Legislature working to protect parental rights

Last week, The House of Representatives heard HB113, a bill dealing with parental rights.

This bill was somewhat innocuous, as it merely qualified pre-existing rights, as determined by our courts, as “fundamental” rights. This distinction is important, however, because it establishes that parents have “fundamental” rights as it regards their children. This means that the rights of a parent are superior to that of public entities when it comes to making decisions about the child.

The final vote tally in the House was 37-31-2. This was an oddly close vote in my opinion. Who could be against a parent having the ultimate decision making authority when it comes to their child? It is acceptable that the state may intervene when there is actual documented abuse. But when differences of opinion arise as to what is best for a child, the parent should trump the state.

A majority of the debate centered around how this qualification would affect the education system, but in this, most of those opposed were missing the point of the bill.

What can be witnessed, over the past few years, is a growth in the scope of the state’s authority over a child. Frequently, rules are enacted that give state employees authority over what happens to a child. These rules are not only found in the education system, but increasingly, in the home as well. Occas-ionally, the vision of the state for a child is not shared by the parents, and an inevitable conflict will occur. HB 113 was written to provide guidance in settling these disputes.

Earlier this year, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, in concert with early childhood education proponents, requested additional funding for a program that was initiated by a federal grant. This program was piloted in Health District 1 and was voluntary. The program consisted of “intensive” home visitation programs for new families with children from prenatal to 5 years old. The purpose of these visitations was to “coach” parents on the importance of reading readiness for school, provide medical service information, and to guide the family to any social assistance programs that may be available.

While these may seem like noble causes, this type of program should be met with much caution. The trajectory of government programs is generally to grow and to create more reason for their own existence. Often, many well meaning people will continue to add to the scope of a program until, in the interest of the state, it becomes mandatory.

Scotland has instituted a law, based on the U.N. treaty on the rights of the child, that appoints a social worker to every child, before birth. Canada has a similar law that is not yet fully mandatory, but allows the state to interject itself on behalf of the child, when it deems it necessary. Ten states in the United States have similar programs, and in 2013, Ohio attempted to pass a law that would require those who wish to homeschool their children be approved by a state social services worker.

Aristotle proposed that the state could produce the perfect citizen, if the child were educated by the state and according to its standards. As we follow this philosophy historically, it is mainly present in communist and other oppressive regimes. However, we are witnessing its fruits in the West as well. The conclusion that the state is better qualified to make decisions about children than are the parents should be offensive to everyone. HB 113 protects the “fundamental” rights of a parent, and we ought to encourage the Senate to pass it on to the governor, with the hope of it becoming Idaho law.