NJ Homeschoolers! Your Calls Needed Now to Stop S3105

IMPORTANT UPDATE Calls No Longer Needed on Huttle-Weinberg Bills

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

Thank you for your phone calls! They have had a significant impact. 

Our opposition to the Huttle-Weinberg bills is now well known in the 

legislature, greatly reducing the likelihood the bills could be 

quietly hurried through at the end of the legislative session (in 

early January) under a suspension of legislative rules.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

It has been a long time since I posted an article about proposed legislation in NJ.

 

Once again, NJ is trying to punish homeschoolers for the failures of DYFS. HSLDA Attorney Scott Woodruff's conclusion is chilling:

    "New Jersey would overnight have one of the worst homeschool laws in the nation. The New Jersey tax base and overall economy could suffer as homeschool families avoid (or leave) the state."

Governor Christie has said that something like $70 billion in wealth has left NJ because of the unfriendly business climate and the confiscatory taxes. NJ's favorable homeschool climate is the only reason we stayed all these years.  My husband has been trying to talk me into moving to Pennsylvania for years, and I was never willing because of the homeschooling regulations. Now that we are no longer homeschooling, it won't affect me directly, but it WILL affect many of my friends.

I just received this e-lert from HSLDA concerning S3105, the latest attempt by Loretta Weinberg to increase homeschool regulation. The e-lert is posted here in its entirety.

Stop State-Mandated Annual Medical Exams and Portfolios for Homeschoolers

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

Your calls are needed immediately to stop S3105, a bill Senator Loretta Weinberg filed last week, despite many calls asking her not to. The bill treats every homeschool parent like a child abuser by requiring them to file documentation of annual medical exams.

It would require parents to submit each child’s name, birth date, and homeschool instructor’s name every year by August 1. A mandatory portfolio would be due June 30. But what bureaucrats can require in a child’s portfolio is virtually unlimited.

The bill gives the State Board of Education dramatic new power over homeschool families by empowering it to regulate homeschooling. The Board could mandate exactly how all the bill’s requirements would be enforced. It could define homeschooling itself.

There is virtually no limit as to what the Board could require in the annual medical exam. No issue—no matter how personal, sensitive, unwelcome or intrusive—would be off limits.

Lawmakers who act against the will of the people can be removed from office. But State Board of Education members are appointed, not elected. New Jersey homeschool families would be virtually at their mercy.

This bill would turn New Jersey’s current sensible legal framework into a morass of regulations and burdensome red tape. With three filings every year for 42,000 homeschooled children, overworked public school staff would have yet more burdens added to their shoulders.

Taxpayers would pay the cost of filing, processing, checking, responding to, and storing 120,000 sets of paperwork each year. Taxes will inevitably go up to pay for it.

The media carried reports recently about the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) failing to protect an allegedly homeschooled child in danger—with tragic results. S3105 wrongly punishes parents for the failures of DYFS.
Action Requested

Please make three courteous phone calls by Thursday using the contact information below.

    Call Sen. Stephen Sweeney. He is the president of the New Jersey Senate, and he controls its business.
    Call Sen. Teresa Ruiz. She is the chair of the Senate Education Committee, to which S3105 was referred.
    If you are a constituent of the other four members of the committee (Sens. Jim Whelan, Diane Allen, Thomas Kean and Shirley Turner), call them. (ed note: Calling Shirley turner? Good luck with that.) Or use our legislative toolbox to see if you are a constituent of one of those senators.

Your message can be as simple as “Please oppose S3105. Don’t punish homeschoolers and public school staff for the failures of DYFS.”

Or you can frame your own message using information in this email, including material in the “background” section below.

Contact Information

Sen. Stephen Sweeney:

(856) 251-9801 (West Deptford office)

(856) 455-1011 (Bridgeton office)

(856) 339-0808 (Salem office)

Sen. Teresa Ruiz:

(973) 484-1000

Sen. Jim Whelan:
(609) 383-1388

Sen. Diane Allen:

(609) 239-2800

Sen. Thomas Kean:

(732) 974-0400

Sen. Shirley Turner:

(609) 530-3277
 

Background

Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), Education Network of Christian Homeschoolers of New Jersey (ENOCH), Catholic Homeschoolers of New Jersey (CHNJ), and New Jersey Homeschool Association (NJHA), and others, are united as a task force in opposing S3105.

