Henrietta Hay's Column

One thing I like least in an election year is reading all the proposed amendments. Since I do not believe in amending constitutions for trivial reasons, I generally skip the reading and consult the summary that the League of Women Voters prints each election year, to see whether there is one I might favor. The League does an excellent job of analyzing the issues and giving succinct and objective reasons for and against each proposed amendments. This year there are at least two that are especially dangerous.

Number 11, the Property Tax Exemption amendment, could cause chaos in every non-profit organization in the state, and probably wouldn't save me a nickel in taxes.

Number 17, the Parental Rights Amendment is the other one that really scares me. On the surface it sounds so innocent, all gooey, "save the family" oriented, like most of the far right proposals. But wait a gosh darned minute here. Article II, section 3 of the Colorado constitution has been part of the document since Colorado became a state in 1876. The constitution now reads, "Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

For 120 years parents in Colorado have had the right to direct the upbringing of their children and have been doing a pretty good job of it. I speak from experience! Amendment 17 would add, "AND OF PARENTS TO DIRECT AND CONTROL THE UPBRINGING, EDUCATION, VALUES AND DISCIPLINE OF THEIR CHILDREN."

Control children as an inalienable right? This amendment would undercut existing legal rights and protections for children. The current legal standard of "the best interest of the child" would be replaced by whatever the parents choose to call their rights. Read that "control." It would over-ride the Colorado Children's Code.

Public schools would be turned into political and ideological battlegrounds for parents with opposing "values." Beverly Ausfahl, president of the Colorado Education Association says that the initiative has the potential of "causing chaos in the classroom" if every child's parents try to control the lesson plans and discipline.

The separation of church and state would be seriously threatened in spite of the protections of the federal constitution.

If parental rights are inalienable they cannot be terminated, and the legality of adoption would be thrown into question.

Teenagers would lose access to confidential information about health care, birth control, family planning, HIV testing. Confidential counseling about drugs and alcohol would no longer be available.

Parents accused of child abuse could claim that the constitutional right to discipline their children gives them a defense against prosecution for criminal child abuse.

This is not a locally sponsored amendment. It is being promoted in 27 states by a far-right anti-abortion Virginia organization called, "Of the People." The Colorado sponsoring group is the Coalition for Parental Responsibility. According to the Denver Post, $136,900 of its $146,000 it has received has come from the Virginia group.

Opposition is coming from judges, doctors, and educators and most mainline churches. Opponents say an avalanche of lawsuits could tie up the court system for years.

This amendment would put children at the mercy of adults who are trying to force their values and beliefs on everyone.

If a parent wants to control absolutely the ideas and values of his/her child, there is really only one way to do it. Build a high fence around the house, and never let the child out. Forbid the entrance into the home of any books or magazines, do not allow any radio or television to be heard, do not allow any outside people to associate with the child.

I have always believed that a much better way to raise a child to become a rational, thinking adult is to follow Kahlil Gibran's philosophy. "They come through you but not from you, / And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you. / You may give them your love but not your thoughts, / For they have their own thoughts . . . You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday."

This is a dangerous amendment.