In my haste to post the previous information regarding the Parental Rights Amendment, I failed to provide any information, thinking it spoke for itself. I was wrong. So allow me to explain:

The Parental Rights Amendment ( or Amendment-to-be, hopefully, prayerfully) is, in my understanding, a response to the judges, attorney generals, courts, and social workers who are attempting to impose the United Nations legislation concerning the rights of a child on parents in the United States. Now, excuse me if my explanation is not exact, or lacking in preciseness. But, basically, a majority of countries have deemed a child to have more rights than a parent - and that the government has the right to intervene, based on what the prevailing belief system is concerning the raising of a child in that particular governmental system, even removing children from their residence if they so desire, in the name of the best interest of the child. Where are the rights of the parents in all of this? Exactly! That is the goal of the Parental Rights Amendment - to preserve and protect that most fundamental of rights, the raising, rearing, and responsibility of our own children. The United States has not signed the treaty, as of yet. However, the President has compared our not signing to putting us on par with a country such as Somalia, basically stating we are violating human rights by not agreeing to the tenets of the treaty. And the new Deputy Attorney General has already used the tenets of the treaty in his position, as though the US is guided by this international law, despite the fact that we have not signed on. I am not sure what to think when I allow myself to dwell on this issue - why on Earth would we want to take away the fundamental right and obligation of parents to determine what is best for their own children, unless we are indeed headed toward the day when the village will indeed raise the children. While I am sure there are many parents who would love to forgo the daily responsibilities of raising children (makes one wonder why they had children in the first place), there are many more people who have taken responsibility for their children from the time they discovered they were going to be so blessed, and I hope they will not easily allow this right, responsibility, and blessing to be given over to a government that fails to embrace the fundamental unit of civilization - that of the family. That is what Hitler did, in order to control every facet of society. And we have the benefit of history to see where such a goal can lead. So define "family" any way you choose - heterosexual couple, homosexuals, single parents - but keep the family as the unit that has the right to determine the upbringing of their own children. I cannot imagine anyone not supporting such a proposition. Except, of course, some jaded individuals who have been so deeply entrenched in the social services system, and have only seen the ugly failures of parenting. Yes, there are individuals who should not be allowed access to their own children, and there are others who should never be allowed near any one's children. But they are the ones we all need protection from - and we should be able to protect our own children, in our own way, in our own homes. Funny how these same social service workers are the most vocal about the "rights" of criminals to be allowed to determine the fate of their own children. Children can rot in the foster care system for their entire childhoods because the biological parent refuses to agree to termination of their rights, and the judicial system either fails to enforce it, or the social service system lamely agrees that the person has the right to maintain his or her hold on the child. Yet parents who have never done anything wrong now face an international declaration that the government may have a greater say in the upbringing of our children. Scary.