You can view the bill online. DYFS had numerous contacts with the family of the abused girl who was in the news this summer. A fresh report was called in just a few days before she died. DYFS did virtually nothing about the report and closed it. Fix DYFS. That’s where the problem is.

Complicated rules always foster needless conflicts, and this would become an everyday occurrence. After the state board adopts regulations, local school systems would adopt their own requirements, creating an additional layer of red tape.

New Jersey would overnight have one of the worst homeschool laws in the nation. The New Jersey tax base and overall economy could suffer as homeschool families avoid (or leave) the state.

The outstanding academic achievements of homeschool students has been documented by many studies. Homeschoolers typically score 30 percentile points above others on standardized tests. Since homeschoolers score the same in states with heavy regulation and states with light regulation, adding new regulations is highly unlikely to help academic performance (source: Dr. Brian Ray, “Home Schooling Achievement,” 1997).

Thank you for standing with us for freedom!

Sincerely yours,

Scott Woodruff

HSLDA Senior Counsel

Here We Go Again! 9th Circuit Outlaws Banners Mentioning "God"

The 9th Circuit strikes again!

The same three judge panel that decided that "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional is at it again. This time, they have reversed a lower court ruling that allowed Bradley Johnson to display patriotic banners in his San Diego classroom because they mention "God."

I wrote about this controversy in a post called "Finally, A Judge with Sense in California!", in which I celebrated the lower court ruling that enabled the banners to remain. If you are unfamiliar with this controversy, you may wish to review that post from 2008.

2008. Seriously?

So, three years ago, I wrote that Bradley Johnson had been displaying his banners for 25 years. That means it has been 28 years now, and they still have not had any significant complaints, except maybe from Michael Newdow, or some other professional malcontent who lives to see the mention of God eradicated from the public square.

Bradley Johnson is a respected math teacher in the Poway Unified School District - in California, where else? They actually told him to take down his banner in 2007, all the while leaving intact other banners and posters displayed in other classrooms containing photos of the Dalai Lama, Tibetan Prayer Flags, anti-religious song lyrics, and gay and lesbian promotional materials. Whatever your opinion of any of these materials, I guarantee you that they are every bit as offensive to some segments of the population as the mention of "God" in the context of American history.

One phrase, "One Nation Under God" is from the Pledge of Allegiance - the same Pledge that the 9th Circuit judges got their panties in a twist about in 2002. "In God We Trust" is on our money - though in recent years it has been banished to the edges of some coins. "God Shed His Grace on Thee" and "God Bless America" are familiar lyrics from patriotic songs that Americans have been singing for generations.

Here is a photo of the evil banner in question:

Photo Credit: Thomas More Law Center

Here is how it looks in the classroom, where at least half the students have their backs toward it.

The Thomas More Law Center is once again defending Johnson, and in September, announced its intent to petition for an "en banc" review of the decision, which will require the entire voting membership of the 9th Circuit to decide whether the petition should be granted.  If the petition is granted they will have to go before a panel of 11 judges who will be selected from among the voting members.

As I mentioned in my earlier article, this is not specifically about homeschooling, but it certainly continues to underscore the hostility to anything that might be - even erroneously - construed as a religious message. Here are a couple of quotes from the decision, written by appeals court Judge Richard Tallman.

“We consider whether a public school district infringes the First Amendment liberties of one of its teachers when it orders him not to use his public position as a pulpit from which to preach his own views on the role of God in our Nation’s history to the captive students in his mathematics classroom. The answer is clear: it does not.” 

“Though Johnson maintains that his banners express purely patriotic sentiments … it seems as plain to us as it was to school officials that Johnson’s banners concern religion."

“One would need to be remarkably unperceptive to see the statements …. as organized and displayed by Johnson and not understand them to convey a religious message.” 

