To the Editor,

In respects to your children, that depends — it may be you, or, according to over 100 members of Congress, it might be our central government. The “Parental Rights Amendment” has been proposed in Congress and gained the endorsement of over 100 members. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea — the “constitutionalizing” of a parent’s “right” to the rearing of their children. However, do not let this benign-sounding title fool you.

There are five short sections to this proposed amendment and space will not permit me to delve into each of them and its threat to the parental-child relationship. I did devote a full 30-minutes to them on my web-radio program recently, and you may listen to it here: Understanding Our Founders’ Constitution — the Parental Rights Amendment.

• Section One states parents’ upbringing of their children is a “fundamental right.” Parents do not have “rights” vis-à-vis their children — they have responsibilities. You may choose or not choose to exercise a right, but you are obligated to fulfill a responsibility.

• Section Two states, in part, that parents have “the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.” Sounds good, until you pause and ask “Who defines what constitutes ‘reasonable choices’?” This question is answered in the following section.

•Section Three reads “Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.” Let that sink in — as a parent you have the so-called “right” to your children unless the government decides otherwise!

•Section Four is even more chilling: “This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.” If your child was on life-support and it was your wish to see that continue, but some government bureaucrat, doctor or hospital administrator decides that continuance is not cost-effective, then the decision to “pull the plug” is taken out of your hands and placed in theirs.

•Section Five is simply thrown in because those who authored it do not understand the “supremacy clause” of Article VI of the Constitution.

Those who sponsored this amendment either consider government to be better equipped to rear your children (if deemed to be in its best interest), gave no thought to signing onto this horrendous language, or have a poor understanding of individual liberty and our Constitution. Sadly, for those who live in the 6th Congressional District of Texas, our 30-year incumbent representative, my opponent in next year’s primary, is one of those sponsors.

Frank Kuchar,

GOP Congressional candidate

Arlington, Texas