ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, September 4, 1996 TAG: 9609040064
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CHARLES LEVENDOSKY
LATE JUNE last year, Rep. Steve Largent, R-Okla., and a host of other Republicans introduced a bill entitled the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995.
The sweep of the bill is so broad that it could endanger the lives of children.
A day later, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa - joined by Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Thad Cochran, R-Miss. - introduced the same bill in the Senate.
Both bills are slowly working their way through the legislative process.
A request for a parental-rights bill was included in the 1994 Christian Coalition's ``Contract With the American Family.'' It didn't take Largent and Grassley long to begin drafting such a bill.
After the Christian Coalition's endorsement, it is understandable that Gary Bauer's Family Research Council and James Dobson's Focus on the Family have urged the passage of this bill.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, recently published a 27-page study to prove that the bill needs to be passed to protect the right of parents to raise their children without government interference.
The Heritage Foundation analysts claim that PRRA would erect ``a barrier against the mounting erosion of these rights.''
Supporters of the bill point to numerous examples where state legislatures, courts, school boards, librarians, mental-health professionals and social-service agencies have violated the rights of parents.
Parental rights are under assault across the nation, supporters claim.
While the sentiment of the bill is laudable, the actual language of the bill undermines legitimate government interest in protecting children.
A portion of PRRA reads: ``No federal, state or local government, or any official of such a government acting under color of law, shall interfere with or usurp the right of a parent to direct the upbringing of the child of the parent.``
People for the American Way, a nonpartisan, constitutional liberties organization, is leading a coalition of nearly 70 national organizations to inform the public about serious problems contained in the parental-rights bill.
Among those who oppose the bill: the American Academy of Pediatrics, National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, Child Welfare League of America, National Women's Law Center, The Episcopal Church, National PTA and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's National SAFE KIDS Campaign.
The broad language of PRRA would allow parents to challenge child-protective-services investigations in federal court and get a court order to halt such investigations.
Child-protection agencies must have the right to investigate reports of abuse or neglect.
Yes, there have been abuses of power by social-service and child-protection agencies.
And yes, there are cases of children having been taken from parents without good cause. But legislation with this sweep would inhibit justified investigations. There are better remedies to restrain overzealous social-service administrators - remedies crafted narrowly at a state level.
Every state has had examples of children who died because child-protection agencies did not act quickly enough or allowed a child's record to disappear into a folder at the back of a filing cabinet.
Social-service agencies that are too cautious cannot protect children who are in harm's way from parents who are physically abusive.
This proposed federal legislation would conflict with many state laws created for the protection of children.
It would enable parents who are suspected of child abuse to temporarily block investigation, perhaps until it was too late to save the child.
If a state court orders medical care for a child, with this bill parents could delay the treatment by challenging the order in a federal court.
People for the American Way points out that PRRA would create a chilling effect on the agencies and professional positions created to protect our children:
``Any government employee who deals with children could be subjected to a costly lawsuit for `interfering with' or `usurping' parental rights, including pediatricians, emergency room personnel, family practitioners, nurses, and other health-care workers ... .''
Further, the bill could nullify health and safety legislation - minimum drinking-age laws, tobacco restrictions for youth, infant car-seat requirements, even new Federal Aviation Administration rules setting a minimum age for piloting a plane, due to the well-publicized death of 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff.
Using PRRA as a weapon, a parent could challenge all of these laws and force the government to prove a ``compelling interest'' that overrides parental authority.
The bill simply goes too far.
Elliot Mincberg, legal director for People for the American Way, says PRRA will promote judicial activism of the worst of kind.
Mincberg maintains that the bill creates rights that are questionable and that interfere with legitimate prerogatives of the state when it comes to children.
``When you talk about the right of a parent which cannot be infringed except under compelling state interest, what right are you talking about? That's the issue. It's such a broad phrase that it could mean all sorts of things,'' said Mincberg.
``If you have a concern about what guidance counselors are doing, then pass a law relating to that.
``But don't pass this general, broad law - that, in fact, we know is really an attempt by the religious right to give them a basis to go in and censor and attack curriculum [in public schools] - but that also could produce all sorts of mischief.''
And, indeed, the August 1996 issue of Family Policy, a publication of the Family Research Council, proves Mincberg's point.
The entire newsletter is devoted to the parental-rights bill and justifies the council's support for it by attacking the public-school system and freedom-to-read policies of the American Library Association.
This piece of misguided legislation would not only incite years of litigation in each state, it would drop a wrecking ball on the house of child-protection policies.
Charles Levendosky is the editorial page editor for the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune.
- New York Times News Service
LENGTH: Long : 118 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: Barbara Cummings/LATimesby CNB