|
|
.gif) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
"Parental Rights" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Both state
and federal versions of parental rights proposals raise
serious concerns about how they would hinder
investigations of child abuse and neglect, the harmful
effects they would have on the ability of children and
youth to get needed health care and counseling, and the
degree to which they would aid parents who want to
censor school curriculum and library collections for
other parents' children. The discussion below focuses
primarily on the federal Parental Rights and
Responsibilities Act (PRRA). That bill has been the
subject of considerable analysis, in part because it
contains specific provisions. The analysis is applicable
as well, however, to the much briefer -- but
extraordinarily broad -- proposed state constitutional
amendment. Though the amendment contains no specific
provisions, its broad wording raises the same concerns
as do the provisions of the PRRA. |
| |
|
|
|
The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse
and Neglect reports that five children die each day from
abuse or neglect, and data from the Department of Health
and Human Services show that the number of children
seriously injured due to abuse nearly quadrupled between
1986 and 1993. A national survey done by the National
Committee to Prevent Child Abuse revealed that more than
3 million children were alleged victims of maltreatment
in 1994.49
PRRA advocates scoff at
critics' contention that PRRA will deter the reporting
and investigation of child abuse. They maintain that
existing laws will not be affected and portray opponents
as alarmists who insult parents by exaggerating the
prevalence of child abuse. They share with Rep. Steve
Largent the belief that if America returned to
"traditional family values," where mothers stay home and
all families were two-parent families,50 many
of the seemingly intractable problems facing families
would disappear. . Clearly, stable families are
essential to raising healthy children--no one would
argue with that. Yet by oversimplifying and focusing on
"traditional values" imagery, supporters divert
attention from the fact that child abuse is in fact a
growing problem in this country, and that further
impeding child protective services will only hurt
children.
Child abuse and neglect cases are
currently dealt with on a local and state level, with
very few exceptions. The PRRA would involve the federal
courts in a realm traditionally left to state courts. If
this happens, federal courts could be in the position of
nullifying state laws and policies.51 This
will result in confusion, unnecessary and expensive
litigation and create a chilling effect on child
protective service workers and public school staff. The
National Child Abuse Coalition believes that the "threat
of lawsuits would deter reporting of suspected child
maltreatment and wreak havoc with local efforts to
protect children."52
Under the PRRA,
the state must demonstrate "a compelling governmental
interest" before a welfare agency can intervene to
determine whether the child is in danger. This is a
higher legal standard than any currently employed by
state child protection and social service agencies in
cases of suspected abuse. The American Academy of
Pediatrics believes that "PRRA would create a 'chilling
effect' on public servants and agencies, due to the
threat of litigation: Any government employee[s] who
deal with children could be subjected to a costly
lawsuit for 'interfering with' or 'usurping' parental
rights, including pediatricians, emergency room
personnel, family practitioners, nurses, and other
health care workers, guidance counselors, school nurses
and psychologists, teachers, and other public school
personnel, social workers, and law enforcement
officers."53
PRRA exempts child abuse
from "reasonable corporal discipline," though neither
term (child abuse and reasonable corporal discipline) is
defined. In fact, the bill defines abuse and neglect as
"as the terms have traditionally been
defined,"54 throwing it back on state courts
to define abuse in each case. Therefore the courts would
be clogged with cases in which one of the issues is the
definition of abuse, because as history has proven, many
abusive parents believe their behavior to be
justifiable. In Colorado, for example, site of the
ballot initiative, amendment advocates rallied to the
defense of a man who has been charged with child abuse
for giving his 17-year-old son a black eye, allegedly
for telling a lie. For the man and his supporters, this
constituted "reasonable corporal
discipline."55 Parents already convicted of
child abuse may also attempt to re-litigate, claiming
that their actions constituted "reasonable corporal
discipline."
PRRA would also undermine state
laws allowing adolescents to seek medical help or
counseling without parental consent if they are in an
abusive situation. As the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP) has pointed out, PRRA would allow abusive parents
to refuse their child medical care or counseling, and
would interfere with the ability of children to seek
counseling without parental consent, even though many
times adolescents are seeking help with family problems.
