2/17/2004
Parents rights ... again
House Speaker Johnnie Byrd is not content with an abortion parental-notification amendment to the Florida. He wants a Parental Rights Amendment in the Florida Constitution. Most coverage treats this as the brainchild of Byrd, but the Christian right has been campaigning for Parental Rights Amendments nationwide. In 1996, recently, one was defeated in Colorado (Also see here. A sweeping federal parental rights bill was part of the Christian Coalition's "Contract with the American Family" in 1995. (Remember? Back in the Newt Gringrich days? It all seems so long ago.)
Educators feared such a sweeping "parental rights" amendment would void basic protections of children like mandatory school attendance laws, minimum drinking-age laws, tobacco restrictions for youth or infant car-seat requirements -- hey, these interfere with my rights as a parent! Others worried that it would encourage litigation against schools, teachers, youth counselors, child-protection workers and doctors. You make a sweeping constitutional law saying parents can do anything they want with their kids and you shouldn't be surprised when parents start using it in court.
Is this any different?
Looks like another bit of Byrd's grandstanding to get himself noticed in a crowded US Senate primary. But it has the potential for tying the Legislature in knots and preventing it from doing that dumb ol' boring stuff, like, you know, maybe passing a budget on time.
Educators feared such a sweeping "parental rights" amendment would void basic protections of children like mandatory school attendance laws, minimum drinking-age laws, tobacco restrictions for youth or infant car-seat requirements -- hey, these interfere with my rights as a parent! Others worried that it would encourage litigation against schools, teachers, youth counselors, child-protection workers and doctors. You make a sweeping constitutional law saying parents can do anything they want with their kids and you shouldn't be surprised when parents start using it in court.
Is this any different?
Looks like another bit of Byrd's grandstanding to get himself noticed in a crowded US Senate primary. But it has the potential for tying the Legislature in knots and preventing it from doing that dumb ol' boring stuff, like, you know, maybe passing a budget on time.
