Ratifying the U.N. Conventions on the Rights of the Child?

Apparently, this could happen under Barack Obama.

I'm sure the leftwingers would argue, as Obama has, that "it's a disgrace" to be in the same league with Somalia because we haven't ratified this treaty. But the document could have far-reaching consequences for parents and alter how we can raise our children.

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Many liberals argue that good parents wouldn't be affected by the measure, but that probably depends upon one's interpretation of "good." If you want your child to attend your church and she wants to attend a different one, should the state tell you that you can't tell your child which church to attend? If your son decides he only wants to go to church once a month but you go every week, who should settle the differences? What if you want your daughter to get a job to help pay for her expenses but she wants "the right to leisure"? Should the government decide these disputes or should parents?

Good parenting requires not only trying to accommodate your child's desires but enforcing discipline where necessary. As the article notes, if you don't want your 12-year-old to have a Facebook account, the government could argue that this is a restriction on communication.

Fortunately, ratification of any treaty takes 2/3 of the Senate and Democrats have nowhere near that number. But don't think treaties of this nature are out of consideration.

The Age-Old Argument about Parenting

Tony Woodlief has this column in today's OpinionJournal on the age-old parenting argument between utopians and realists.

Mr. Sowell contrasted the "unconstrained vision" of utopians, who want to radically improve humankind, with the "constrained vision" of realists, who begin with the proposition that man is inherently self-interested, and not moldable into whatever form the high-minded types have in store for us once they get their itchy fingers on the levers of power. Mr. Sowell's book has been influential among conservatives for its compelling explanation of the divide between people who want to reshape us--often via large intrusions on liberty--and those who believe that the purpose of government is to protect institutions (like markets and families) that channel our inherent selfishness into productive behavior. It is also a handy guide for parenting.

While some mothers and fathers stubbornly cling to the utopian beliefs of their childless years, the vision of humans as inherently sinful and selfish resonates with many of us who are parents. Nobody who's stood between a toddler and the last cookie should still harbor a belief in the inherent virtue of mankind. An afternoon at the playground is apt to make one toss out the idealist Rousseau ("man is a compassionate and sensible being") in favor of the more realistic Hobbes ("all mankind [is in] a perpetual and restless desire for power"). As a father of four sons, I've signed on to Mr. Sowell's summation of a parent's duty: "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late."

I'm a realist. With three children in various stages of development--and two of them only 18 months apart--I have to be.

My oldest daughter, who was disciplined the most, has always been a model of decorum...at least before she entered high school, that is (there were other changes that I won't point to but with which I disapproved *ahem*). This was the child who won every award possible because she loved getting certificates of achievement and the "A" honor roll. In the fourth grade, this same child would go to school even when she was sick so she could get the "perfect attendance" award.

Her siblings are not so disciplined, although they both do fairly well academically. They are not as motivated by ribbons or certificates. They are motivated by computer time and cold, hard cash. I don't consider it bribery to give them money for straight "A" report cards, and I don't consider it cruelty to take away the computer when they bring home "N's" and "U's" in citizenship. This system seems to work for us.

My ex-husband would be more of a utopian, although I think he's becoming more of a realist the longer he has primary custody of our daughter. There was a time when he informed me that our daughter "would never do" various things. Unfortunately for him, he has discovered that she will, in fact, do the various things he thought she would "never" do. Why? Because, as a realist, I know humans are inherently selfish and self-motivated. We have to teach them to be good, kind, and giving. It doesn't come naturally.

This is what Woodlief also believes, and perhaps it is a conclusion most people with children come to through experience, not education. Yes, I started out thinking I simply needed to nurture the inner good of my children. But after watching them sneak brownies and complain about someone else getting the last cookie, I realized that their "inner good" only came out when I taught them to behave certain ways.

There are certain outcome differences between the parenting styles, I've noticed. Those who are utopian tend to have their 30-year-old children still living at home in bedrooms decorated for teenagers. Those of us who are realists produce children who can support themselves, spouses, and children at 30. Maybe the utopian parents just never figured out how to release their children's "inner adult."

"It's About Me."

