Advancing New Hampshire Public Education

Home » Bills » CACR 3 (failed in the House) Parents have natural right to control education of their children

CACR 3 (failed in the House) Parents have natural right to control education of their children

Docket – ITL, 2/20/13 228-133

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 10; Rep. Comerford, Rock 33; Rep. Tucker, Rock 23; Rep. Kappler, Rock 3; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 5; Rep. Hoell, Merr 23

COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law

ANALYSIS: This constitutional amendment concurrent resolution provides that parents have the natural right to control the health, education, and welfare of their children.

ANHPE Analysis:This got little support last year and will do no better this year.

Here is the calendar on this bill for the Feb 20 House session:

CHILDREN AND FAMILY LAW

CACR 3, relating to parental rights. Providing that parents have the natural right to control the health, education, and welfare of their children. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Deanna S Rollo for the Majority of Children and Family Law: The United States and the New Hampshire Supreme Courts have consistently recognized the natural rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit. This constitutional amendment, although it may be well intended, presents unintended consequences. The rights of parents have to be balanced with the best interest of the children. The House has defeated this exact amendment on three previous occasions. Vote 14-6.

Rep. Daniel C Itse for the Minority of Children and Family Law: This proposed amendment to the constitution of the State of New Hampshire would enable the people to assert their natural right to parent their children, to control the health, education and welfare of their children. This amendment affirms repeated decisions of the supreme courts of the state and United States. It would in no way diminish the legitimate power of the state to intervene in situations where parents have committed some act that amounts to forfeiture, such as abuse or neglect. It would set forth as the standard for statute or enforcement the eventual result should a family have the resources to appeal to the highest courts.

 

Killed in the House

from the Union Leader

The House killed a proposed constitutional amendment that would give parents natural rights to control the health, education and welfare of their children on a 228-133 vote.CACR 3 supporters Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, said the question is whether it is the parent or the government who controls those under 16 years old. He said the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases supporting parental rights.“We should not be looking to the Supreme Court,” Hoell said. “We should look to constitution.”But Rep. Deanna Rollo, D-Rollinsford, argued the constitution is meant to guide society under the assumption the majority of people are law abiding citizens.“If you want to continue to change constitution to meet the needs of the few instead of the majority,” she said, “then vote for this amendment.”A similar bill was defeated four times in the last five years.


10 Comments

  1. Legislators, who oppose parental rights, do so because they do not consider parents to be their equals, but potentially the most dysfunctional members of society. Only an elitist legislature could hold so many constituents in contempt.

    • Bill Duncan says:

      Good to hear from you, Doris.

      I don’t know what’s in the minds of legislators who have opposed this amendment but, to me, it’s unclear what this amendment is trying to accomplish. “Natural rights” has become, what, a term-of-art, maybe, but the intentions are not claer to me and, I imagine, to others.

      • Natural rights are rights one has by virtue of being a human being. Among them are the rights to life, liberty and property, and to raise one’s children as one sees fit. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable.

        The family predates government. The rights of parents predate the authority of government to intercede on behalf of children when parents “fall short”, by the standards of “the wise” elders, in providing for them. CACR 3 recognizes those rights lest government oversteps its limited authority.

  2. In 1982 the people adopted Art 2-a as a reminder that our right to keep and bear arms was important. CACR 3 proposes Art 2-b a similar reminder for the rights of parents.

    If passed, parents like Maryanne Godboldo wouldn’t have to face an armed ordeal protecting her daughter from forced medication of a dangerous antipsychotic drug. https://www.cchrint.org/tag/forced-medication/

  3. Art. 2-a is a reminder of the importance of our natural right to keep and bear arms. CACR 3 or Art. 2-b would be a reminder of the importance of our natural rights as parents to direct the upbringing of our children.

    CACR 3 would help folks like Maryanne Godboldo avoid a Swat Team and arrest over the forced medication of her daughter with dangerous antipsychotic drugs. https://www.cchrint.org/tag/forced-medication/

  4. geauxteacher says:

    Bill – a movement picking up speed now is parents right to opt out of high stakes standardized testing. Colorado has such an option. Teachers in Seattle are pushing the envelope in refusing to administer their MAP test ( Garfield High) supported by parents but would be so much better if parents could/would take responsibility. Should be tested in court but expensive – vouchers to private/parochial schools in La. which aren’t required to test all students, and don’t. No private/parochial school students required to pass test to get diploma so why do public school students have to to get same diploma?

  5. geauxteacher says:

    I don’t think my last post made it so here it is again – parents right to opt out of high stakes standardized testing. Colorado has that provision though not well known and intimidation used to prevent it. Private and parochial schools in Louisiana give the same diploma as public schools but don’t have to test even when accepting voucher students ( who must test but are not prevented from graduating )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s