Stop Rights of The Child

The Tennessee Eagle Forum is asking for help by means of a call to action.

Eighty years ago the Supreme Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Thirty years ago the Court continued this line of reasoning with the pronouncement that the “primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) was signed by the Clinton Administration in 1995, but, thankfully, has never been ratified by the United States Senate. However, is seems that America is now poised to adopt the UN CRC. President Obama supports this treaty.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a leading advocate of this treaty for over twenty years. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has “promised” that this treaty will be ratified during this term of Congress.

For background information go HERE. The UN CRC takes the recognized ‘needs’ of the child and turns them into ‘rights under law’ while transferring fundamental parental authority to an 18-member United Nations’ committee in Geneva completely violating recognized states rights in family law. In addition, unlike other nations who have ratified the UN CRC, our unique Constitution contains the following provision:

Article VI

“All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thus, the UN CRC would become the ‘law of the land’. Wanting to bring attention to this possibility and use the legislative effort as a tool to educate both the lawmakers and the public to the dangers we face from the UN CRC, Tennessee Eagle Forum worked with Rep. Mike Bell (R-Riceville) to sponsor HJR 369 which urges Senators Alexander and Corker to oppose the ratification of this treaty. After waiting for nine months to complete the deed (it passed the House during the last legislative session then there was a debacle on the Senate floor the last day of the session), with little debate, the State Senate recently passed our resolution 26-3-1.

For more information, go HERE.

Now we are partnering with Tennessee Parental Rights and the national organization, Parental Rights, to use the passage of the Tennessee resolution to promote a proposed amendment to the US Constitution which would protect parent’s rights.

On Tuesday, March 9th, we are asking you to join a phone blitz for our US Senators urging them to support and become co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 16 [lead sponsor, Sen. Jim DeMint is joined by five colleagues.] and urge our US Congressmen to support and become co-sponsors of H.J. Res. 42 [lead sponsor, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, joined by 128 of his colleagues.].

NOTE – FOR OUT-OF-STATE : To join us in this blitz, click on the links in previous paragraph to the federal resolutions to see if your senators or congressmen are co-sponsors on the resolutions, then find your US Senator HERE; your US Congressman HERE.


Contact Information found HERE, scroll down page.

Please tell them that you are calling to make them aware of HJR 369, a resolution (just passed by the State Senate)Â from Tennessee’s legislators which urges their opposition to the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty.

Ask that they oppose the UN treaty should it come to the floor for a vote and demonstrate that stance by becoming a co-sponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment S. J. Res. 16 which closes the door on the treaty forever.  3) Let them know that you will be awaiting an active response in addition to their verbal acknowledgment, and thank them for their time.


Contact Information found HERE, scroll down page. I am pleased to report that Republican Congressmen Marsha Blackburn, John Duncan, Phil Roe and Zach Wamp are already co-sponsors of H.J. Res. 42. However, none of the Democrat Congressmen have signed on.

1) Make them aware that the recently passed HJR 369 from the Tennessee legislature urges the Senators to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, if your Congressman is a Republican, thank him or her for being a co-sponsor of H.J. Res. 42.

2) For the Democrats, suggest that while they do not vote on the treaty itself, they can show their agreement with Tennessee’s HJR 369 by becoming cosponsors of their own H.J. Res. 42 supporting the Parental Rights Amendment which closes the door on the treaty forever.

3) Let them know that you will be awaiting an active response in addition to their verbal acknowledgment, and thank them for their time. If either of the Senators or your Representative would like more information, please email and let them know. They would be happy to drop by the Congressman’s office with a packet or to answer any questions. It is critical that our voices be “widespread” and persistent on this issue.

So, please include friends and family members in this phone blitz. The very nature of the family and our fundamental rights as parents are at stake. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at or Eric Potter MD at He is the Tennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org. He offers a weekly e-newsletter and action alert service on this important issue. You can enroll at on the red “join e-mail list” link in the right hand column. There are also opportunities for your further contribution to this monumental battle by e-mailing Dr. Potter at the address above.

The History:

Back on February 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). When it became apparent to many Americans that the convention would pose a serious threat to parental rights, opposition to it mounted. So controversial did it become, in fact, that President Bill Clinton, though he supported the convention, never did submit it to the Senate for ratification. (However, three protocols to the treaty: Treaty Numbers:Â 106-37, 106-37(A), and 106-37(B) were submitted to the Senate on July 25, 2000.) These protocols address the legitimate problems of the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography, and the involvement of children in armed conflict — problems that might better be corrected through traditional law enforcement measures or bilateral agreements. It is fairly obvious as to why this treaty is worth commenting on now, it is because President Obama has already indicated he is a supporter of the convention. During a presidential debate held at Walden University last October, Obama lamented that only the United States and Somalia hadn’t ratified the convention:

“It’s embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights.”

Senator Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) has also urged that the treaty, which she asserts provides for “basic human rights” for children, be brought back to life and ratified. “Children deserve basic human rights … and the convention protects children’s rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected,” Boxer was quoted by Fox News. Though many pro-family individuals and organizations oppose the CRC, among the most articulate in presenting the reasons is Dr. Michael Farris, president of, the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. Parental Rights has posted the following objections to the CRC treaty on its website:

  • Parents would no longer be allowed “spank” their children, even with a legitimate reason.
  • A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
  • Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
  • The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
  • A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him/or her to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
  • According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
  • Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services (birth control), including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

The potential damages to parental rights and the integrity of the traditional family posed by the CRC are so great that its opponents — out of legitimate fear — have resorted to an extraordinary measure in an attempt to head them off. Resolutions proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights have been introduced in both the House (H. J. Res. 42) and the Senate (S. J. Res. 13). Though the intentions of the legislators sponsoring these measures are commendable, the amendment process is not the ideal way to secure parental rights. It is not only lengthy and has scant chance of success, but cluttering up the Constitution to enumerate God-given rights already inherent in the state of being a parent is unwise. It suggests that rights are granted by government, and are subject to limitation by government. In fact, this is a major fault of UN conventions such as the CRC — they presume to grant rights already endowed to humans by their Creator. Rather than using the “band-aid” approach to nullify the effects of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child by amending our Constitution, every member of Congress (particularly senators) should take a firm stand against the CRC.

%d bloggers like this: