killed in a war,” “the right not to be exposed to exeessively andrnunnecessarily heavy, degrading, dirty and boring work.” Whatrnconstitutes a “right” is very simple: “a claim is an internationalrnhuman right if the United Nation’s General Assembly savsrnit is.”rnThe modus operandi of “children’s rights” advocates is notrnmuch different. As Hillary Clinton conceded in 1979, the “differencernbetween a legal right and other claims of right” is thatrnthe former is “enforceable under our laws,” the latter a merern”description of our needs and interests.” Not surprisingly, sherntherefore argued that “in the field of children’s rights,” the trickrnis to “transform children’s needs and interests into enforceablernrights,” these needs and interests including “everything fromrncompulsory school attendance to driving privileges to nurturingrnrequirements.”rnT “ihe question is, who will runrnthe families of the future?rnFathers or the state?rnWhereas parents used to be expected to look after thern”needs and interests” of children, government now has thernpower to enforce the “rights” of children even against the parents’rnwishes. Each new right requires a new government arm:rn”The right to a worry-free retirement”—Social Security; “thernright to decent housing”—Housing and Urban Development;rn”the right to good health”—Health and Human Services. Andrnwhen it comes to enforcing the child’s right to “grow up in arnfamily environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, andrnunderstanding,” we will perhaps see Jack Westman’s schemern(borrowed from Hugh La Follette) of licensing parents.rnIf La Follette and Westman are careful to withhold the detailsrnon the machinery of their plan, it is not because they havernfailed to realize that a government with arbitrary duties is onernof limitless powers. A parental licensure that permits only citizensrnof the age of majority to marry is hardly the same as onernthat restricts marriage only to citizens who will sufficientlyrn”nurture” their children. The more vague the right, the morernpower the state can seize in enforcing it. Mrs. Clinton, herself,rnadmits that the “guiding principle” of the Convention on thernRights of the Child—”the best interests of the child”—grantsrn”extraordinary flexibility . . . to any decision-maker authorizedrnto enforce it.”rnClues to how those in power might enforce certain rightsrngranted by the Convention lie in its four principal—^butrnveiled—objectives. First, limiting parental authority. The argumentrngoes back to John Locke. Parental authority exists overrnchildren only because children’s natural state of weaknessrnmakes them dependent. As children grow stronger and morernself-sufficient, their autonomy increases while parental authorityrndecreases in proportion. Thus, according to the Convention,rnparents may provide “appropriate direction and guidance”rnto their child only insofar as such guidance is “consistent withrnthe evolving capacities of the child.”rnWhen a child’s capacities have evolved sufficiently, he mayrnavail himself, for example, of the “family-planning educationrnand services” demanded by the Convention. Here the U.N. reinforcesrnthe handiwork of Western jurisprudence. A decadernago in Great Britain, Mrs. Victoria Gillick, mother of ten, sawrnher effort to block England’s doctors from dispensing contraceptivesrnto girls under l6 quashed by the House of Lords. Thernjudges’ decision, reported The Economist, has since enabled activistrnlawyers in England to argue that “there is no fixed age uprnto which parents have complete control over their children;rnparental rights dwindle as the child matures. Parental powersrnare not a reward for parenthood, but exist to enable parents torncarry out their duties to protect their offspring”—duties whichrnapparently exclude shielding minors from state-run sex training.rnLittle is different in the United States: in WinnebagornCounty, Illinois, where even consensual intercourse betweenrnminors constitutes statutory rape, 12-year-old girls can receiverncontraceptives from the Health Department without their parents’rnconsent.rnLUtimately, all rights granted by the Convention follow thernLockean line. A “child capable of forming his or her ownrnviews,” it reads, shall have “the right to express those viewsrnfreely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the childrnbeing given due weight in accordance with the age and maturityrnof the child” (emphasis added). A seven-vear-old weary of hisrnmultiplication tables may be too young to appeal to his “rightrnto rest and leisure,” but what of an unruly adolescent who nornlonger wishes to worship with his parents? Surely his “evolvingrncapacities” warrant his exercising his “right to freedom ofrnthought, conscience, and religion.” And herein lies objectivernnumber two (which is already at work in our public schools): replacingrnorganized religion with state-run therapy.rn”The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; thisrnright shall include the freedom to seek, receive, and impart informationrnand ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, eitherrnorally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through anyrnother medium of the child’s choice.” One such frontier, fundedrnby the state, is pantheism, that is, “respect for the natural environment.”rnAny deficiencies in spirituality will be made up byrn”social programmes [designed] to provide necessary supportrnfor the child,” to protect him from possible “exploitation.” Forrnthose children already exploited, “State Parties shall take all appropriaternmeasures to promote physical and psychological recoveryrnand social reintegration of a child victim of any form ofrnneglect, exploitation or abuse . . . in an environment that fostersrnthe health, self-respect and dignity of the child.”rnBecause exploitation and abuse are associated with organizedrnreligions, the U.N. wants nations to “take all effective andrnappropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practicesrnprejudicial to the health of children.” Those on the fringernwill be first. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists havernalready been prosecuted for manslaughter in Florida and Massachusettsrnfor withholding modern medicine from their young.rnIn Connecticut, Juliet Cheng lost her rheumatic seven-year-oldrndaughter to the Department of Children and Youth Servicesrnfor using—with some success—ancient Chinese medicine tornrelieve her daughter’s pain. Last March, when the knock camernon the door of Emanuel Beiler’s Lancaster County farmhouse,rnhe made a valiant dash across the field carrying his five-year-oldrndaughter, Sylvia, in his arms. The state troopers, however, ranrnthe Amish man down and took his little giri. His crime? Callingrnan end to the chemotherapy Sylvia was enduring for herrn26/CHRONICLESrnrnrn