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.

Keep Johnny Shaw in Tennessee

Representatives - TN General Assembly - Johnny Shaw

We must commend Johnny Shaw on a job well done!

He saw that a bill being passed the way it was written was a loss for children in the state of Tennessee and he spoke out about it. Kudos to Johnny Shaw!

“I am on that committee to do what’s best for the children of this state. And equal parenting is not what’s best, in every case, for the children.”

The entire article and (link):

Equal Time Parenting Pulled from Committee
Tuesday, April 06th, 2010, by Joe White
A bill in the Tennessee legislature meant to give divorced parents equal time with their children is off the table. The measure was yanked out of committee by its sponsor Tuesday.
Republican Mike Bell of McMinn County says his bill was always intended to give children of divorced parents an equal opportunity to know them both.

Fellow Republican Donna Rowland amended the bill to give disgruntled dads only “maximum opportunity” instead of “equal time.” Bell withdrew his bill.

“Mr. Chairman, with this amendment added, I think that it doesn’t do anything to change the current law, and it would, in fact, it might even give some people false hope that we’ve done something productive.”

The push for equal time is backed by organizations made up largely of fathers who say they are shortchanged by the current system. William Fain of “Families United” says they will likely revive the issue next year.

While the law won’t change this year, the attention paid to custody rights has made waves around the state. Members of the House Children and Family Affairs Committee say some family courts have changed local rules that had given mothers an advantage in custody battles.

The bill is HB 2916 Bell/SB 2881 Bunch.

Rowland, a Murfreesboro Republican, had crafted an amendment that took out the “equal time” provisions and said the court should strive to give each parent “maximum opportunity” to be with the child or children. Bell tried to change the wording back, had his amendment rejected, and immediately withdrew the bill from consideration.

Committee member Johnny Shaw, a Madison County Democrat, was unhappy with the Children and Family Affairs Committee having been a venue for unhappy divorced parents.


“I am on that committee to do what’s best for the children of this state. And equal parenting is not what’s best, in every case, for the children.”

The bill focused on “he said, she said” testimony for several weeks until committee members called a halt and asked for more information from the courts themselves on the disposition of custody cases.




Now write in and thank him for a job well done - a true child advocate!