As Steve Benen notes:[Republican Rep. Peter] Hoekstra last week introduced a bill in the House to amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently "enshrine" in American society an inviolable set of parents' rights. The bill had 70 co-sponsors, all Republicans, including Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Minority Leader John A. Boehner.
The bill, said Hoekstra, is intended to stem the "slow erosion" of parents' rights and to circumvent the effects of a United Nations treaty he believes "clearly undermines parental rights in the United States."
The treaty to which he refers is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a 20-year-old document signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 but never ratified. The treaty sets international standards for government obligations to children in areas that range from protection from abuse and exploitation to ensuring a child's right to free expression.
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child isn't, or at least shouldn't be, especially controversial. In fact, there are a grand total of two countries in the U.N. that have not ratified the treaty -- Somalia and the United States. Both President Obama and Ambassador Susan Rice have stated publicly they'd like to see this change.
But this, in turn, has only encouraged far-right Republican lawmakers and their allies to push a new constitutional amendment to protect "parental rights" from protections for children. One GOP activist, Michael Farris, who helped craft Hoekstra's proposed constitutional amendment, said the right of parents to "administer reasonable spankings to their children" must be protected.
I am nonplussed. I thought the GOP leadership in was deathly afraid of us getting too distracted from the serious economic crisis we are facing, which they are totally, 100% super serious about addressing. I, for one, applaud the GOP (and our Somali brothers) for standing up for the right to belt your child, against every other member of the United Nations.
Sigh...
