posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:57 PM
Yep - apparently agreeing to an international standard for protection of the
marks the end of hte US as a sovereign nation, or some such wing-nuttery.... the offending piece:
The most offensive provision is found in Section 7 of the treaty dealing specifically with children with disabilities. That section reads:
“In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
“The best interest of the child” standard is lifted out of a controversial provision contained in the 1989 treaty called the U.N. Convention on
the Rights of the Child. That treaty was never ratified in large part because of this provision.
“The best interest of the child” standard may sound like it protects children, but what it does is put the government, acting under U.N.
authority, in the position to determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. That is counter to the current state of the law in
this country which puts parents – not the government – in that position of determining what is in their child’s best interest. Under the laws of
our country, parents lose that right only if the state, through the judicial process, determines that the parents are unfit to make that decision.
apparently Santorum thinks that any decision made by a parent is automatically in eth best interests of a child and must never be challenged.
He goes on to use this example:
In the case of our 4-year-old daughter, Bella, who has Trisomy 18, a condition that the medical literature says is “incompatible with life,”
would her “best interest” be that she be allowed to die? Some would undoubtedly say so.
does "some" equate with the Govt?
What about cases where the parents want the child to die - does Santorum defend their right to make that decision in very simlar circumstances?
If so does he believe that the parents' BELIEFS define what is right for teh child, and not some objective value??
So if the state, and not Karen and I, would have the final word on what is in the best interest of a child like Bella, what chance would a
parent have to get appropriate care in the days of increasingly government-funded medical care?
this is confusing - is he saying that it is IK to have one belief if you are rich/well insured, but not if you are poor (since the rich/insured might
be able to afford extremely expensive care that he poor/uninsured can not)??
Santorum's position is stupid. Unless you have some objective standard for care and protection you leave children vulnerable to the whims of their
parents. Waht parents consider "best" for their children can be horribly variable - some will refuse all medical treatment, others will refuse
some medical treatments but not others -
eg see here
To say that what is "in the best intersts" of a child is defined by teh beliefs of the parents' belief means that one child can have treatment and
another not have treatment - and apparently BOTH situations are "in the best interests of the child"???!!
and this guy got to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination for a bit??