Hilary White

Irish Children’s Rights Referendum will make children property of the state: U.S. legal expert

Hilary White
Hilary White

DUBLIN, November 5, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.comt) – A proposed “Children’s Rights” amendment to the Irish constitution will make children “creatures” of the Irish state, totally subject to the whims of state officers, who can order them adopted out to strangers without even judicial review, an American legal expert has warned.

The public is set to vote on the wording, which was described by the expert as “frightening,” on November 10th. Michael Vacca, a lawyer with the group Alliance Defending Freedom, a non-governmental organization focusing on religious freedom and family law issues, says the language places the rights of children at odds with the rights of their parents and the family, a move that is in direct contradiction to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Ireland is signatory.

“The Children’s Rights Referendum gives Ireland absolute control over children in Ireland, who are subjected to the fancies of the State and can be deprived of loving and caring parents without a clear showing of parental neglect or abuse.”

Vacca has written a comprehensive analysis of the proposed new wording to Ireland’s constitution in response to questions by LifeSiteNews.com. He told LSN that he hopes it will help to educate the Irish public on the threat to the family and to children posed by the government’s amendment. Recent polls show that, with millions of public and private funds being spent on the Yes campaign, and the No side coming late and underfunded to the fight, the referendum is likely to overwhelmingly pass the new wording.

Read: Why You Must Vote “No” on Ireland’s Children’s Rights Referendum on November 10th

“If this Referendum passes, Irish children will belong to the State, and parents will be powerless to protect their own children from the State,” Vacca warned.

“Ireland is legally obligated to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Children’s Rights Referendum will place Ireland out of step with the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world.”

In the proposal, “The child is viewed as an isolated individual rather than as a part of the family,” Vacca said. “As a result, the child becomes a creature of the State of Ireland. Ironically, by claiming the authority of Ireland to safeguard the best interests of the child independent of parental rights, Ireland would thus violate the right of children not to have their families interfered with through the dismissal of parental rights.”

Ominously, given the current government’s growing antipathy towards the Catholic Church, Vacca warns that the ambiguity of the new wording could be used to impose a secularist interpretation of “best interests” and remove children from homes based on anti-religious prejudice.

“Whether, for example, a child’s safety or welfare is ‘likely to be prejudicially affected’ may very well depend upon the religion or culture of that child’s parents, or rather, the perception which an agent of the State has about that religion or culture,” he said.

The Irish state has claimed that the referendum will bolster protections for children according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But Vacca has found that it is precisely the rights defined by that document that will be threatened by the proposed amendment. He points out that the Convention on the Rights of the Child “explicitly and implicitly protects parental rights” as the best means of protecting children. Despite it being the Convention’s foundational principle, any mention of protections for the family is glaringly omitted from the wording.

The Convention’s Preamble states that the family, is “the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children,” and as such “should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community”.

But far from protecting families, Vacca says, the government’s Committee on the Rights of the Child has “so contorted the express language used in the Convention that it has effectively interpreted [it] as a means for the State to usurp parental rights”.

The amendment’s wording grants the state the right to dissolve the family. It asserts that in undefined “exceptional cases” the “State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents.” It allows children to be seized by the state and adopted out to others against the will of their natural parents “where the best interests of the child so require,” with “best interests” also remaining undefined.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, however, is quite specific about the meaning of “best interests” and defines it clearly as being “intrinsically connected with the protection of parental rights based on the family,” Vacca says.

Article 3(2) of the Convention says, “States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her…”

Vacca writes, “Lest States are tempted to think that they are the primary guarantors of the ‘best interests of the child,’ Article 3(2) makes clear that the best interests of the child standard necessarily involves the protection of parental rights.”

Further, the Convention repeats the priority of the rights of parents, saying in Article 5, “States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents”. According to the Convention, Vacca says, “Implicit in every child’s right, to education, to healthcare, to clothing and shelter, etc, is the right of children to exercise such rights within their family, that is, within the context of parental rights and duties.”

“There are no children’s rights which of their nature exclude parental rights because all the rights of a child should be exercised, if possible, within their respective families.”

The Convention also prohibits states from arbitrarily and unilaterally removing children from their parents’ supervision, even in “exceptional cases” where the child is subject to abuse. The determination of the State to remove children from their parents must be subject to judicial review, and courts must have the authority to return a child to his parents if that is in the “best interests” of the child. “The Convention on the Rights of the Child presumes that parents act in the ‘best interests’ of their children,” Vacca said.

