents, we have been made aware of the fact that you have been teaching them excessively about the Bible and this really indicates that they are lacking in the basic understanding of real-life consequences. Therefore, it is the opinion of this court that the children should be placed in the custody of the authorities until such a time that you agree to stop teaching them about Moses. This court is adjourned.”
Think it can’t happen?