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.

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.

Texas State Senator Bob Deuell: Working To Protect Children from Porno-Loving Parents (Randall County, Texas)

State Senator Bob Dueell
This is a duplicate post of the one below about District Attorney James Farren, however it bears repeating so that all the good guys have their day. I know many protective parents want to know who will be in their corner fighting hard to keep our precious children safe. Too bad we have so few. I am issuing a challenge to all elected officials:

Get on our list. We might be a brand new website but we will publish the good actions you take. We do vote and we do discuss politics with our families and friends. So please do right by the children and be here. We want the good guys and gals in office, not the bad.....

With that here is the rerun of the article and KUDOS to you Senator Dueell!!!

The Associated Press typically does not publish the names of parents if it could identify children who might have been abused, but Buckner is seeking publicity about the case so the law changes. She has the backing of state Sen. Bob Deuell, a Republican from Greenville, who has said he's planning to push for a change in the law in the 2011 legislative session.

DA seeks new strategy to prosecute porn case



A district attorney in the Texas Panhandle says he is exploring a different theory to try to prosecute a father accused of forcing two young daughters to watch pornography despite a state attorney general's opinion allowing him to proceed.


Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a ruling Friday saying that Randall County District Attorney James Farren can prosecute the Amarillo father under a Texas public indecency law because bringing charges "is within the prosecutor's substantial discretion." Farren, who had asked for Abbott's opinion because the law apparently protects the father, said he believes he can't get a conviction, but that he is exploring ways of prosecuting the man. "While we have been waiting for this opinion, we haven't been sitting still," Farren said. "We have not decided not to file the case. We have decided we are going to continue this investigation under a new theory of prosecution."

He declined to elaborate a possible strategies. "If the evidence bears out what I suspect, then I believe there is a way to prosecute this case," Farren said. The law apparently was meant to protect the privacy of parents who want to teach their children about sex education. It states clearly that parents can't be prosecuted for showing "harmful material" to their children.

The father is accused of showing hardcore online pornography to his 8- and 9-year-old daughters in his Amarillo home early last year. The father has not been charged with a crime.

Police reported the incident to Farren's office after one of the girls told a counselor in June that her father made them watch adults having sex on his computer at his home in Amarillo. The parents of the girls, and their 7-year-old sister, are divorced and at the time shared custody.

The girls' mother, Crystal Buckner, said Monday she won temporary custody in September. Her girls' visits with their father are now supervised, she said. She said she would support Farren prosecuting her ex-husband. "I know that he is outraged about the loophole in the law, and as long as he is willing to move forward I'm in Dallas here to support him," she said. "I'm pretty confident he's going to keep fighting."

She has said she doesn't want to keep parents from teaching sex education to their children but believes there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. The Associated Press typically does not publish the names of parents if it could identify children who might have been abused, but Buckner is seeking publicity about the case so the law changes. She has the backing of state Sen. Bob Deuell, a Republican from Greenville, who has said he's planning to push for a change in the law in the 2011 legislative session.

Buckner said the incident happened early last year. Her three children were watching a movie, though the youngest one had fallen asleep. Buckner said the girls' father was at his computer and told the girls to come look at what the screen. She said she "was outraged" when she first learned of the allegation. "I was shaking," Buckner said. "I just couldn't believe my 8- and 9-year old daughters know more than teenagers know about sex."