The PRRA would also create barriers for adolescents
seeking treatment for sexually transmitted diseases by
requiring parental consent, as some adolescents would
refrain from seeking treatment, rather than involve
their parents. In so doing, the amendment would
undermine laws in 49 states that allow adolescents to
seek such treatment on their own.56
Many amendment advocates assert that the
initiative will reduce the number of abortions by
pregnant teenagers, but this is not necessarily the
case. A representative from Colorado Planned Parenthood,
home of the parental rights ballot initiative, says "We
see parents who bring their teenagers into the clinic
and say, 'Give my child an abortion,' and the teen would
rather carry to term. We see that just as frequently as
we see it the other way around. Does this amendment mean
we must give the teen an abortion over her
objections?"57
Many groups, including
the National SAFE KIDS Campaign chaired by former
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, believe that the PRRA
could also override state health and safety laws, such
as those requiring immunizations and the use of infant
car seats.58 |
Back
to Top
|
The potential for costly, repetitive
and unnecessary lawsuits is in itself a cause for
concern. Parental rights legislation is often
characterized by opponents as a "lawyer's
full-employment act,"59 referring to the
endless lawsuits that will result from such vaguely
worded legislation. This is not a baseless concern, as
even amendment proponents have stated that is their
intent. Jeffrey Bell recently stated that the amendment
was "meant to be general," and "meant to be argued out
in court."60 Leah Delay, leader of the
Colorado initiative effort, has stated, "If we're in
court for the rest of our lives, thank goodness." Tom
Tancredo, Independence Institute founder and leading
parental rights amendment supporter, echoes this: "The
reality is that almost everything [in the amendment]
will have to be adjudicated."61 A lawyer for
the Georgia-based Southeastern Legal Foundation,
involved in that state's parental rights push, stated
"We are out to make bad law in order to provoke
legislatures to repeal bad laws."62
Such
reliance on judicial intervention and constitutional
amendments to settle complex questions regarding
parental rights worries conservatives as well as
liberals. Conservative columnist George Will, in a
recent Washington Post editorial, supports parental
rights advocates but regrets "the zest with which some
conservatives are succumbing to the temptation to seek
judicial relief from offensive policies."63
Citing the text of the OTP amendment in full, he states
"Those 17 words are rich in potential for breeding
litigation about matters that should be settled by
legislation, or by processes of political persuasion."
"Do we want to turn every parent's grievance into
grounds for suing?"64 he asks. Will concludes
that "It is injurious to democracy to write into law
language certain to breed litigation that will draw
courts even deeper into the unjudicial business of
reviewing and rearranging the details of social
life."65
Jeffrey Bell, OTP chairman,
recently told a Washington Post reporter that he does
not believe that the PRA will increase the number of
lawsuits, precisely because he hopes to cow school
districts into compliance. He argues that parents will
not need to sue because schools will know that they are
easier targets for lawsuits and therefore will be more
likely to accommodate parents' requests.66
However, at the Christian Coalition's 1996 Road to
Victory Conference he stated that amendment was "meant
to be general," and "meant to be argued out in
court."67
The truth is that school
districts around the country are already under great
pressure to eliminate sexuality education programs and
health clinics, as well as literature ranging from
Halloween stories to works by such authors as Mark Twain
and Maya Angelou. So while Bell seems to contradict
himself on whether such efforts will be more likely end
up in court or whether they will instead be resolved
through intimidation at the classroom level to the
satisfaction of schoolbook censors, neither alternative
is particularly attractive. |
Back
to Top
|
Parental rights proposals, if adopted,
would undermine public education in two ways: first,
they would allow individual parents to derail entire
courses they find objectionable, or tailor classes to
avoid topics they deem offensive, rather than opting
their child out of a particular class. Second, the
proposal facilitates the introduction of school
vouchers, whereby public funds are diverted to both
secular and sectarian private schools.
Challenges to Curriculum:
Opt Out vs. Opt
In
In nearly every school district, parents currently
have the right to opt their children out of sexuality
and AIDS education, as well as out of specific
activities or assignments that conflict with their
religious beliefs. They have recourse to the school
board, and most school districts have policies that
encourage parents and educators to work together to
resolve differences of opinion. If the PRRA is
enacted, such cooperation will fall by the wayside as
parents who disagree with curriculum decisions take
their cases into federal court. They will be able to
contest any reading material or controversial class
discussion based on an allegation that it violates
their parental rights. PRRA would create chaos in the
public schools as each parent claims his or her child
is entitled to a curriculum tailored to the parent's
religion and values.
The National Education
Association reports that school districts around the
country have already been flooded by "parental rights"
form letters demanding that "my child be involved in
NO school activities or material [including]
curricula, textbooks, audio-visual materials, or
supplementary assignments [involving] the topics
listed below" without parental prior "written
consent." The Eagle Forum's form letter list has 94
such taboo topics, including "divorce," witchcraft,"
and "roles of males and females." Another form letter
lists "suicide," "creative problem solving," and "team
management."68 The general counsel for the
National School Boards Association has commented on
the impediments to learning created by such proposals:
"Try running a high school class on Shakespeare.
Romeo and Juliet? You've got teen-aged sex,
children disobeying their parents and a suicide pact.
Macbeth? You start with witchcraft and go from
there."69
Of The People's Greg
Erken has claimed that the parental rights amendment
would simply provide parents with the right to opt
their children out of classes, not the ability to
change the curriculum for an entire class. However, on
a recent radio interview, Erken stated that "what
parental rights comes down to, although it's not
limited to this, is getting an opt-out of certain
courses or condom programs or what have you, or
better yet, an opt in."70 [emphasis
added] In a separate interview, OTP President Ralph
Benko repudiated a fellow PRA proponent's claim that
PRA bills would simply provide parents with exemptions
(opt-out rights) from certain classes, saying that
"from Of The People's point of view, it does go beyond
merely creating exemptions."71 In other
words, the parents of an entire class would have to
request that a sexuality education course be taught,
rather than those who object having the right to
remove their children from the class. Common sense
dictates that this would not only be a logistical
nightmare, but that the end result would be to
ultimately eliminate for everyone all classes
considered controversial by a few.