So says Jenny Ballentine at a town hall meeting last week with John Edwards.

Ballentine complained that she was "busting her ass" to go to school, working, and having student loans.

The person who received a standing ovation during John Edwards' Monday night visit to the University of New Hampshire wasn't the presidential candidate or his wife, Elizabeth. It was Jenny Ballantine, who said she was looking for someone to believe in.

The 22-year-old described earning $8,000 in the past year while she worked on her political science degree. She said she was scared to take on loans for graduate school.

"I need help," she told the Democrat, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina who sought the office in 2004.

Ballantine appeared to be the type of voter John Edwards was reaching out to as he addressed a crowd of around 750 on the second floor of the Memorial Union Building.

I heard about Ballentine on Rush Limbaugh's show and tried to blog about it but couldn't find the original story then. I was appalled at Ballentine's narcissistic, self-centered view of what the presidency is for.

When I went to college, I lived at home with my parents, which was their contribution to my education. I worked 35 hours per week at the local newspaper and took a full load of classes. I made an informed decision not to move out of my parents house until I was finished with college because I knew the expenses involved were enormous.

This isn't to say Ballentine had the exact same choices. But she did know when she embarked upon a college education that if she took out student loans she'd be expected to pay them back. I still have $70,000 in loans from law school that I have to pay back, but I don't whine about it. It was a choice I made, after all.

The self-centeredness of her comment is just the latest evidence that our self-esteem driven education system is producing a crop of soft, whiny adults who are still expecting someone else to take care of them. Is it any wonder we hear about the quarter life crisis nonsense?

James Taranto at OpinionJournal publishes this e-mail about Ballentine:

Miss Ballantine's inquiry and the ridiculous response from the Edwardses underscores the "me first" mentality that has been force-fed into my generation. We grew up hearing from boomers in authority positions that we could do anything we wanted, and that if it felt good, we should surely do it. From K-12, we were given the proverbial gold star not because we did something correctly, but because we were "special people." Those who went above and beyond were on the same level of those who did the bare minimum and achieved less. Furthermore, those who whined the loudest often received the biggest stars because the authority figures wouldn't dare destroy their self-esteem.

Flash forward to Miss Ballantine's brush with the Edwardses. She notes that she has to work, go to school, and--gasp!--struggle a bit to eventually taste success. Their response is the biggest gold star of all: a standing ovation that proves she alone is "special," even though millions of Americans are in her very position.

Such behavior by the Edwardses only enables a generation desirous of constant praise and gold stars. A true leader would explain that life's greatest accomplishments are sweetest after its most trying struggles. But once again, the liberal mindset teaches that just experiencing life deserves a standing ovation. I'm concerned for my generation when something really tough happens in our lifetime.

And, indeed, Taranto points out that the social science backs up this assertion.

With a recent study showing that today's college students are the most narcissistic and self-centered in decades, a small chorus of professionals is offering a bold response: We have no one to blame but ourselves.

"Things went too far," says psychologist Jean Twenge, lead author of the study and a professor at San Diego State University.

What she means is that parents overcorrected for the harshness of a previous generation that preferred children to be "seen and not heard." She points to the soccer trophies that coaches hand out to all team members just for showing up rather than to a few for outstanding athleticism, and to a song taught in a colleague's daughter's preschool to the tune of "Frère Jacques": "I am special/I am special/Look at me."

"If you're that child, it's not surprising that pretty soon you start to believe it," says Twenge, whose new book, "Generation Me," examines feelings of entitlement among young Americans...

Called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, the study does not directly link children's increased entitlement to parenting style, but the connection is inescapable, says social psychologist and researcher Robert Horton of Wabash College in Indiana. Parent educators have long identified four styles of parenting: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive and passive. The styles are based on a combination of how loving and restrictive parents are.

In the authoritarian style, parents are not very affectionate but very controlling, says Horton. Permissive parents tend to lavish love but are barely able to impose limits or consequences, and passive parents tend to be literally unavailable as well as unreliable and unpredictable.

