About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

CACR 29

by: Jennifer Daler

Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 10:56:55 AM EST


The House Republican Alliance, co-chaired by Nancy Elliott (R-Merrimack), William O'Brien (R-Mont Vernon) and Bob Mead (R-Mont Vernon) has been busy with constitutional amendments this session, the best known being CACR 28, which would ban marriage equality in the state.

There  is another constitutional amendment on their agenda CACR 29

That the first part of the constitution be amended by inserting after article 2-a the following new article:

[Art.] 2-b. [Parental Rights.] Parents have the natural right to control the health, education, and welfare of their children; therefore the state shall not abridge the role or responsibility of parents in controlling the health, education, or welfare of their children.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems such an amendment would nullify laws against child abuse and neglect, and would also limit access to programs such as the successful children's health insurance program Healthy Kids. Notice it doesn't say parents must provide for the health, education and welfare of their children, but control it.

This group is also inconsistent in that they want the state to limit an adult woman's right to control her own body, but not take an interest in the welfare of minor children.

These legislators like to use the term "natural rights" a great deal. This concept was coined by 17th and 18th century political philosophers, such as John Locke. But for Locke ,

... natural rights were life, liberty and property, and that all people automatically earned these simply by being born.

There doesn't seem to be a "natural right" of parenting, unless children are to be considered property.  Is that what they mean?

Jennifer Daler :: CACR 29
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
CACR 29 | 10 comments
I agree. (0.00 / 0)
As someone who supports parental rights, and who has homeschooled 5 of his 6 children, I oppose this and have fought it within the NHLA community.  There is actually significant opposition to this bill among the libertarian groups in the state.

An obvious issue - which is often overlooked - is that there is no age limitation in this amendment.  Does this mean until age 16? 18? 21? Forever?  Does it mean that a father who rapes his daughter can force her to bear the child or abort the child?

The language is extremely consistent with theocratic doctrine (and, to be fair to its proponents, is understood in the context of a loving, "godly" family), as promulgated at many homeschool and Calvinst/Reformed Church workshops.

Frankly, I think its DOA.  But I also think it is one of those places where Progressives and libertarians really do have a atural alliance against Theocracy.


libertaqrians & progressives (0.00 / 0)

capital punishment. I do recall that NH libertarians were sujpportive of marriage equality.
My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that NHLA 'does not take a position" on right to choose and capital punishment. If so, this simply leads folks to feel that NHLA is simply a far right adjunct to the Republican partyy, unwillling to take positions that wojuld offend them.
   As to your poll as to "what you are (politically)", perhaps that is something that you will need to define for yourself. You might even find out that you are a progressive Dem. Go figure!


[ Parent ]
my computer messed up (0.00 / 0)
that was only half a message

[ Parent ]
libertaqrians & progressives (0.00 / 0)

capital punishment. I do recall that NH libertarians were sujpportive of marriage equality.
My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that NHLA 'does not take a position" on right to choose and capital punishment. If so, this simply leads folks to feel that NHLA is simply a far right adjunct to the Republican partyy, unwillling to take positions that wojuld offend them.
   As to your poll as to "what you are (politically)", perhaps that is something that you will need to define for yourself. You might even find out that you are a progressive Dem. Go figure!


[ Parent ]
sorry my computer messed up (0.00 / 0)
I will try again later

[ Parent ]
libertaqrians & progressives (0.00 / 0)
i have read some of your writings here and on the NHLA forum. I, too, feel there are natural alliances between liberals/progressives and libertarians. By I am confused by some of the NHLA stands - which seem to conflict with general national libertarian stands. For example, most libertarians, IMHO, support a woman's right to choose and aoppose

capital punishment. I do recall that NH libertarians were sujpportive of marriage equality.
My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that NHLA 'does not take a position" on right to choose and capital punishment. If so, this simply leads folks to feel that NHLA is simply a far right adjunct to the Republican partyy, unwillling to take positions that wojuld offend them.
   As to your poll as to "what you are (politically)", perhaps that is something that you will need to define for yourself. You might even find out that you are a progressive Dem. Go figure!


[ Parent ]
libertaqrians & progressives (0.00 / 0)
i have read some of your writings here and on the NHLA forum. I, too, feel there are natural alliances between liberals/progressives and libertarians. By I am confused by some of the NHLA stands - which seem to conflict with general national libertarian stands. For example, most libertarians, IMHO, support a woman's right to choose and aoppose

capital punishment. I do recall that NH libertarians were sujpportive of marriage equality.
My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that NHLA 'does not take a position" on right to choose and capital punishment. If so, this simply leads folks to feel that NHLA is simply a far right adjunct to the Republican partyy, unwillling to take positions that wojuld offend them.
   As to your poll as to "what you are (politically)", perhaps that is something that you will need to define for yourself. You might even find out that you are a progressive Dem. Go figure!


[ Parent ]
Yes, children are considered the "property" of their (0.00 / 0)
parents.  Which is why people who are in danger of having their parental rights terminated are provided with legal representation, at state expense, just as if they were in danger of being deprived of their liberty.  The children, on the other hand, are not deserving of legal representation.  At best they can be provided with a guardian ad litem who has no legal standing other than what a judge decides to recognize.

Would just add that in other contexts "control" (pest control, pollution control, animal control) refers to elimination--mostly.
I'm not sure these people are inconsistent.  Their position on what other women should be allowed to eliminate from their own bodies strikes me as similar.


the prime sponsor is offering an amendment (4.00 / 1)
Dan Itse has a floor amendment in the calendar.  It would truncate the amendment to merely state that "Parents have the natural right to control the health, education, and welfare of their children."  This does answer some of the objections of those (e.g, every member of the Children & Family Law committee aside from Itse himself) who opposed it in its original form.  It does so by rendering the amendment basically meaningless.

Itse (0.00 / 0)
IMHO, most everything Daniel Itse does is basically meaningless and a waste of time and money.  

CACR 29 | 10 comments
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox