The Lesson of the Anti-Choice Crowd

There is a great deal of uproar across the nation about school choice and vouchers. In a story last week, the Chronicle quotes a mother who reveals a sad fact about many parents:

“Vouchers don’t come with any oversight of the schools in which they’re spent,” Caudill [the mother] said. “They put the parent in the position of trading a child’s civil rights for money.”

Caudill, who has two children, apparently believes that only the government can provide oversight. She ignores the fact that consumers are the ultimate in oversight—by choosing the schools their children attend they have control over their children’s education. But Caudill would prefer to not be bothered with that responsibility.

Caudill strangely claims that parents somehow violate their child’s rights by accepting a voucher. In other words, if a parent has more educational choices, it violates the child’s rights. But if the government has complete control, the child’s rights are protected. Interestingly, Caudill is suing her local government school district because it did a poor job educating her disabled son.

Education is one of a parent’s primary responsibilities. Sadly, many parents would prefer to pass that responsibility to the government, despite the abysmal record of government schools.

If Caudill and her ilk want others making decisions about their children’s education, that is their choice. But they want to deny other parents the freedom to makes choices about their children’s education. Anti-choice parents aren’t simply opposed to making choices for their own children; they want to deny that freedom to all parents.

Consider the lesson that this teaches to their children: If you assemble enough like-minded people and make enough noise, you can violate the rights of others. If you don’t want to take responsibility, you can pass it off onto government. And that is a very sad lesson.

1 comment to The Lesson of the Anti-Choice Crowd

  • James

    I’ve noted for a while that the Left no longer discusses rights, but rather CIVIL rights. As the Left uses the term, it’s an obvious attempt to cash-in on the concept of rights, but what they include under civil rights is telling. They fall into two categories: stuff provided by someone else (health care, education, environmentalism) and the right to be a mouthpiece for the Left (note that no one is saying Trump’s civil rights were violated, nor the recent speaker at Berkley’s, despite OPEN VIOLENCE by the Left in both cases).

    This serves two purposes. The first groups allows them to flagrantly purchase support–give people free stuff and they vote for you. The second allows them to paint anyone who opposes them as violating someone else’s rights. And it gives the Left–who, because of the second definition of civil rights, gets to define what everyone’s rights are–total power over the culture, including the government.

    Properly defined, civil rights are those rights related to how the government functions in a society. All adults can vote; anyone can abstain; you don’t get to lynch people you disagree with. These are related to–and based on–rights as such, but represent an area where there is optionality. But the Left realized that they could keep adding things onto this list, and has run hog-wild with it.