Vaccine Wag the Dog Underway to Take Away Parents Rights

Aaron Dykes

Vaccines and measles are big news. But what is not being reported? As usual, it is the telling conflicts of interest behind the figures being pushed in the media.

In an incredible and ongoing draconian response to the media hyped ‘measles outbreak’ at Disneyland, lawmakers are attempting to take away parents’ rights to decide, or even influence, what is put into their children’s bodies.



Bills in dozens of states and at the federal level are now being introduced to deny exemptions on philosophical and/or religious grounds and make vaccinations mandatory.

The Vaccine Debate Boils Down to One Thing...

By Lionel Nation

Medicine and pharmacology have made mistakes throughout history. Can you say thalidomide? Lobotomies were once the rage. And must I remind you that Ignaz Semmelweis, the 19th century Hungarian physician, thought it peachy for doctors to wash their hands in obstetrical clinics. They thought he was a kook! Wake up!

Besides, the issue isn't that of the vaccine, yes or no; the issue is parental autonomy and freedom.


Visit LionelMedia.com

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

Stop Criminalizing Parenting: Free Range Kids' Lenore Skenazy on Fears over Child Safety

Reason

"People say, 'Now that I can get arrested any time I let my child play outside or walk to school, I won't do it. And that's the opposite of what Free Range Kids is about," says Lenore Skenazy, proprietor of the blog FreeRangeKids.com. She adds, "Free Range Kids is about getting so many kids outside, that it doesn't seem strange to see a child playing in the park." 


Visit Reason.com
Visit FreeRangeKids.com

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

"They Kidnapped Our Child": Why CPS Needs Transparency Now

Reason TV

Subscribe to Reason TV's Channel

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Be the Change! Share this using the tools below.

A Messiah By Any Other Name

The banned name is actually one of the top growing baby names...

Messiah doesn't look too worried

Amanda Warren

Another example of a judge seeing an opening and running away with it. And it's another real one.

A simple dispute between two parents over their child's last name somehow magically turned into the judge bestowing a new first name and banishing his actual name, Messiah.

Tennesee child support judge Lu Ann Ballew ordered Jaleesa Martin to change 7-month-old Messiah DeShawn Martin's name to Martin DeShawn McCullough. Father's last name.

Do you wonder if she must stay up late at night with panic attacks thinking of all the people she couldn't prevent being named Jesus? Perhaps there are parts of the world blotted out of her travel bucket list. A reporter actually asked her about it (below, highly recommended watch) and she said she thought about that but of course, it's not relevant to this case.

Mother Sues Police After Arrest for Letting Kids Play Outside

Youtube

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Be the Change! Share this using the tools below. Sharing on Reddit and Newsvine will help the most.

Do Parents’ Rights End at the Schoolhouse Gate?

"There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students." ~ Fields v. Palmdale School District PSD, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2005)

John Whitehead
Lew Rockwell

Do parents have a right to control the upbringing of their children, especially when it comes to what their children should be exposed to in terms of sexual practices and intimate relationships?

That question goes to the heart of the battle being played out in school districts and courts across America right now over parental rights and whether parents essentially forfeit those rights when they send their children to a public school. On one side of the debate are those who believe, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, that "the child is not the mere creature of the state" and that the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the U.S. Constitution. On the other side are government officials who not only believe, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields v. Palmdale School District PSD (2005), that "[s]chools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent," but go so far as to insist that parents’ rights do "not extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

A recent incident in Fitchburg, Massachusetts clearly illustrates this growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the public schools, are essentially wards of the state, to do with as government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the children’s constitutional rights and those of their parents. On two separate occasions this year, students at Memorial Middle School (MMS) in Fitchburg were administered surveys at school asking overtly intimate and sexually suggestive questions without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Cows engineered to produce "human milk," and why Bessie will never, ever replace you.

Wiki Image

Breastfeeding Blog

Well, they say they've done it.

For years researchers in China, with the backing of a "major biotechnology company" have been working to genetically modify cows to produce human milk, and The Telegraph says that they've done it:

The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.

The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.

Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’

CNS NEWS

A conservative senator says If liberals get their way and the Senate ratifies a United Nations treaty on children's rights, the rights of parents would fall under the jurisdiction of the international community.

Thursday, August 05, 2010
By Christopher A. Guzman

Sen. Jim DeMint, Washington, D.C., August 4, 2010. (CNSNews.com photo/Penny Starr)

Washington (CNSNews.com) - Sen. Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) said that if President Barack Obama gets his way and the Senate ratifies the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the precedent would be set to place parental rights under the jurisdiction of the international community.

“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights have been given over to the international community."

DeMint is lead sponsor of  S. Res. 519, a resolution to protect parental rights, which is co-sponsored by 30 senators total. Only four more senators need to sign on to inform President Obama that he does not have enough votes in the Senate to ratify the treaty, DeMint said.

DeMint has also introduced a joint resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights.

Under Article 2, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate for them to take effect.

The U.N. adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child on Nov. 20, 1989. By Sept. 2, 1990, 20 nations signed on to enforce the treaty. Currently, with the exception of the United States and Somalia, 193 nations have signed on to enforce it.

Nations that ratify U.N. treaties are bound to adhere to them by international law.

The convention established an 18-member panel to oversee children’s rights in nations that are part of the treaty. If approved by the Senate, the United States would fall under the jurisdiction of this panel.

DeMint said the threat to parental rights is “not some theoretical threat.”

He also said that ratification of the treaty would be “a terrible precedent” not just for parental rights, “but in other areas that we’ve looked at.”

“It submits our federal laws, our national laws to this treaty,” DeMint told CNSNews.com. “And the fact is that we don’t know exactly how it’s going to run, but we know how bureaucracy works. Once a precedent is established and we have yielded control, we know that it will continue to grow. So the precedent is almost worse than the immediate details.”

DeMint also said that the treaty is superfluous because there are laws already that safeguard abused children in the United States.

“We have laws in place,” DeMint said. “And when we have a parent that abuses a child, in our country, we have laws to protect our children. So we don’t need an international law that was developed for a third world country.”

Asked by a reporter how to hold child abusers accountable, given high levels of child abuse in the U.S., according to statistics, DeMint said that the social services system may not be perfect, but that it is at least under U.S. control.

“The fact that there’s not perfection in our system does not mean that we go to the United Nations for help,” he added.

While DeMint is in the forefront of opposition to the convention, liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is leading the charge for its adoption.

During the Senate confirmation hearing of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, held in January of 2009, Boxer told Rice the treaty would protect "the most vulnerable people of society."

"Children deserve basic human rights,” Boxer said at the time, “and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected."

Boxer also labeled the fact that only the United States  and Somalia are non-participants to the treaty as a “shame.”

Boxer has urged the Obama administration to review the treaty for the purpose of adopting it. The United States is already a part of two optional provisions in the treaty, namely relating to child prostitution and child soldiers. Boxer, however, is pushing for full participation in the treaty.

DeMint said there is a “pervasive attitude” in Washington at present that the federal government has “complete control over everything.” The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, he said, is government intrusion to the last degree.

“If the government, or even the international community, tell you how to raise your children here in America, is there anything that’s off limits?” DeMint asked. 

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page