Proposed laws to retain parental rights

Here is a promising proposed law:

A number of Missouri lawmakers are supporting an amendment to the state constitution that essentially formalizes the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit.

In late April the House gave its approval to a measure, House Joint Resolution 26 (HJR26) that says parents have the right to make all decisions regarding the "discipline, education, religious instruction, health, medical care, place of habitation, and general well-being" for their own minor children.

Such a law should not be necessary. My problem with such a law is that it might be interpreted to mean that parents only have the rights if they agree on how to exercise the rights. In my opinion, each parent should have that fundamental right.

Vox Day recites a news story about CPS abuse, and adds:

CPS is one of those evils where the cure is much worse than the disease. It is far better for the occasional unfortunate child to be abused by his parents than for every single child, parent, and guardian in the country to be privy to this sort of abuse by bureaucrats.

CPS not only doesn't reduce the amount of child abuse that takes place, it actually increases it because children in the foster care system are much more likely to be abused than are children who are not in it. It can't even be justified by its own purported rationale for existence. And as for those police, this just underlines the fact that they are the bad guys, every bit as evil and far less accountable than the everyday criminals.

The police in America are not the "thin blue line" defending civilization from savagery, as they would have you believe, they are now little more than the enforcement arm of the authoritarian state. The short-term occupation of Boston is, from their perspective, the ideal state of affairs towards which we should all aspire. Yes, there are the occasional righteous throwbacks, but this doesn't change the observable fact that they have become the American Ofstapo, the not-even-remotely secret state police.

I agree that CPS does more harm than good.

AP reports on a California attempt at parental rights:

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—The state Senate passed a bill Thursday that would allow parents to remove their children's personal information from social networking sites, over the objection of Facebook and other tech companies that say it would be impossible to implement.

Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-Hayward, said her SB501 gives parents the right to protect their children by removing addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, and bank or credit card account information. The bill applies to children under age 18.

Her bill passed 23-10 and moves to the Assembly.

In an opposition letter signed by Facebook Inc., Google Inc., Zynga Inc., Tumblr and others, the companies described Corbett's bill as unnecessary. They said it would require a social networking website to validate a minor's identity and age within 96 hours or face a $10,000 fine.

Of course those companies do not want parents to interfere with companies marketing products directly to teenagers. Here is SB-501.

Facebook and Google have long histories of refusing to comply with privacy laws and policies. And they are also anti-parent.

A gay-rights group, The Trevor Project, also warned that the bill could prevent young people from accessing support services if they face family rejection. The project is a West Hollywood-based crisis center that helps lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth by providing a social networking community.

In other words, the LGBTQIA lobby does not want anyone interfering with its ability to recruit teenagers.

She said the legislation doesn't just protect children but also allows adults to protect themselves from stalking, identify theft and other crimes by letting them request the removal of private information. Other information that can be removed under the bill includes driver's license numbers, state identification numbers, employee identification numbers and mother's maiden name.

"This information should not be available and posted on the Internet," Corbett said before Thursday's vote. "It would allow stalker to know where an adult or child physically is living and even provide a direct opportunity for a criminal to commit identity theft."

Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, said he opposed the bill because verification would be too burdensome for social networking companies to verify a user and his or her parent.

"I know for a fact that this bill is not fully cooked," Anderson said.

Yes, it is not fully cooked. My mother's maiden name is on Wikipedia, and I am sure no law will block that.

As long as parents have the responsibilities for a minor, they should also have the right to edit her Facebook page. And not just to remove ID numbers.

Even Pres. Barack Obama, who is a leftoid ideologue but also has two daughters, wants some limits on what teenaged girls can do:

President Barack Obama said Thursday he was comfortable with his administration's decision to allow over-the-counter purchases of a morning-after pill for anyone 15 and older.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday had lowered the age at which people can buy the Plan B One-Step morning-after pill without a prescription to 15 — younger than the current limit of 17. The FDA decided that the pill could be sold on drugstore shelves near condoms, instead of locked behind pharmacy counters. ...

The Justice Department's appeal responded to an order by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in New York that would allow girls and women of any age to buy not only Plan B but its cheaper generic competition as easily as they can buy aspirin. Korman gave the FDA 30 days to comply, and the Monday deadline was approaching.

The judge and various leftoid feminist groups want 12yo girls to be able to buy birth-control pills on their own.

Defense attorney Nurmi argued yesterday that Travis Alexander was a pervert for commenting that Jodi Arias sounded like a 12yo girl when she faked an orgasm during phone sex. I am not sure how that is supposed to justify Jodi killing Travis. No, private pillow talk between consenting adults is not sick. What is sick is the way our society denies parental rights and insists on sexualizing teenagers over parental objections.

AP also reports:

An Iowa agency's refusal to list both spouses in a lesbian marriage as parents on their children's birth certificates is a violation of their constitutional rights and must stop, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court, which made history by legalizing gay marriage in 2009, ordered the Iowa Department of Public Health to start listing the names of both female spouses on the birth certificates of their children. The ruling was backed by all six justices who participated.

Iowa had been the only state in the nation that allowed marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples, but refused to list both spouses on birth certificates of their children, according to Camilla Taylor, an attorney for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group involved in the case.

Justice David Wiggins said the state government "has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification" for treating lesbian parents differently than parents of opposite sex. He said the only explanation for doing so was "stereotype or prejudice" that violated their rights to be treated equally under the Iowa Constitution.

"It is important for our laws to recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children," Wiggins wrote. ...

Hundreds of same-sex couples in Iowa have been denied accurate birth certificates since 2009, Taylor said, and suffer a range of problems as a result of one of the spouses not being considered legal parents. They've had hassles enrolling their children in schools, taking them to the doctor and traveling, she said.

The birth certificates are accurate if they list the natural mom and dad. No, it is not just a prejudice to want birth certificates to identify the true parents. More and more parents are being defined by what some judge thinks is advancing some political cause. More and more, same-sex marriage is all about cutting off dads from kids.