Furthermore, a study on the constitutionality
of the PRRA done by the Congressional Research
Service, a division of the Library of Congress that
conducts research for members of Congress, finds the
claim that the PRRA is simply an opt-out program to be
false. It states that "the proposal would appear to
grant a parent standing to challenge governmental
actions related to the education of their children,
the provision of medical services, the management of
juvenile detention facilities." "Some of the actions
by government officials which might be challenged in
this context would include discussion of religion,
the provision of sex education, the teaching of
evolution, the required performance of community
service, the assignment of detention, or even class
seating arrangements." [emphasis added] PRRA would
also allow parents to challenge such requirements as
mandatory immunizations and school physical exams or
disability screening.72
Dissolution of Public
Education:
School Vouchers
Parental rights initiatives have been called a
back door to vouchers, and while proponents downplay
the connection, a quick look at Religious Right
leaders' statements and literature makes the link very
clearly.
School vouchers are one of the favored
education proposals of conservative legislators, many
of whom argue that vouchers will rescue
underprivileged inner-city children from overcrowded
and dangerous schools. Parents would be issued voucher
credits equal to or less than the per-child cost of
educating their child in public school, and could use
that toward tuition for private schools.
However, vouchers will drain money from
already underfunded public schools and direct it to
private coffers. Furthermore, private schools, often
touted as less trouble-ridden, are so precisely
because they are able to select their student
population, while public schools must take every
student. There is no mandate for private schools to
accept troubled, disabled or low-achieving children.
If vouchers were implemented, public schools would be
drained of advantaged students and concerned parents,
leaving public schools with the students unable to get
into private schools, or those whose parents cannot
afford to make up the difference between the voucher
and private school tuition. From a constitutional
point of view, vouchers are problematic because they
would allow funds to be directed toward sectarian
schools, a clear violation of the separation of church
and state.
Clint Bolick, litigation director
for the conservative Institute for Justice, which is
aiding Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson in his attempt to
expand the Milwaukee program to include sectarian
schools,73 substantiates claims that the
PRA would facilitate vouchers. At a recent Heritage
Foundation panel discussion, he said that any law or
constitutional amendment giving parents the power to
"direct the upbringing" of their children could be a
powerful tool for voucher proponents, because it would
facilitate approval of vouchers in court. Further, the
PRA is "a very harmonious, parallel movement" to the
voucher movement. "You could win that battle [arguing
voucher legislation on the basis of PRA] pretty
swiftly."74
Ralph Reed, executive
director of the Christian Coalition, made the
connection between PRAs and vouchers on a recent
edition of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson's daily
television show, saying "We believe that parents raise
children, not government bureaucrats. And we believe
that the parent-child relationship is the most
sacrosanct relationship in our society, and we want
the government to do something to protect it...The
ultimate answer to that -- the Parental Rights act is
going to be a very important linchpin in this whole
movement -- but the ultimate answer is school choice.
We've got to provide families with scholarships and
vouchers so they can choose the best child [sic] for
their school, private, public, and
parochial."75
Ralph Benko, OTP
president, in an attempt to counter allegations that
his initiative is part of a larger Religious Right
agenda, recently insisted on National Public Radio
that the parental rights amendment is not a "back
door" to vouchers. Yet he added that "it could well be
that the parental rights amendment will be a precursor
issue by which the country will come to terms with
[vouchers]."76 This echoes a statement by
Jeffrey Bell, OTP chairman, in the March 1995 issue of
Voice, Of The People's newsletter. Asserting that the
"heart of the parental rights issue involves the
future of American education," Bell notes that
opponents to education reform have "mobilized vast
resources against the growing movement for school
choice." According to Bell, the primary obstacle
confronting voucher proponents is the fact that
private school vouchers divert money from public
schools, and the only way this will change is if
"public schools deteriorate further, perhaps to the
point of breakdown," a situation Bell does not foresee
happening anytime soon.77 Interestingly, a
parental rights amendment that allows parents to
create chaos in classrooms by demanding individual
curricula for each student would do much to accelerate
this deterioration.
Further, Bell asserts that
a debate about parental rights is a "necessary
precursor" to "broad-based education reform" and
suggests that PRA is "a viable framework" for a number
of such reform goals, such as "the school choice
move,...[resistance to] controversial curricula,
explicit sex education, and condom
distribution."78
More recently, the
April 1996 issue of OTP's Voice explicitly frames
school vouchers as an issue of parental rights in
reference to the Milwaukee voucher program: "Parents
argue that they should have the ultimate authority
over their children's education: control over the
money that pays for it...By using their money at the
religious school of their choice, parents can exercise
their rights, society can benefit from the moral
instruction, and the state can avoid a situation where
it imposes a particular non-religious ethic on
children."79 |
Back
to
Top
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
|
|