In fact, in Scotland, a CRC nation, a pamphlet for Scottish children explaining how they are helped by the treaty says, “In Scotland, the law recognises that your parents should normally be the people who care for you, if it’s the best thing for you.”
That’s very different from a provision that might say, “You have the right to the protection and care of your parents and can only be removed from your family if you are the victim of abuse or neglect.” The reason it doesn’t read this way is because that’s not what the CRC intends.
And who decides what’s “the best thing”? Take a guess.
It makes sense that the US stands nearly alone in refusing to ratify this treaty, since we live in the safest, most prosperous, most desirable country in which to be a child.
The CRC makes sense in places where girls can be sold into marriage at age 10, or where children are routinely victims of the sex trades, or of child labor abuse.
But in the US, the only logical reason to sign the CRC is to expand, through that new “international order” the president mentioned this past weekend, the role of the federal government into the daily lives and decisions of American parents and families.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has introduced S.R. 519, opposing ratification of the CRC. He hopes to find 34 co-sponsors and thereby signal to the president that there’s no need to send the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent since it wouldn’t pass. This is the end-run play; the game winner is a Parental Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
It’s a good time to call a Senator or two and encourage them to join in co-sponsoring Sen. DeMint’s resolution.
15 Excerpts That Show How Radical, Weird And Out of Touch College Campuses Have Become | John Hawkins