Charlie and Parental Rights Vs. the Government [Video]

Craig HueyGovernment2 Comments

It’s parents vs. the state.

The case of 11-month-old Charlie Gard has been in the news because parental rights have been trampled by the government.

Charlie is diagnosed with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), a genetic disease so rare it’s believed to have diagnosed in only 16 children in the world.

Doctors say it is fruitless to keep treating the baby and he should be left to die.

The distraught parents, Chris and Connie, are prevented from seeking care by the government. They are being forced to let him die.

This is happening for two reasons:

  1. The British have socialized medicine – all decisions are final from the government.
  2. This is reinforced by the UN.

Why the UN?

Because England is one of 194 countries that have signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a legally binding international agreement.

It pretty much dictates the government can do what it feels is best for a child, not the parents.

Only two countries have not signed on to that agreement: Somalia, because it has no recognizable government, and the United States, which still values the God-given rights of the parents.

And, yes, this is the law liberals want in the U.S. and are close to passing in California.

The courts, using the UNCRC agreement, cited “established human rights law,” which dictates that the rights of a child should take precedence over the rights of the parent.

Sadly, Charlie’s parents said the delays caused by the government make treatment no longer viable for their little child.

Watch this powerful 1-minute video of Charlie’s parents saying goodbye to their baby

The parents wanted to take their baby to the United States for experimental treatment. The UK bureaucrats refused to release him from their care.

But the fundamental question remains: Why can’t the parents decide whether to pursue treatment or not?

In a free society, the parents are their children’s best guardians, not the government.

Ultimately, the case is about parental rights versus government interference.

Why should parents not allowed to do what they believe is right for the child?

Why has the British government become the parent?

It may be too late for Charlie, but will it also be too late for the next baby the government decides cannot be treated?

Pray that doesn’t happen.

Pray the U.S. never signs on to UNCRC.

Pray that the bill in California and other states goes nowhere.

What do you think? Write me at [email protected]

2 Comments on “Charlie and Parental Rights Vs. the Government [Video]”

  1. “The rights of a child should take precedence over the rights of a parent”? What “rights” was Charlie fighting for? TO DIE? The rights of his parents were to give their child his rights to live! This UN “Convention on the Rights of the Child” is named BACKWARDS. Its the Rights of the Socialist Government to do whatever it feels like. If I were the Gards, I’d move the heck OUT of England. All free-thinking peoples should rise up against this insanity and say NO MORE. It really is A Nation of Sheep as the title goes. Lord Have Mercy!

Leave a Reply