âWe do not co-parent with the governmentâ read signs raised by the self-dubbed âhappy warriorsâ of Moms for Liberty, a 2-year-old, ostensibly grassroots, nonpartisan activist group that advocates for the elusive idea of âparentsâ rights.â
Formed in January 2021 during a mask-panicked fury by two Floridian former school board members, depending on your perspective the group is either on a worthy mission to âreclaim our schoolsâ with a Founding Fathers-like ârighteous fire,â or they are theocratic-fascists out to censor every book they deem inappropriate for a grade-school Republican.
But in the battle for Americaâs future, thereâs a bigger issue, an unchecked assumption. If the choice is between conservative parents with a political agenda or the unfeeling, intrusive power of the stateâhas anyone thought to ask the kids what they want?
From legalized abuse, to draconian treatment in the justice system, to their lack of suffrage, America loves the authoritarian mollycoddling of its children. And yet commentary on Moms for Libertyâeven by its most ardent criticsârarely questions this as thoroughly as is deserved.
Do we consider people under the age of 18 to be citizens entitled to inalienable rights? Both legally and culturally, the answer is ânot really.â
WHOSE KIDS ANYWAY?
Moms for Liberty and their allies repeat a false dichotomy that kids are either parental property or government property. But minors are both sovereign individuals and growing people in need of help and guidance.
So what does the law say about their rights?
Various Supreme Court decisions have danced around an overriding category of âparental rights.â Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) held that â[the stateâs] authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience.â That is, parents canât justify everything simply because of religion.
However, in 1971, Wisconsin V. Yoder allowed the Amish to remove their children from school after eighth grade. The reasoning was that the religious and social rights of the childrenâs parents superseded the stateâs interest in continued education.
The 2000 decision Troxel v. Granvilleâwhich involved the visitation rights of grandparents and a Washington state law that allowed non-parental people to sue for visitationâsaid that the 14th Amendment protects the rights of parents to âthe care, custody, and control of a child.â
The conclusion, if not the inferred constitutional foundation, seems obvious. But what if the Granville-Troxel kids wanted to see their grandparents more often? Shouldnât something protect those childrenâs preferences, their rights?
Homeschooling has been legal in every U.S. state since 1992, and the number of children educated outside of school grew from a few thousand in the 1970s to more than two million in 2019.
I was happily, irreligiously homeschooled. But not everyone shared my experience. The Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE), which self-describes as âhomeschool alumni who were raised in⌠regressive systemsâ wants to counter âparental rights extremismâ coming from Moms for Liberty.
Samantha Field, the head of government relations at CRHE, wrote in an email, âParents already have rights, and those rights are balanced with a childâs right to a safe home environment. What the current Parental-Rights Extremist movement wants to accomplish⌠strips children of their rights.â
And Moms for Liberty? Field says, âThey have learned their organizing tactics from some of the worst leaders of the far right.â
WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE WE DOING?
Who actually uses the word ârightsâ with regards to children?
Typically, itâs leftist or anarchist radicals, though sometimes itâs international human rights groups like UNICEF and Human Rights Watch.
The United Nations has also backed the concept, beginning with its Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959, a fuzzy and optimistic intranational document that says children have rights to safety, food, and special protection due to their unique status.
In 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child said that kids have rights such as free expression and privacy, albeit with potential exceptions thanks to local law and customs. Some 170 countries ratified this as of 2023. (Notably, this does not include the United States, which signed, then failed to ratify it.) This not-so-radical declaration stresses parent and child togetherness, yet still uses the word ârightsâ and implies that someone besides their own parents should consider childrenâs welfare.
And yet, in all 50 U.S. states, the only human beings adults are allowed to hit are their kids. Though a parentsâ chances of being sanctioned increases if they use an object or leave a mark, common law and specific statutes accept the rightness of physical discipline.
And this isnât even controversial. As of 2014, 70 percent of American of parents agree that âsometimes kids need a good, hard spanking.â In 2008, the Minnesota state Supreme Court declined to articulate specific rules that might hinder a fatherâs ability to hit his 12 year-old 36 times with a paddle.
Even apparent ârightsâ for minors can be abused.
Children under 18 with parental and/or judicial consent, can get married in 41 states. Far from being a âfreedomâ afforded to children, this is often a handy way to disappear the shame of a pregnant teenager, or prevent a call to the authorities about statutory rape.
In the last several years, in multiple states, attempts to raise the age of consent for marriage to 18 have been impeded mostly by Republican state legislators. However, in California itâs (oddly enough) the American Civil Liberties Union that objects.
To cite just one example, Missouri Republican state Sen. Mike Moon clarifiedâafter receiving justifiable pushbackâthat he was not in favor of 12-year-olds getting marriedâor of child rape. In his telling, he merely relayed an anecdote about two middle schoolers getting married with parental permission four decades ago, which was fine, because, he said, âItâs a parentsâ decision to make; itâs their right to make that choice.â
Some of these same politicians who are happy to allow child marriage are also happy to lessen restrictions on child labor. To some degree, I agree. We should open up work opportunities for minors. But in the interim, while they are practically property, 13-year-olds working in slaughterhouses doesnât benefit them so much as it does corporations and potentially abusive parents.
Similarly, letting minors get married is not choice, itâs a legal loophole for parentally-pressured rape, forced pregnancy, poverty, and abuse.
Furthermore, children and teens under 18 canât vote, but they can be tried as adultsâaccording to the ACLU, some 250,000 kids are each year, and in two thirds of states they can be sent to adult prison.
In short, depending on political convenience, young Americans are seen as innocents who need to be protected from library cards and âthe transgender in our culture,â or middle schoolers are mature enough to be tried as adults (even ones suffering from schizophrenia).
We need to change this perspective, and that starts with accepting that kids are people every bit as deserving of their own civil rights.
The state isnât your parent, but neither is every parent an unimpeachable good. What Moms for Liberty and their allies ignore is the fact that even moms and dads acting within the bounds of the law are not necessarily safer than strangers.
Opening up voting rights would help young people gain a civil rights foothold. Certainly it could make them a demographic that could no longer be ignored by politicians. (Opponents of womenâs suffrage in the early 20th century argued that giving women the vote was just giving a double vote to socially dominant husbandsâjust sayinâ.)
Children are a paradox. Theyâre not property, but theyâre also not ready to decide everything for themselves. The answer is a radical rethinking of the balance of powers between society, parents, and children.
"Parental rightsâ and the culture war driving them will only confirm that kids never get the rights that are theirs just by virtue of being human beings.