Parental Rights Threatened by UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

By Lisa Abler - 6/28/2009 7:15 PM

Newly appointed UN Ambassador Susan Rice has recently floated the idea of the United States ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). She chastised the United States for being one of only two nations that have not embraced the CRC. The UNCRC is an international treaty which specifically governs what we can and can't do in the rearing of our children. The rules of the treaty range from the criminalization of spanking as a form of discipline to government workers having the final say pertaining to all parental decisions. Parents are taken out of the loop and replaced by government oversight concerning a child's: choice of religion, "right to leisure", Christian education, sex education, and abortions. Basically, the UNCRC would paralyze any parental rights in the United States. It would give our government the power to act in what they deem "the best interest" of our children with the authority to review and impose themselves on any parental decision with which a child disagrees.

Not only does the UNCRC disrupt the parent-child hierarchy, it also undermines one of the most important elements that the federal government is responsible for: the security of our nation. The treaty would outlaw our current defense budget since it would render it illegal for us to spend more on it than our children's welfare. The UN would be dictating our defense budget, as well as our welfare system.

Also, an important local issue, states' rights, would be wiped out. The UNCRC would usurp the 10th amendment. Proof of this is concluded by the United States Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957): “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.”

When informing US citizens about the UNCRC, advocates for this treaty deceptively disguise and mislead people by promoting it as something that protects children from poverty, child abuse, hunger, poor health, and much more. Make no mistake, this treaty is purely intended to control and indoctrinate young citizens of the world with their propaganda and agenda.

American politicians who would like to see the treaty signed are saying that our country would only adhere to the parts of the CRC that are consistent with American sentiments. This is contrary to the concept of a treaty (in which its entirety is binding). This is stupidity on many levels, but the most ridiculous aspect of this approach is that American advocates for this treaty are taking a position where they must be either lying to the American people, or to the UN (depending upon which path they take in the future on the enforcement of the treaty). Why would we sign a treaty under a premise that is girded by dishonesty? While they ambiguously claim they won't fully impose the entire treaty, we could quickly have a UNCRC czar enforcing the treaty to the degree that suits the political interests of his appointer.

Any treaty that the United States signs should be that which is advantageous for our country and one we intend to honor. By signing the UNCRC we gain nothing; we merely give up more liberties, and we sentence our children to direction not based on parents' love, but bureaucrats' bidding.