But it was okay for other teachers to display the Tibetan prayer flags, or lyrics to "Imagine" to captive students in their [insert name of class here] class.

Puhleeze. This is the same court that ruled in 2005 that adopting Muslim names, reciting Muslim prayers, and simulating religious fasting for three weeks was a perfectly acceptable classroom activity, not “overt religious exercises” that would raise concerns under the First Amendment prohibition of “establishment of religion.”

Never mind that these exercises were conducted in the fall of 2001. Am I the only one who gets sick to my stomach when I think about that?

Can you imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth if students were subjected to some Christian themed role playing for three weeks? 

During Ramadan?

I know not everyone homeschools for religious reasons, but rulings like these confirm that those who do are not merely imagining that their worldview is under attack.  It is part of the same phenomenon that caused school officials in Michigan to think it was okayto hold a terrorism drill that depicted Christian homeschoolers as theterrorists. In 2007, Burlington County, NJ school officials held a mock drill that included gun-toting Christian extremists who were upset because the daughter of one of them was expelled for praying in school. Superintendent Chris Manno told the Burlington County Times:

We need to practice under conditions as real as possible in order to evaluate our procedures and plans so that they're as effective as possible.

This isn't MY reality.

I know, I know. This isn't happening in YOUR public school.  First of all, how do you know? And second, when it is, will you do anything about it? Whether you are a Christian or not, it should matter to you that  someone's freedom is being curtailed because of what they believe. Next time it could be some value or belief YOU cherish.

Why don't people believe it can happen here?

The New American reported on the new education law that effectively banned homeschooling in Sweden and made any kind of alternative to government schooling illegal.

OK, so the picture is German, but the principle is the same.

FTA: "The Kingdom of Sweden took a dramatic turn toward totalitarianism with the adoption of a sweeping new education “reform” package that essentially prohibits home schooling and forces all schools to teach the same government curriculum. The draconian 1,500-page law — deceptively referred to by the Swedish government as “The new Education Act - for knowledge, choice and security” — was approved by Parliament last week amidst strong criticism and opposition. When it goes into effect next year, the entire educational system will be transformed, and alternative education abolished."

Particularly in countries where the UNCRC has been adopted, this is definitely the wave of the future.

There seems to be a particular antipathy toward religious instruction, as explained by Education Ministry press secretary Anna Neuman. “[Religious schools] can’t make any children to pray or confess to the God, but they will still be allowed [to exist].”  So what she is saying is that there will be no more difference between "religious" school and a government school.

Swedish homeschoolers are considering leaving the county.

Let's Talk About the UNCRC

About a year ago, I wrote in this space (again) about the hazards posed to homeschooling by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  I referred my readers to an excellent article, and received a number of interesting, thoughtful comments.

Now that the Obama administration has conquered healthcare, it has turned its attention to immigration for the time being. But we have been hearing rumblings that a player soon coming up to bat will be our old nemesis, the UNCRC.

One of the comments to my old article was by "Anonymous", who, in a nutshell, felt I was overreacting - but it not that comment that I want to highlight, but my typically long-winded reply to him/her.  It is every bit as relevant today as it was, if not more so.

Anonymous, I am glad that you are being open and honest with your children. So am I. But I disagree with your comment "no one who is open and honest with their children, no one who does not try to 'inflict' their ideas and 'beliefs' on their children needs worry about what the UN proposes."

This statement or some variant is usually used by people who are disdainful of Christian parents' insistence on teaching their children about Christ, and feel that they limit their children's experiences by promoting their Christian beliefs, and teaching their children about others' beliefs through the grid of their Christian worldview.

But if I don't believe in Jesus Christ enough to teach my children about Him, then why bother believing?

If my child is in a burning building, I believe he is in grave danger and I am going to use whatever means I have to get him out of there. If I am beating down the door and he opens the door and tells me its ok, the fire is not going to burn him and (insert other belief system) says the fire is not even real, I am still going to try to rescue him from the fire regardless of his beliefs. This is especially true for a young person who has no idea that he is not indestructible. If I actually believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and I believe that my child's soul is in grave danger, that is just as much an objective truth to me as when I see a building on fire. I am going to try to rescue him from that danger regardless of his beliefs.

