New fight brews over UN treaty on children's rights

BY DAVID CRARY
ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK -- A global children's rights treaty, ratified by every United Nations member except the United States and Somalia, has so alarmed its American critics, led by a Michigan congressman, that some are now pushing to add a parental rights amendment to the Constitution as a buffer against it.

The result is a feisty new twist to a long-running saga over the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The nearly 20-year-old treaty has ardent supporters and opponents in the United States, and both sides agree that its chances of ratification -- while still uncertain -- are better under the Obama administration than at any point in the past.

Opponents of the treaty contend it would enable government officials and a Geneva-based UN committee of experts to interfere with parental authority. Its supporters view the treaty as a valuable guidepost for children's basic rights -- including education, health care and protection from abuse -- and say its global goals are undermined by the refusal of the United States to ratify it.

"No UN treaty will ever usurp the national sovereignty of this country," said Meg Gardinier, who chairs a national coalition backing the treaty. "Ratification would boost our credibility globally."

Gardinier said her coalition -- with scores of partners ranging from Amnesty International to the Girl Scouts of the USA -- has learned to be patient, and hopes an all-out push for Senate ratification will be mounted by the third year of Barack Obama's presidency.

Opponents prepare

The treaty's opponents said they will be ready to fight back, and the proposed parental rights amendment is a key part of their strategy.

Introduced this spring by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Republican from Holland in western Michigan, the amendment now has 80 of his fellow Republicans as co-sponsors in the House. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said he plans to introduce it in the Senate.

Hoekstra acknowledged that they are far short of the two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress needed to forward the amendment to the states, but said the dynamics could change if the treaty advances to a Senate vote.

"We better lay the groundwork," Hoekstra said. "The last thing you want to be is unprepared if something pops up on the radar screen."

Hurdles to amendment

His amendment opens by declaring: "The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right."

It says the federal government and the states cannot infringe on that right without clear justification and then concludes: "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."

Ratification of any international treaty requires two-thirds support in the 100-member Senate, a hurdle that would -- in the chamber's current makeup -- require more than a half-dozen Republicans to join majority Democrats.

Critics of the treaty hope to intensify public opposition.

"If the American public is informed on this, there's no chance it will be ratified," said Michael Farris, a conservative lawyer who helped draft the parental rights amendment.

Farris recently wrote a detailed critique contending that the treaty could bar U.S. parents from spanking their children and empower girls to have abortions without parental consent.

Supporters of the treaty said such warnings are vastly overstated.

"The reality is that no country that is a party to the convention has seen parental rights encroached," said Jonathan Todres, a law professor at Georgia State University who has worked with Gardinier's coalition. Todres also noted that there are no enforcement mechanisms or penalties.

The effectiveness of the treaty is also the subject of vigorous debate. Supporters said it has prompted dozens of countries to improve their laws dealing with children.