The U.S. Supreme Court of the United States has consistently upheld the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children within the guarantee of liberty found in the U.S. Constitution. A subversive movement emanating from the United Nations, however, is seeking to undermine parental authority by, in effect, making children wards of the State. Under the guise of protecting children, globalists are pushing a draconian agenda known as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which if ratified will overrule the authority of parents to act in the best interests of their children.

Standing between American families and the all-consuming power of the State is the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States constitution. This constitutional amendment will protect parents and their offspring from an overreaching bureaucracy that promotes unbiblical practices that harm children and also punishes households that seek to maintain Christian values.

Only two countries, the United States and Somalia, have not approved the UNCRC. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, all treaties entered into by America “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Ratification of the UNCRC would, therefore, limit American sovereignty and supersede all federal or state laws. But the endorsement of any treaty requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to pass, which the Senate has thus far failed to achieve.

At first glance the UNCRC sounds both appropriate and needed. After all, few would disagree that children should have human rights as well as adults. But, as they say, the devil is in the details, and the UNCRC truly emanates from the Pit. It would sweep aside all restrictions on abortion and contraception under the rubric of providing “health care services” to children–without the consent of their parents.

Moreover, children will be indoctrinated with values and views that many parents will find objectionable. The UNCRC mandates that underaged youth be exposed to “information and material from a diversity of national and international sources,” including a variety of viewpoints related to their “spiritual and moral well-being,”–once again, values and views that many parents will find offensive.

Relegating the instruction of moral and religious beliefs to a host of questionable sources will have predictably  deleterious consequences. The United Kingdom is a prime example of what happens when the State becomes the instructor of ethics. A government-issued pamphlet entitled “Talking to Your Teenager about Sex and Relationships” advises children to choose their own morals regarding sexuality and instructs parents to keep silent lest they discourage their children from exploring any and all views on sexuality and relationships.

The World Policy Analysis Center at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health noted a number of areas of progress regarding children’s rights since the introduction of the UNCRC. However, the Center also noted that “Global challenges still remain in the area of child marriage.” Despite all the rhetoric about “children’s rights,” the proponents of the UNCRC still cannot face up to the massive inconsistencies of their position.  If they are fighting for “children’s rights,” should that not include the right to marry?

Far from evincing concern about this worldwide scourge, the UNCRC apparently approves of the “right” of children to be forcibly married at young ages.  Michael P. Farris, is a constitutional lawyer and president of ParentalRights.org, an organization that has been campaigning against U.S. ratification of “dangerous U.N conventions that “threaten parental rights” such as the UNCRC.   Farris notes:

“The United States demonstrates its commitment to human rights whenever it follows and enforces the Constitution of the United States, which is the greatest human rights instrument in all history.”

The Washington Post predictably rails against Farris and ParentalRights.org, claiming:

The group fears that ratifying the treaty would mean children could choose their own religion, that children would have a legally enforceable right to leisure, that nations would have to spend more on children’s welfare than national defense, and that a child’s ‘right to be heard’ could trigger a governmental review of any decision a parent made that a child didn’t like.  

The Post is apparently oblivious to the fact that children have few if any of these “rights” in the vast majority of countries that so eagerly climbed aboard the bandwagon of the UNCRC. According to The Post,

The United States can learn from other member nations on how to reduce poverty, ensure women’s rights, improve education and educational access, and healthy living conditions, for starters.  

Such facetious claims are the epitome of hypocrisy when hundreds of thousands of migrants from Central America have either arrived or are at this very moment making the arduous thousand-mile journey on foot to have the opportunity to cross the border and enjoy lavish government benefits that are unknown in much of the world.

The Migrant Policy Institute confirms that the United States is by far the preeminent destination country for migrants seeking a better life–with more than four times the number of immigrants seeking asylum than in the second-place country: Saudi Arabia. Accounts of the horrific abuse suffered by those who are forced out of necessity to work in the desert kingdom are well-known, but lie beyond the scope of this article.

Contradicting the implications of the UNCRC charter, another United Nations organization, UNICEF, states unambiguously:

Marriage before the age of 18 is a fundamental violation of human rights…. Child marriage often compromises a girl’s development by resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation, interrupting her schooling, limiting her opportunities for career and vocational advancement and placing her at increased risk of domestic violence. Child marriage also affects boys, but to a lesser degree than girls.

Yet today dozens of countries openly allow child marriages below the age of fifteen. While the United Nations is quick to condemn the United States for its alleged failures, nary a peep is heard concerning the travesty of child marriages primarily in South America and the Arab world, which have the highest rates of child marriages.

Hope is on the way: the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States constitution is gaining momentum.  Introduced this week by U.S. Representative Jim Banks (R-IN).  The Amendment already has fifteen cosponsors, six more than when it was introduced last year.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Congressional representative to urge him/her to become a cosponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment (H.J. Res. 36).  The Parental Rights Amendment will ensure that the next generation of children will be raised and guided by their loving parents, not by an impersonal government bureaucracy pushing an agenda inimical to the values of American families.

Christian Life in Exile
On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

On Tuesday [March 20th], the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for NIFLA vs. Becerra, the case which focuses on the “law that requires pregnancy centers to notify women that the state offers subsidies for abortion.” In other words, pro-life pregnancy centers, which exist to offer women alternatives to abortion, would be required by law to tell their clients that the state can subsidize their abortions. But that hardly tells the story of how absurd this law is.

Certainly, it’s bad enough that the state thought it had the right to require pro-life pregnancy centers to inform their clients about abortion opportunities. The whole reason for the existence of these centers, many (or almost all?) of which are faith-based, is to tell pregnant women that they don’t have to kill their babies. To talk to them about the humanity of that child in the womb. To inform them about adoption. To share stories with them about other women who chose not to abort.

How on earth can anyone require them to say as well, “However, in case you’re interested, the state will help you terminate your pregnancy and snuff out that precious life in your womb.”

But, to repeat, that is only part of the story.

As became evident when the justices questioned the California attorneys, the law goes far beyond that simple requirement. Instead, it mandates that equal space be given to advertise the pro-abortion language. What’s more, it mandates that the pro-abortion announcement be made in 13 languages to be sure that all bases were covered.

Hank Berrien explains that the “law was adopted in California in 2015, and forced the pregnancy centers to post a prominent notice if they had ‘no licensed medical provider’ available. If the centers were licensed, they were forced to notify clients that the state offers ‘free or low-cost’ contraception, prenatal care and abortion.”

And, what, exactly would this look like?

The requirement would be so absurd that even ultra-liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a problem with it. As Berrien notes, “After Michael P. Farris, a lawyer for the centers, said advertisements, including billboards, would have to offer the information in large print and in 13 languages, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg turned to the lawyer for California and stated, ‘If you have to say that, those two sentences in 13 different languages, it can be very burdensome,’ she said.”

And exactly how “burdensome” is “very burdensome”? The Los Angeles Times reports this enlightening dialogue:

“What would happen if an unlicensed center just had a billboard that said, ‘Choose Life.’ Would they have to make the disclosure?” [Justice Anthony] Kennedy asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Farris replied.

“It would be 29 words, in the same size font as ‘Choose Life’?” Kennedy continued.

Yes, Farris said, “and in the number of languages required by that county.”

Kennedy said he had heard all he needed to hear. “It seems to me that means that this is an undue burden. And that should suffice to invalidate the statute,” he said.

Kennedy, of course, is absolutely right, although calling this requirement “an undue burden” would be the equivalent of saying that it would be “an undue burden” to require a man to carry an elephant on his back.

In practical terms (and using hypothetical language, not even as cumbersome as what California requires), a billboard ad would look like this (relying on Google translate, and just sampling some of the state’s top 12 foreign languages):

Yes, this is what California required, as completely ridiculous as it seems. (And note again: This was not the 29-word announcement that Justice Kennedy referenced, nor did I post it in 13 languages.) And what message would get out most to the public? “Choose life” or, “The state is here to help pay for your abortions”?

For many reasons, this ridiculous law is not only burdensome. It is not only an infringement of individual and corporate freedoms. It is the imposition of state-endorsed speech, in strict violation of the conscience of many of its citizens. In short, it is an absolute outrage.

That’s why major media outlets, like the Los Angeles Times, stated that, “The Supreme Court sounded ready Tuesday to strike down a California disclosure law that requires pregnancy centers — including those that are faith-based — to notify women that the state offers subsidies for abortion.”

It’s about time to push back against some of California’s craziness.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com