"The ideal is to express affection and set limits in a way that respects a child's feelings," says parent educator Nancy Samalin, director of the Parent Guidance Workshops in New York City. She's describing the authoritative style, probably the most labor intensive. It demands a careful balance between loving and restricting a child, between being involved but not suffocating. "It's a parent who sees the need for limits and is willing to be unpopular," says Samalin, author of the best-seller "Loving Without Spoiling."

Increasingly, being unpopular makes parents uncomfortable, says psychologist David Walsh of Minneapolis.

"Humans are born hard-wired with certain drives," he says — for instance, to fight or flee, to seek pleasure rather than pain, and to seek connection. "Think of the drives as a team of horses. If you learn how to hold the reins and manage the horses, they take you to wonderful places. If the horses get out of control — if one drive dominates — you end up in a ditch."

When I went through a devastating custody suit about 3 years ago, the case worker told me I was "authoritative" and that my ex was "more permissive." When 12-year-olds are given a choice between a parent that makes them do chores, help out, do homework, and obey rules while the other one sets no rules, guess which parent the child wants to live with? But that's a harangue for another day.

The point is that I knew I wouldn't always be popular because I try to make my kids do things the right way. But I also knew that the only way for them to become competent adults was to demand that they behave certain ways in childhood.

The oldest--the one living mainly at her father's--still carries that training with her. She's a very accomplished 15-year-old who takes honors classes, plays in the marching band, and plays soccer. And she's more disciplined than her siblings because my husband is more permissive. Battling your parenting styles can be exhausting, but I would rather work with my children so they don't become the next Jenny Ballentines rather than allow them to whine that it's all about them.

Drugmaker Stops Lobbying HPV Vaccine

Via Dana at CSPT, comes news that Merck has decided to stop being quite so brazen in its attempt to grab government money for STD vaccines for 11-year-old girls.

Merck & Co., bowing to pressure from parents and medical groups, is immediately suspending its lobbying campaign to persuade state legislatures to mandate that adolescent girls get the company’s new vaccine against cervical cancer as a requirement for school attendance.

The drug maker, which announced the change Tuesday, had been criticized for quietly funding the campaign, via a third party, to require 11- and 12-year-old girls get the three-dose vaccine in order to attend school.

I'm glad to see the brakes being put on this, although it doesn't address the problem I face here in Texas, since Governor Rick Perry unilaterally decided this wasn't a parent's decision to "opt in." Of course, questions about Perry's ties to Merck came up, but that hasn't stopped Governor Goodhair.

Last month, the AP reported that Merck was channeling money for its state-mandate campaign through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators across the country.

Conservative groups opposed the campaign, saying it would encourage premarital sex, and parents’ rights groups said it interfered with their control over their children.

Even two of the prominent medical groups that supported broad use of the vaccine, the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Practitioners, questioned Merck’s timing, Haupt said Tuesday.

“They, along with some other folks in the public health community, believe there needs to be more time,” he said, to ensure government funding for the vaccine for uninsured girls is in place and that families and government officials have enough information about it.

Legislatures in roughly 20 states have introduced measures that would mandate girls have the vaccine to attend school, but none has passed so far. However, Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Feb. 2 issued an executive order requiring Texas girls entering the sixth grade as of 2008 get the vaccinations, triggering protests from lawmakers in that state.

Perry defended his order Tuesday, a day after lawmakers in Austin held a lengthy hearing on the issue but failed to act on a bill to override the order.

The concerns of parents aren't just knee-jerk reactions of fundamentalists to government mandates like some people would have you believe. The vaccine was tested for less than five years, and only on a small number of younger teenagers. In short, they don't really know what the long-term effects of this vaccine could be on your daughter.

As of now, the best way to combat HPV is:

(a) Avoid having sex before marriage (that means both of you)

(b) Stay monogomous (that means both of you) during marriage, and

(c) Have yearly Pap smears. And if you just can't do (a) or (b), then

(d) Use barrier method protection.

Pap smears are considerably cheaper than the HPV vaccine, which protects against about 70% of the viruses that can cause cervical cancer. Because of the cost, it's a better method for trying to protect women from cervical cancer, rather than allowing government to mandate a vaccine for a non-communicable disease.

