Parental rights

Joe Kelly over at The Sake of Argument provides his opinion regarding the opposition to a proposed amendment to the Florida State Constitution. Here's an excerpt from the article:

A Florida lawmaker Monday unveiled a proposed constitutional amendment ensuring parents could eavesdrop on their children's phone calls, snoop in their rooms and search their school bags.

The Florida Parental Rights Amendment also would clear the way for parents to obtain notice of an abortion -- a state law struck down last year by the Florida Supreme Court, supporters say.

Opposition to the proposal from Planned Parenthood was swift:

"Quite honestly, Speaker Byrd's proposal today makes minors property of their parents," said Stephanie Grutman, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Florida. "They want to get at every aspect of our life. Privacy is our most fundamental, basic right."

Joe has some choice words in response:

I am red-faced, fuming and foaming at the mouth mad at the pro-choicers who are so fanatical in their love for abortions that they would fight this type of legislation. I think Planned Parenthood is one of the most destructive and horrific organizations in America today.

They argue that, “Privacy is our most fundamental, basic right.”

Wrong!

And he also makes a very good point:

My child can’t go to the doctor and have a wart removed without my permission. Yet, Planned Parenthood wants her to be able to go get an abortion without my consent and without my knowledge.

For the record, I don't think that Planned Parenthood is "one of the most destructive and horrific organizations in America today." I'm willing to assume that they're simply trying to do what is right. However, I agree with Joe that they are wrong in this case, but for different reasons.

In our society, we consider that children are not sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable to take responsibility for themselves. Instead, their parents or guardians are responsible for their actions, just as they are responsible for caring for the children. Let's say a child of 12 breaks a neighbor's window while hitting golf balls from his own front yard. The parent is responsible for paying for it (though this could also serve as a chance to teach the child about taking responsibility for his actions *). This responsibility also means that the parent has to know what the child is doing and so the child's privacy is not a primary consideration. The parent has the right to enter the child's room at will and search it. Naturally parents will want to provide their children with some privacy, you don't want to be opressive. But the child doesn't have the same rights as an adult because they are not yet responsible for themselves.

Even so, I think there shouldn't be a need for an amendment to the state constitution. Given that the previous law was struck down by the State Supreme Court (which smacks of judicial activism, though I'd need to read the ruling to be sure), this may be the only way.

* Yes, I speak from direct experience. I did end up paying for the window out of my allowance and I did learn my lesson.