Harvard Law Prof: Every Family Should Be Under Mandatory Government Surveillance


Elizabeth Bartholet is a symptom of a larger sickness that plagues the new radical government platform on parenting.  How many of you actually believe that the Left is all about women’s rights and women’s issues when it is the foremost kidnapper of children from their mothers at an increasingly earlier age?  How many of you believe that the Left vehemently supports the “right” to kill their unborn babies because they care about the health and welfare of the woman and not about the control of the population of whom they deem fit and not fit to raise children?

Does anyone really believe that when Margaret Sanger was creating Planned Parenthood clinics throughout all the African-American neighborhoods that she was doing it to help young Black mothers-to-be in being more healthy?

If any of these questions are making you wonder or start to be confused about what the true purpose of all these parenting social issues are, then join the millions of women across America who are learning the hard way why the Democrat Party and Leftists don’t care a wit about women’s rights or children, but about control of the population and who gets to procreate and who does not!

Professor Elizabeth Bartholet published, “Guiding Principles for Picking Parents” in the Harvard Women’s Law Journal in 2004. In it she wrote:

Law decides who is and who is not a parent and whether and on what basis someone who is a parent is allowed to stop being one. Some today talk as if something they might call natural law governed—as if once you know the DNA you know who is and who is not the parent.

She argued that, even in the cases where DNA shows that a man is not the biological parent of a child, it is still right to compel him to pay child support if he has functioned in the role of a father.

In Harvard Law Review, Bartholet responded to Professor Martin Guggenheim’s review of her book, Nobody’s Children. She took issue with a mischaracterization of her position, and as she clarified her position, she only made it clear that she was even more radical than her fellow professor accused her of being.

She believes that the government should universally visit all families to ensure that families are “functioning successfully.” She has written:

My argument is that the state should play a generally more activist role in the family by providing upfront increased support services aimed at enabling families to function successfully, and by being more willing to protect children from abuse and neglect when families break down.

I focus on intensive home visitation as a particularly promising example of early intervention, devoting an entire chapter to it. Guggenheim ignores almost everything I say on this topic, and when he finally mentions my proposal, he mischaracterizes it.
He claims that I would impose home visitors only on the “highest-risk families,” when in fact I stress the importance of not limiting such programs to the high risk population and argue instead for a “universal home visitation system.”

In that same article, Elizabeth Bartholet laid the foundation for the reality that faces many innocent parents today – that of the nebulous “neglect” charges used as justification for taking their children and funneling them into the foster care/adoption industry:

Central to my discussion of the nature of the current child maltreatment problem is my claim that child neglect must be understood as just as important as child abuse, if not more important.

I argue that today’s neglect cases are typically cases in which children simply do not receive the active nurturing that all children need….

Right back…full circle…to Huxley’s Brave New World.  This is a chilling statement.  This sets the table for the justification for stealing children from the home.  And the government is doing it on a more widely accepted basis than ever before, particularly in areas of the country where people are poor and cannot pay a lawyer to fight the system.

Turn to the next page to read about the justification that allows Child Protective Services (CPS) to invade the home and steal the children on a REGULAR basis!

NEXT PAGE »



Share

1,713 Comments

Leave a Reply