"No amount of carping, complaining or yelling and screaming is going to change that."

Says Texas Governor Rick Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, regarding the governor's order that all 12-year-old girls receive a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted virus.

Emphasizing the slight authority given Texas governors by history, two Austin lawyers say Gov. Rick Perry lacked the power to issue last week's order requiring girls to be vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer.

Perry's office counters that as the state's chief official, he can guide executive branch agencies.

"No amount of carping, complaining or yelling and screaming is going to change that," Perry spokesman Robert Black said. "If they want to challenge it, my guess is, they both know a trial lawyer or two to do their bidding. We'd be happy to take the governor's constitutional authority to court."

That sounds to me like Black was throwing down the gauntlet. He should be careful or some enterprising trial lawyer(s) will pick it up. Well, maybe they have:

Buck Wood, a lawyer whose career included work in Gov. John Connally's office in the 1960s, criticized the order. "This isn't even arguable. The governor doesn't have any power to dictate to any agency about what rules it makes."

Scott McCown, who served 14 years as a Democratic state district judge in Travis County, voiced similar concerns. Although state law permits governors to issue orders in emergencies, he said, Perry's move to protect young women doesn't clear that hurdle.

"It's a judgment call," said McCown, who initially commented in a column in Wednesday's American-Statesman. "But there is no way this is even close. There is no way this even qualifies" as an emergency.

The executive powers of Texas governors are notoriously restricted. The main power of governor is in being able to call the legislature into special session for 30 days. But executive orders? Let's see, Perry hasn't issued too many controversial executive orders. In fact, he hasn't done it at all (unless you consider creation of a Texas Task Force on Appraisal Reform to be cutting edge stuff).

The problem for Perry is that his bull-headedness on this issue has drawn way more attention to his heavy-handed approach instead of focusing it on why this vaccine should be mandatory. By not involving the legislature, he has virtually cut off debate among the electorate, and Texans are famously ornery.

"This is nuclear," said Rep. Dianne White Delisi, R-Temple. She spoke Wednesday as Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, circulated a letter to House colleagues to be sent to Perry, asking him to rescind the order.

"Regardless of whether it is a wise idea to vaccinate a child to prevent a sexually transmitted virus," Isett's letter says, "the legislative process is robust enough to give voice to every side of this issue."

Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for an expedited opinion on whether governors can issue executive orders.

"If so, does the law provide broad powers to grant executive orders, or are those powers limited to specific circumstances?" her letter asks.

Washington Initiative Requires Married Couples to Have Kids

From the "we want to keep government out of the bedroom" crowd, we have this.

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

I guess explaining that marriage is designed to protect the interests of children has now been translated into mandatory child-bearing. Where are the pro-choicers here?

Should This Be a Government Function?

I've been wrestling in my mind with how to approach the story about Texas Governor Rick Perry issuing an executive order mandating that all girls receive the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that causes cervical cancer.

I am of two minds on the issue. The first is that requiring vaccines for public health reasons is a normal government responsibility. My children have received many vaccines in their lives for everything from measles to chickenpox without ill effects. And I've never understood the anti-vaccine people, although I do understand there is some concern among them about increased rates of autism (which I'm not convinced is related).

The second mind is this: why is the governor getting involved in what amounts to a parenting decision? One doesn't get HPV, which can also cause genital warts, by casual contact but through intercourse. In other words, HPV isn't like getting measles or chickenpox. A person has to engage in certain specific behavior to get this. Is it really up to the government to protect young girls from behavior they shouldn't be engaging in in the first place? And if we are going to protect them from this disease, what about other sexually transmitted diseases? Should we require all girls to have protection against them as well? Does pregnancy fall into this category?