Let's forget about the religion question for a minute. Should parents of any persuasion be forced to allow their children unrestricted access to any kind of media, or to associate with any person they want to or have any kind of experience they think they want to try? When they are old enough to make these decisions for themselves, they are going to do what they want anyway. But when they are very young, should they have the "right" to watch porn, or go out alone to meet some pedophile they met in an online chat room? Should government be able to override any and every decision of the parent because some government hack decided that it was in the "best interest of the child" or have the child removed from the house even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing?

Since you submitted this comment, the mother of a homeschooled girl in New Hampshire who was academically superior by most every standard, was forced to send her child to school because the judge thought the child was too firm in her belief in Christ. From his perspective this could only happen by indoctrination, like only someone who didn't know any better would believe in Christ.

You may agree with this ruling, but this is a dangerous precedent. One day something you believe may be on trial. 

I have written at some length on the UNCRC, and you can find additional posts here.  I'm sure there are many opinions about this, from homeschoolers and non-homeschoolers, from Christians and non-Christians, from Americans and from others who live in countries who are already signatories on this treaty.  If you will express yourself in a respectful way, your opinion is welcome here!  No flamethrowing, please. If you are fighting mad right now, please calm down before you write. Also, I do not want debate about what I believe (or what you don't believe) about Jesus Christ, but about whether you think the government knows more than you do about how to raise your children. I really do want to be able to publish every comment, so watch your language!

What, if any, has been your experience with this treaty?

Why we need a Parental Rights Amendment

From ParentalRights.org

Your freedom to raise your children
with your own faith and worldview is under attack
from outside our country, and from within.

♦ A New Hampshire mom has been forbidden to
home school because her daughter holds “too
firmly” to her religious beliefs.

♦ Several Boston-area school districts have rules on
what food parents can or cannot include in their
child’s lunch.

♦ National governments around the world are being
pressured to outlaw modest spanking as discipline
in the home, regardless of what voters would
choose.

♦ The United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of
the Child contains threats to parental rights and national
sovereignty. One expert writes, “[The] best
interests [principle] provides decision and policy
makers with the authority to substitute their own
decisions for either the child’s or the parents’.”

This is not just in divorce courts. This is for any decision.

Call your legislators and tell them you support a parental rights amendment and oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is time to stop pretending this stuff is no big deal. Our freedom to decide how to raise our children is at stake. Ignorance is no excuse.

Thoughts From A Conservative Mom: Sweden outlaws home schooling

Here is a sobering article following up on yesterday's post.

Thoughts From A Conservative Mom: Sweden outlaws home schooling

So much for those who are thinking that the UNCRC is not going to be a problem for the US.

Just because you are not homeschooling does not mean that teams of government bureaucrats will not be able to override your every decision if they deem it not in "the best interests of the child."

Do you REALLY want someone else telling you what is best for your children?

Parents, oppose ratification of this treaty with every breath, or risk losing the right to direct the upbringing of your children.

Including their education.

Including their spiritual development, or lack thereof.

A lot of parents don't care about that because they think that will only affect those crazy Christians who hate the "godless" schools and want to establish a Theocracy on earth. "Good riddance," they are thinking. "We could do with less religion in the world."

Atheist parent, do you want the government to tell you that you are required to take your child to church if he wants to go?

Muslim parent, do you want the government to tell you that you must allow your child to convert to Judaism if that is what she desires?

That's what I thought.

This affects everyone.

No More Parental rights? The Threat is Real

Even as I am writing this, activists are gathering in Washington DC to rally in support of the ratification UNCRC (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). It has been suggested that there will be an attempt by supporters in Congress to pass "ambush legislation" - that is, to rush through the ratification of this international treaty without getting the support of the American People.

The last few days and weeks should tell you that Congress does not give a damn about the support or desires of the American People.

• Ordinary Americans who do not support Obamacare have been vilified and mocked in the press and by legislators themselves as some sort of insurance industry shills and (God forbid) right-wing crackpots.
  