Vacca says it is the proposal’s blanket permission to adopt children out without their parents’ consent that is “most frightening” because the grounds for this extreme action are left entirely to the discretion of the state to define.

The state can adopt out children when parents fail in their “duty” but this is undefined, and “in practice means …whatever the State of Ireland wants it to mean”.

“Secondly, since the ‘best interests of the child’ is determined without regard to parental rights, it is the State which unilaterally determines the ‘best interests of the child.’

“Thirdly, the period of time that parents must fail in their duty towards their child to have their child taken away from them without their consent is unspecified, and could theoretically be a very short period of time.”

Many of the amendment’s critics have pointed out that the scandals involving abuse of children in various institutions, that prompted the proposal for the referendum, occurred in state-funded and supervised institutions, not within private families. Moreover, the amendment includes no language to create a mechanism or structure to supervise state officials in their dealings with children.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Michelle Kaufman, New Zealand Correspondent

,

Abortion group targets pro-life doctors, nurses with new website: New Zealand

Michelle Kaufman, New Zealand Correspondent
By Michelle Kaufman

Pro-life health practitioners and crisis pregnancy centres in New Zealand are the target of a new website designed to intimidate those who choose not to refer for abortion or prescribe contraception.

The website, My Decision, is created by the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ). 

The site lists health practitioners and crisis pregnancy centres which they believe women should avoid.  The incomplete list includes the names of individuals or organisations, the region and town, and whether they are a doctor, nurse or other provider. 

Women are asked to submit their stories of “hostile or unhelpful health professionals.”  The stories are non-identifying and can be edited for length or clarity.  At the time of writing only two stories had been posted.

In an earlier blog post, ALRANZ mentioned that the new website, which was still under construction at the time, is “aimed at shining the light on ‘conscientious objectors’… who deny people the reproductive healthcare they want or need.”

Right to Life NZ says they believe the site is “denigrating the good name and reputations of health professionals who believe that abortion is a harmful choice.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Under New Zealand law, health practitioners can object to providing reproductive health services according to their conscience.  However, there is one caveat – they “must inform the person who requests the service that he or she can obtain the service from another health practitioner or from a family planning clinic.”

 “Sonscientious objection is a fundamental right and one that must be preserved if we are to continue to live in a free and civil society,” said Chris O’Brien, Vice President of Right to Life NZ. “We risk tyranny if this right is taken away.”

“There are very good doctors that appear on that website” said Dame Colleen Bayer, whose Dunedin Family Life Crisis Pregnancy Centre is also named.  “These doctors speak truthfully and have real care and concern for their patients.  Women do themselves a disservice to discount them based on this information.”

The resource section on the My Decision website links to ALRANZ, Family Planning (an affiliate of International Planned Parenthood Federation and an abortion provider), and the website Abortion Services in New Zealand. 

The Abortion Services website is sponsored by ISTAR Ltd, a registered Charitable Trust which is the sole importer of mifepristone into New Zealand.  ISTAR also provides Manual Vacuum Aspiration equipment for early surgical abortions.

ALRANZ, was instrumental in the writing of the Greens abortion policy, which was unveiled earlier this year.  That policy aims to take abortion out of the Crimes Act making it more accessible.  The policy also targets health professionals who may conscientiously object to ensure they refer patients on to a “neutral practitioner”.

More information about freedom of conscience in healthcare 


Advertisement
Featured Image
The government is proposing allowing the killing of pre-born babies suspected of being disabled and those conceived through rape or incest.
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

Northern Ireland considers allowing killing disabled unborn babies: pro-lifers condemn

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

Northern Ireland’s leading pro-life group, Precious Life, has condemned this week's announcement by Justice Minister David Ford that a consultation on changing the abortion law will be "ready by autumn." The government is considering allowing the killing of pre-born babies suspected of being disabled and those conceived through rape or incest.

“Abortion is a serious criminal offence in Northern Ireland,” said the director of Precious Life, Bernadette Smyth. “The law here protects unborn babies, and David Ford as Minister for Justice must ensure that all children are legally protected."

Last December, Ford revealed he would be undertaking a consultation to consider changes to the law after he heard the stories of two women, who complained that they had not been allowed to abort their babies who had been diagnosed with anencephaly. Instead, they said, they had traveled to Britain for abortions.

