Number 1 SACRIFICING MOTHERHOOD ON THE ALTAR OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: DECLARING A LEGAL STRANGER TO BE A PARENT OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE CHILD'S BIOLOGICAL PARENT

Rena Lindevaldsen
2008 unpublished
Nearly two decades later, the Court revisited parental rights in Prince v. Massachusetts. 24 In Prince, a woman was prosecuted for taking her niece, over whom she had guardianship, with her to sell religious literature. 25 The Court affirmed the convictions, explaining that the state, as parens patriae, may, under certain circumstances, restrict the parent's right. 26 The state interest, however, is limited. -The religious training and indoctrination of children may be accomplished in many 20
more » ... . at 399. 21 Pierce, 268 U.S. at 530. 22 Id. at 534-35. 23 Id. (emphasis added). Supreme Court precedent recognizes that absent harm to the child, government has no authority to interfere with parental decision-making of a biological parent. Further, the right and -high duty‖ to direct a child's upbringing flows directly from the God-given duty of parents to train their children according to the truths of Scripture. See, e.g., Deuteronomy 6:6-7 (-These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.‖); Proverbs 22:6 (-Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.‖); Isaiah 59:21 (-‗As for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the Lord. ‗My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever.'‖); Ephesians 6:4 (-Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.‖).
fatcat:ihovxavcmvfhhbt4uk2kza23au