Thus, the U.N. Convention would constitute legally binding law in all 50 states. Otherwise valid state laws pertaining to education, the family, etc., which conflict with the provisions of the treaty will be subject to invalidation. Were this convention to be enforced, the United States would be required to alter large portions of long established law to cater to the demands of the United Nations, and the panel of experts they select to define international standards for child's rights. Although several of the treaty's provisions offer generally positive, nonoffensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights. No allowance is made for parental guidance.
Children have a legal right to object to all religious training.
Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objection to participate in occult, Muslim or Buddhist worship services. If this measure were to be taken seriously, parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions. Parental rights and responsibilities are unmentioned. The Convention is not only vague but contradictory when it comes to the critical issue of the right to life of an unborn child. Although some might argue that the language of Article 6 would favor the rights of unborn children, neither abortion nor unborn children are specifically mentioned.