According to Pandagon (where I originally read about the vaccine), parents who don't want their daughters getting this vaccine would rather they die of cancer than admit they will have sex one day. Read that sentence again. Parents who don't want their daughters to get the HPV vaccine would rather they die of cancer than admit their daughters will have sex one day. This is just another example of the Amanda Marcotte way of discussing a topic. I wonder if the Edwards campaign is going to ask her to clarify this one. Here's more:

Under the opt-out policy, however, if you want to keep your daughter in danger of getting cervical cancer, you have to get an opt-out form, fill it out, sign it, and make your daughter take it back to school and then the school officials will know that you’re the kind of creep that would rather have your daughter be dead from cancer than to face up to the fact that she is going to grow up and have sex one day. On top of that, you run the risk of having your daughter get cancer or even just genital warts one day and remembering that you took action to deny her treatment that would spare her this pain. I don’t know about you, but if I found out my parents had a chance to spare me from a disease but they went out of their way to make sure that I wasn’t spared, I’d be furious. I may even refuse to speak to them again. I’d blame them for my cancer. And I’d be right to do so.

Amanda has no children, of course, and as Patterico said, doesn't plan on any any time soon.

That is her right, naturally, but if people who haven't served in the military don't have a right to comment on the war in Iraq, shouldn't people without kids not be allowed to say stupid things about parenthood?

After reading Amanda's screed, here's what I was wondering: is there any reason women can't get the vaccine once they reach adulthood? There's no indication that only teenagers are eligible for the vaccine. Worse yet for the pro-vaccine people, the vaccines available only work on some HPVs, not all that cause cervical cancer. So women would still need to get regular Pap smears (one Pandagonista said parents who didn't want this vaccine must want their daughters getting a Pap smear every year because otherwise they wouldn't need one).

In other words, while the vaccine would have some beneficial effects, it isn't a cure-all against cervical cancer and the vast majority of teens aren't having sex anyway.

I guess Amanda doesn't understand that just because one's daughters might have sex one day doesn't mean they will be teenagers when they do so. If my adult daughter chooses to engage in sexual activity, that's her business. If she does it as a teenager, that's my business.

I don't think the people who object to this vaccine think that giving girls the vaccine will make them go out and have sex (the strawman argument Amanda constructs). But rather, they think it is a gross intrusion on their right to determine health care for their children. We're not talking about easily communicable diseases here. That's when it should be a government concern. It appears to me Governor Perry is stepping over the line.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

UPDATE: There are charges that Gov. Perry has a conflict of interest in making this vaccine mandatory for sixth grade girls.

Texas Eagle Forum president Cathie Adams believes "corruption" is at play. Adams explains that Governor Perry's former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is now a lobbyist for Merck, the manufacturer of the vaccine.

"Not only that," continues the family acvocate, "his current chief of staff is the daughter-in-law of the chairman of the health committee in the State House of Texas -- and she's also a member of Women in Government." Adams describes that group as a "Merck-supported, -funded, and -organized group of legislators."

The Nanny State Takes Over for Parents

There are several stories this week about government interfering with parenting issues (via ifeminists.net):

The jail-for-spanking plan has been put on hold.

"This home-invasion bill has been stopped cold by parents and grandparents who know that to love children is to discipline them and show them the way to live," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, a non-profit, non-partisan pro-family group in California.

"Because so many people have spoken out, the Democrats in Sacramento realize that their liberal agenda is offending a whole lot of people."

Don't miss those parent-teacher conferences if you live in Texas.

A Republican state lawmaker from Baytown has filed a bill that would charge parents of public school students with a Class C misdemeanor and fine them for playing hooky from a scheduled parent-teacher conference.

Excuses are allowed, but be prepared to have a good one...

Rep. Wayne Smith said Wednesday he wants to get parents involved in their child's education.

"I think it helps the kids for the parents and teachers to communicate. That's all the intent was," Smith said, adding he talked to teachers, including his daughter, who teaches in junior high, before filing the bill.

I'm all for parents being involved but fining 'em for missing a parent-teacher conference (which are frequently scheduled at bad times and/or run wayyyy late) isn't the way to foster that involvement.

In the U.K., social workers are putting fat kids on the same child protection register as children suffering from sexual or physical abuse.

The intervention of social services in what was previously regarded as a private matter is likely to raise concerns about the emergence of the “fat police”.

Some doctors even advocate taking legal action against parents for illtreating their children by feeding them so much that they develop health problems.

Don't feed 'em too much but make sure they get their contraception early.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.