Abortion was refused under Northern Ireland’s laws because the diagnosis of anencephaly for the child poses no medical threat to the mother.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

On Monday Ford told the BBC that the Department of Justice would bring forward its consultation paper on changing Northern Ireland's abortion laws by the fall.

However, Smyth warned that “the core ethical principle which must underpin this discussion is that every child deserves the right to life regardless of how short their life may be, and regardless of the circumstances of their conception."

She vowed that Precious Life will launch a public campaign in support of the life of all unborn babies.

“We all feel enormous sympathy for parents in these traumatic and distressing cases," Precious Life stressed in a statement. "But parents in these difficult situations deserve much more than our sympathy – they need a professional support system in place, which will provide them with help, support and resources.

"Precious Life are resolved to work towards a solution that loves and protects both mother and baby. Once again we call on the Health Minister to immediately establish perinatal hospice services for parents who have received a poor or difficult prenatal diagnosis for their baby,” said Smyth.

 

Contact:

Justice Minister David Ford
Department of Justice
Stormont Estate
Belfast, Northern Ireland
BT4 3SG
Phone:(028) 9076 3000
Email: via website (http://www.dojni.gov.uk/contact-us.htm)


Advertisement
Featured Image
80% of parents who have an unborn child with spina bifida choose abortion. But Chad Judice (pictured with Eli) knows that life is worth it.
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Abortion? No way. Dad says son with spina bifida is a ‘gift’ to the family.

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

What is the most pro-life, pro-God influence in your life? According to Catholic author and speaker Chad Judice, his five-year old, disabled son has been a tremendous source of happiness and faith for even the hardest of hearts.

In an op-ed published in The New York Post, Judice writes that when he and his wife found out their unborn son Elijah had spina bifida, they were offered the option of abortion. While they chose life, it didn't stop them from fearing the worst for their careers, eldest child, and Eli.

"That evening...Ashley cried as she read to me from the literature we’d been given," writes Judice. "It said 80 percent of parents who receive a spina bifida diagnosis choose abortion."

"And it told us that our son might have learning disabilities and be paralyzed from the waist down, unable to ever walk."

According to WemMD.com, the two most common forms of spina bifida have few, if any effects, on those who have them. However, the most rare and most aggressive form of the disability can result in significant problems for life:

  • Little or no feeling in their legs, feet, or arms, so they may not be able to move those parts of the body.
  • Bladder or bowel problems, such as leaking urine or having a hard time passing stools.
  • Fluid buildup in the brain (hydrocephalus). Even when it is treated, this may cause seizures, learning problems, or vision problems.
  • A curve in their spine, such as scoliosis.

Eli's form of spina bifida was severe, but -- as it turned out -- manageable, writes Judice. Despite surgeries and "medical challenges," he was out of the hospital within thirty days, though seizures and surgeries would continue to challenge the family. At five-and-a-half, he is entering kindergarten, learning to walk with modern technology, and "his intelligence is at or above average, and he's very talkative."

But perhaps the greatest miracle of all, Judice says, is the effect Eli has had on those who are outside of the family. His story has helped "some pregnant mothers...to reject abortion," and "rekindle the dormant faith of some...drawing them into a life with more room for God and family."

One of those rekindled Christians was a man who, after years in prison, prayed for Eli "as he recited The Lord's Prayer." According to Judice, "it was the first time he’d prayed in 30 years."

Since Eli's birth, Judice has written two books about his son and their family. "Waiting for Eli: A Father's Journey from Fear to Faith" was the first, and has received praise from Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. According to Pavone, it is "an inspiring story of faith, hope, love, and the power of prayer."

"The world judges the value of human life by physical perfection, but God sees things differently. To Him, we are perfectly lovable in our imperfection. Uplifting in its reverence for human life in its most fragile stages, WAITING FOR ELI will encourage pro-life activists everywhere, from the most seasoned to the newly initiated."

Also unstinting in praise was the Chair of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, Archbishop Daniel Cardinal Dinardo, who writes for Judice's website that the book "chronicles [Judice's] spiritual journey from fear of one’s personal limitations to self-abandonment to the divine mercy of God’s providence."

The second book, "Eli's Reach: On the Value of Human Life and the Power of Prayer," received the "Best Book by Small Publisher" award in 2013 by the Catholic Press Association.

"I think of Eli as God’s special gift to my family," Judice wrote in the Post. "And as I share about him, Eli’s story softens hearts and brings people to a greater appreciation of the beauty and sacredness of life."


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook