Support for pro-abuser bills S.J. Res. 16 and H.J. Res. 42

S. J. Res. 16 reads:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to parental rights.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article--

`Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

`Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the child involved is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

`Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

`Section 4. This article shall take effect after the date of ratification.'.

---

H.J. Res. 42 reads:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article--

‘Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

‘Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

‘Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.’.

---

Well-meaning individuals think this will keep the government from interfering with your rights as parents to educate your child how you see fit, this is a back door for those who abuse mothers and children to continue to abuse. Think it cannot happen? When a court gets it right and protects a mother and child from being abused by husband/boyfriend/dad, this same abuser will claim his rights under SJ Res 16 or HJ Res 42 and will be able to get the courts out of HIS life, and as such have the ability to continue abusing the mother and possibly even children. This will be because the courts are a state (read government) entity and as such should not and can not be able to interfere with his parental rights.

Is this what we intended when this bill was created? If an abused mother tries to assert any rights under state or federal law protecting her rights to be free from abuse, the father can then simply assert his rights under these resolutions. Who wins in this situation?

---

Now who supports these bills? Who does not? We will not engage in finger pointing, we will simply alert the voting public as to who is NOT supporting these bills, possibly for the very same reason we give. You can draw your own conclusion as to who is supporting by simple elimination :-)

Now the subsequent posts on this will be below this article for you to read. When I have completed each state's post, I will post links to each individual post in this article.

HR Res 42: Non support in Florida

These are the representatives from Florida who have used half a brain and thought out what this resolution will mean to abused women and children:

1. Allen Boyd (D)
2. Corrine Brown (D)
3. Cliff Stearns (R)
4. John Mica (R)
5. Alan Grayson (D)
6. Gus Bilirakis (R)
7. C.W. Bill Young (R)
8. Kathy Castor (D)
9. Adam Putnam (R)
10. Connie Mack (R)
11. Kendrick Meek (D)
12. Robert Wexler (D)
12. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D)
14. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R)
15. Ron Klein (D)
16. Alcee Hastings (D)
17. Suzanne Kosmas (D)
18. Mario Diaz-Balart (R)

---

All of these seats are up for grabs on November 2, 2010, so please get the word out and let these politicians know that you support their decision (even if they are unaware of said decision) to NOT support HJ Res 42.

SJ Res 16: Non support in Florida

The Senate is easy to show who has thought out there actions and support. There are NO senators who do NOT support this Resolution.