Representative Charles Postles and thirteen of his Republican colleagues in the General Assembly believe children are the property of the parents, just as wives are the property of the husband. As such, children should not being making decisions about their identity so long as the parent disagrees with it. And the government shouldn’t help that child with those decisions if the parent disagrees.
Therefore, they have introduced House Bill 145, which would amend the state Constitution so that it states that parents have a “fundamental right” to the “care, custody and control of their child.”
This proposed amendment is a response to the Department of Education’s proposed regulation in 2017 that would have allowed students to identify as a different gender or race without parental consent or notice. The measure was intended to protect transgender students, but then the radical reich wing got their britches in a bunch, and the DOE reversed course and changed the regulation so that parents had to be informed first if the student wanted to make such a change. The reversal ended up satisfying no one, and the proposal was pulled.
Here is the relevant language of this Amendment: “The right of a parent to the care, custody, and control of their child is a fundamental right that resides first in the parent. […] “Neither the state, nor any agency of the state, nor any political subdivision of the state, shall infringe on the parental right as provided under this article without demonstrating that the interest of the government as applied to the parent or child is a compelling interest addressed by the least restrictive means.”
I can see that language being used to justify opposition of medications and vaccinations and sex ed classes in school, and whole host of other issues.
WHERE IS THE BILL? House Administration 5/6/19
DEMOCRATIC SPONSORS –
REPUBLICAN SPONSORS – Postles, Pettyjohn, Dukes, Wilson, Briggs King, Collins, Gray, Hensley, Ramone, D.Short, Smyk, Spiegelman, Yearick
YES VOTES –
NO VOTES –
“I can see that language being used to justify opposition of medications and vaccinations and sex ed classes in school, and whole host of other issues.”
As well as birth control and abortion. These ownership bills are about overriding decisions already made. It also demonstrates that people demanding these bills don’t have open and safe relationships with their children, so they need the government to inform them so they can veto who their children are.
The other thing that ownership does is to imply some liability for the actions or inactions of those kids or for the failure to control them. So if your kid gets caught spray painting graffiti on a bridge someplace — parents could be specifically liable for the damages caused. What happens when a kid is apprehended as a runaway? Parents could be sued for whatever happens after they have stopped controlling their kid. If these parents are overruling abortion and birth control decisions, they should be held strictly liable for the care and feeding of the grandbaby too.
I read just this morning that suicides for transgender children are at 50% if their parents are not supportive of their children, but that rate is nearly zero when the children are supported by their parents. Given these statistics, why would a parent NOT support their child?
I realize that it’s hard to understand, that most parents do not understand and probably will never understand how it feels to be transgender, but there are literally thousands of things the average person does not understand. We simply accept that these things are real things and get on with our lives.
Why is a transgender child so hard for people to accept?
Here ya go. http://www.roguesportal.com/learning-lessons-twilight-zone-eye-beholder/
Rod Serling had the answer to that way back in 1960. I’m sure the thought did not originate with him, but his demonstration of it had a very dramatic impact on audiences.
“Just like me” is part of the human condition. To test this, imagine if you will, a world, where everyone is transgender, except a few who are the Janet Tylers (see the Twilight Zone episode), abnormal because they are not transgender. Now, imagine the transgenders being open and accepting of those who identify as the gender they were born as.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and the beholder’s concept of beauty is just like them, because part of that concept is the degree of conformity. And how normal is defined is how we create the boundaries of acceptance. While legislation may serve a purpose, legislation alone cannot establish what society considers normal or normative. You have to change hearts and minds as well. Unfortunately, that’s a long row to hoe, because despite one’s desires, change requires challenging society’s comfort zone and that kind of change is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
How can a parent support their child if they are not included in the process? Wouldn’t a responsible parent want to help that child make a life changing choice. Yours assumptions are that the parents wouldn’t support him/her. I would be highly upset if my child made that choice with a stranger who may or may not have pushed them into a decision. I would support them always, but I would want to ensure they made an informed independent choice, and I don’t have the confidence in the school counselors to do that.
These people can’t support locking guns up so that kids won’t shoot themselves or anyone else, so they are a complete FAIL on the responsibility front. We can talk about ownership rights for their kids once they have their guns on lockdown from those kids.
These people/parents want rights of control without liability.
My forearms are locked except for what a am carrying at any givin time. And I don’t beleive in “owning” or “controling” my children. As a parent my job is to guide and teach, as such I would want to make sure they are making an informed decision without being pushed by anyone – including myself.
I looked up “Liberal” in the Oxford Dictionary:
1Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas
1.1 Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
1.2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
‘a liberal democratic state’
Is the definition is wrong? I’m not seeing any of it here, especially in the articles. Just attacks on anyone that doesn’t share the same exact views, no productive discussions, just hateful commentary.
Liberal does NOT mean accepting any old bullshit just because it is different behavior or opinions. You can’t break into my house and take stuff and then tell me I am supposed to accept differing behavior. There’s lots of POVs here and if you disagree you can argue your case. But this passive aggressive bullying to make way for fairly inane new big government isn’t an argument.
This is exactly why our political system is so messed up.
What did Cassandrum say that makes you say “This is EXACTLY why our political system is so messed up”?
Identifying parental control as a “right” is a mistake. The real question has NOTHING to do with parental “rights”. Parents have no rights over their children, because children, like spouses, are not property, and it is improper to think of them as such. What parents have is state granted authority in order to properly raise and nurture their children, the goal being that at some age they will qualify as adults, with all the rights of a citizen pertaining thereto. The children in question regarding the regulation were described as trans-gender. A problem filled category of human (no disrespect implied). Our duty is to recognize them as fully human with needs that not everyone else shares. On the question of “who has the legal authority to identify a person’s gender”, it is the state that has the primary responsibility to do so. And this in accordance with the individual’s own beliefs. The tricky part is a conflict with a perceived authority of the parents and an underaged individual’s personal authority to make such decisions. Teens commit suicide when their point of view and their perceived personhood results in bitter family or school conflict over their identity. If we truly care about these teens, we should stay focused on first keeping the underaged “near” adult alive, then helping them find their way.
In the bill HB145, in every instance of the word “right” or “rights” try substituting the words “state granted authority”. The bill works differently.
I disagree. Parents have the right not local government until my child is of legal age that child is the parent’s responsibility not the government
Under this Amendment, wii the state still have the authority to adopt conscription?