It isn’t possible to repeal a God-given right. It isn’t possible for a government to bestow a God-given right; God already did that. It is possible for tyrannical governments to refuse to respect those rights.
Not all God-given rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. That’s why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments, pointing out that, whether it’s listed or not, people still have those rights, and only if it’s enumerated does government have powers.
But government, like wildfires, tend to spread and burn things they weren’t intended to burn.
One God-given right, understood everywhere outside Nazi and Communist nations, until very recently is the right of parents to see to the care and upbringing of their children. Serious neglect or abuse can trigger government intervention. But otherwise parents are in charge of the big (and little) decisions about their own children.
If a government is stepping in and usurping the authority of parents, that is tyranny.
Tyranny is happening in England right now. This is a similar story to Charlie Gard exactly a year ago. This time it’s a little boy name Alfie Evans, just coming up on his second birthday. When he was a few months old, he became mysteriously ill and slipped into a coma. Time and again this little child has fought back and survived. Fairly recently a chest infection caused him to need a ventilator.
image from here
His parents have been seeking experimental treatment, because it is possible he is suffering from a mitochondrial condition. Italy is offering transportation and treatment, following encouragement from the Pope—and have even granted the boy citizenship. Nevertheless, the UK says no.
It isn’t a matter of cost; if taken out of the UK, the cost to the National Health Service becomes zero more. It has become a matter of control. The doctors have decided the boy should die, and that is final.
They took him off the ventilator and stopped feeding him. He breathed on his own, and at this writing continues to do so. It looked back to be starving a child to death who was breathing on his own, so they quit doing that purposeful murder in favor of a slower wait for death. They placed armed guards around the child to prevent anyone from transporting him. And they refuse to allow the boy to go home with his parents until the parents have a "sea change" in their attitude, meaning they have to come to agree with the doctors that the boy should not have further treatment but should die.
Andrew Klavan spoke on this case today, and I couldn't say it better myself:
It would be hard—I mean, the angriest, backwoods preacher pounding on his Bible could not use language more condemnatory of what’s going on than I would use. I think this is an atrocity. I think it is pitiful that the British, who stood alone against the slaughter of babies in Germany in 1940, and now the only one who’s showing that kind of English spirit is this baby, who stands alone against the people who want to slaughter them now.
screen shot from here
Klavan ended with this:
This is a kind of madness, and it only happens when the state believes that you belong to them. Because parents don’t do this. Remember the state, the court, the judges—they didn’t know this baby’s name before this case came before them. The parents knew the name. And so, the state’s attitude now is basically, this mom could have aborted this child before he was born, but now can’t decide to keep it alive.
So you’re always going to be on this precipice, because the state never really has—you’re always an expense to the state. You’re always a problem to the state. You’re always taking up space. So your life, it is not sacred. If it’s not precious, if it does not somehow go beyond the natural, then there’s nobody there to protect it. This is a disgrace. And it speaks to the death of a great culture, and a great continent, and it’s just too bad.
When things are this crazy, sometimes parody news is more accurate than it ought to be. The Babylon Bee tells the story this way:
LONDON—Upon the news of a high court ordering life support removed from 2-year-old Alfie Evans, English Prime Minister Theresa May issued a brief, friendly reminder to citizens of the U.K. that the all-powerful state actually owns their children.
In a video circulated online, May informed parents who were “getting a little too attached” to their children that they need to keep in mind that the United Kingdom is the actual legal parent, and the kids are simply on loan to them until the State decides it’s time for them to die.
“Yes, we’re gracious enough to allow your kids to reside with you and for you to make lots of the decisions in their day-to-day lives, but when the rubber meets the road, we just want you to remember that the Almighty State straight-up owns your kids and will do with them as we will,” she said. “We make all the big decisions, and you have pretty much zero say when it comes right down to it. Just keep that in mind and stay in your place.”
The Prime Minister further reminded Britons that they gave up their right to make major decisions for their household when they decided to hand over control of healthcare, social security, education, guns, and free speech to the government.
Too much truth.
If you think that can't happen here in America, where we're free from tyranny, maybe you should review the Justina Pelletier case from 2014. And remember, we learned in the discussion around Obamacare that death panels are always a feature of socialized medicine.
Other "household decisions" include things like how children should be educated, and what they should be taught. In Orange County, California, this means government has decided how, when, and what children should be taught about sexual deviancy in order to inculcate an acceptance and preference for it from a very young age. And parents are being told they do not have the power to have their children opt out.
A memorandum from the Orange County Board of Education says: “Parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.” In what they seem to think is a generous concession, they will allow parents to tell their kids that they personally disagree with the required curriculum.
The curriculum breaks anti-obscenity laws, yet parents cannot protect their children from it. It is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and “encourages children as young as six to question their sexual orientation and gender identity, while teaching them how to use a range of vegetables as sex toys, and promoting anal sex as ‘normal.’” One article provides photos (which I'm not willing to include here), of a teacher demonstrating how to strap on and use sex toys—or vegetables, if toys are unavailable. We have trouble getting kids to learn to write a comprehensible sentence or do basic algebra, but this is a priority?
The Soros-supported curriculum is part of the California Healthy Youth Act of 2015, which includes language protecting parental rights, because “parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human sexuality to their children.” But Orange County BofE general counsel advises that the law’s opt-out provision “does not apply to instruction, materials, or programming that discusses gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family and does not discuss human reproductive organs.” How they construe these things to not be part of “imparting values regarding human sexuality to children” is a mystery.
No, not really a mystery. It is tyranny.
We talked last summer about a similar curriculum in Washington State (in two parts, starting here). I shouldn't continue to be shocked, but I am.
I know this next statement sounds radical, but get your children out of public schools while you still can. You’ve been indoctrinated to think that you have no other options, because education is so expensive. In the UK, they were convinced they had no other options for healthcare, because healthcare was so expensive.
Letting someone else control the costs means letting someone else control the decisions you should be making. And letting government do what it shouldn’t be doing always means you get less of what you want at a higher and higher cost.
Healthcare is only “free” if you’re willing to “pay” the life of your child, or your elderly parent, or yourself when you become too much of a cost burden to bother with.
Education is only “free” if you’re willing to sacrifice the morals of your children, and possibly affect their psychological well-being and their future family life.
As parents, you have God-given rights. You’d better assert them before they’re completely lost.