• Yesterday the White House directed the Justice Department to file court papers claiming the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against homosexuals, even though the Justice Department lawyers have been arguing that it is constitutional, and an infringement on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

Parentalrights.org observes:

Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in "the best interest of the child."

In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.

It should insult you that this treaty will consider you an abusive parent unless you are able to prove otherwise. This sets a dangerous precedent that undermines our legal status as "innocent until proven guilty."

For those who cannot believe that parental rights are endangered by this treaty, but here are a couple of examples of cases where judges decided against parents without the treaty. We are not talking about parents who are abusive and dangerous themselves. There are already laws on the books dealing with those. We are talking about judicial activism and a culture that increasingly devalues parents and seeks to place control of our children, if not with the state, anywhere but with us.

From www.parentalrights.org

A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as "psychological co-parents," the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were "deeply troubled by the utter disregard" for the mother's rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the “paramount right in the world."

Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question."Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?" he asked. (In Re: Visitation and Custody of Senturi N.S.V., 221 W.Va. 159, 652 S.E. 2d 490 (2007))

Excuse me? With the girl's BABYSITTERS?? Does modern contempt for all things traditional or parental know no bounds? How about this one:

From www.parentalrights.org

The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter's participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter's life by grounding her.

But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent's actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was "conflict between parent and child." Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away. (In Re: Sumey, 94 Wn. 2d 757, 621 P. 2d 108 (1980))

Did you catch the date on that last one? That was almost 30 years ago! Do you really think that judges have become more traditional since then? The battle has escalated alarmingly in just the few months since Obama was elected.

I know these last few posts do not deal directly with home business, but they do deal directly with homeschooling. Home schooling is already being restricted in other countries, notably in the UK, precisely because of provisions of this treaty. But even if you are not a homeschooler, if you have children and believe that you know better how to raise them than the state does, you should be afraid.

Very afraid.

Let's Look A Little Deeper at the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Here is an outstanding piece that goes into more detail about exactly what is wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I will not elaborate but urge you to go now and check this out. You may be shocked to realize how any rights YOU have to direct the upbringing of your child will be affected. This is not only, as she says, about "Christians and nutty homeschoolers" who oppose this. If you are a parent, you should oppose this.

Contact your legislators immediately.

Call Now to Stop UN Children’s Treaty

Monday in a Harlem middle school, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a group of 120 students that administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely accepted treaty.

This is the first direct public statement by the Obama administration that it will seek ratification of the UN CRC.

In my 30 years of political involvement, I have learned to recognize this as what is called a “trial balloon.” Like in World War I trench warfare, our opponents have “sent up a balloon” to see if it will draw fire. If things remain quiet, they will proceed with their plans to push for ratification of the CRC in the U.S. Senate. To discourage them from doing so, we need to make sure that our voices are heard with unmistakable clarity. We must let the Obama administration know that we oppose this anti-family, anti-American treaty.

Action

Here’s what we need you all to do:

1. Call the White House comments line at 202-456-1111. Tell them you heard the administration wants to ratify the CRC, and you strongly oppose this giving away of U.S. sovereignty to the UN. Also, keep in mind that this treaty gives the government jurisdiction to override any decision made by any parent if the government thinks that a better decision can be made—even if there is no proof of any harm.

2. Call the Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations. Tell her that you want her to represent the United States to the world rather than trying to get the United States to go along with international law initiated by the UN. Her office number is 212-415-4000.

3. Contact your senators and urge them to oppose ratification of this treaty. (Find your senators’ contact information by using HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox.) Ask them also to defeat it once and for all by cosponsoring SJRes 16—the Parental Rights Amendment.

It is very important that we speak up right now. Please call before you close this email!

Michael Farris
HSLDA Chairman

For Minors in New Jersey, Abortion Easier than Giving Blood

Weekly Trenton Musings
NJ Family Policy Council
Posted May 8, 2009

Wednesday, Governor Corzine signed into law A3580 / S2513, which allows minors who are 16 years of age to donate blood with parental consent. Specifically, the bill states, “Any person of the age of 16 years may donate blood in any voluntary and noncompensatory blood program with the written consent of at least one parent or the person’s legal guardian or other legally responsible adult, as appropriate.” It passed the state legislature with overwhelming support.

Ironically, a 16-year old needs to get consent to donate blood, but in New Jersey, children 16, 15, 14, 13 … and younger … need no such permission to have an abortion. In fact, children don’t even need to tell their parents that they’re having a highly-invasive and potentially dangerous surgical procedure!

In 1999, the New Jersey state legislature passed parental notification legislation, which required a minor either to notify a parent before having an abortion or obtain a court order waiving the requirement that she do so. Note, this law didn’t require parental consent but merely parental notification. In response, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the new legislation.

Read more of this disturbing article here.

What does this have to do with homeschooling?

Everything. It is this kind of happy horse manure that responsible parents should be trying to protect their children from.

Homeschooling is a huge commitment, but the fate of one or more of your grandchildren may be decided by legislation like this.

Give blood, give life. Have an abortion, take life. Something is wrong with this picture.

Democrats' Next Target: the Internet

Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia has introduced two senate bills that may severely regulate traffic on the Internet.The Canadian Free Press explains it this way: The White House will have new powers to access private online data, regulate the cyber security industry and even shut down Internet traffic.

From the article: "When most of us think of Big Brother, we think it would be some invasive government device coming in to our house with a camera and a screen like 1984. But this law makes me realize it will be much more subtle and sinister than that, at first at least. Right now Citizens of the USA are voluntarily inputing, creating and surrendering their "private" information for Big Brother, and they don't even realize it! Everyone who has "private information" and "private messages" and "private images" and "private friends" in their "private" facebook, my space or any other social website, will have their privacy invaded with this new law. Even if a citizen uses every security feature of the website available, to keep people they don't know from viewing their "private" information, they will not truly have privacy because government can enter. Also every medical record that the government wants on the internet will be subject to privacy invasion as well. Perhaps all e-mail services too?"

A must read, if you value the internet.

read more | digg story

70 year old grandma imprisoned for selling illegal lead-tainted baby sweaters

"We interrupt this program for an urgent announcement..."

For the last several weeks I have been showcasing eBay selling as a way to make money from home, as it has been for me for the last ten years.

Imagine my horror when I learned of new legislation that could trash your new eBay career before it even begins!

And mine.

On Feb. 10, parts of the Consumer Protection Safety Information Act are set to take effect. The law, which was passed without fanfare during the summer as a response to the flood of products recalled for unsafe lead levels at that time, requires stringent lead testing for all products sold to children 12 and younger. The standards also require testing for toxins found in some plastics. For clothing items, the problem might be buttons, snaps, zippers or other fasteners.

Did you catch the "ALL" in "all products?"

At least for now, that includes one of a kind wooden toys produced by crafters worldwide, those cute little baby booties your mother-in-law makes when someone has a new baby, the gently used children's clothes you were planning to try to sell over at the consignment shop, and any other kind of new or used product aimed at children sold on eBay, Craigslist, Half.com, and countless numbers of free classified ads in newspapers and newsletters and bartering clubs nationwide.

Did I mention the thrift shops who are the beneficiaries of your donated toys and clothing to Vietnam Veterans of America or other charitable groups?

At a time when downsized and desperate American families are flocking to thrift stores and consignment stores to save money, and attempting to sell prized collections to make money, it is incredible that in a matter of a month, your daughter's prized collection of "new-in-box" Barbies that you were expecting to liquidate towards her college tuition will be worthless fodder for the landfill.

According to KVUE-TV in Austin, TX. Adding to the confusion and frustration is the fact that the U.S. Consumer Products and Safety Commission is not returning calls or e-mails to the countless re-salers and even journalists who have tried in vain to get clarification on what the law means to garage sales and how it will be enforced.

Here are some other articles that will give you more information about the ramifications of this law, from -
Etsy.com
St. Louis Today
Cool Mom Picks
Seibertron.com-Ultimate Transformer's Resource
KVUE-TV Austin, TX
LA Times
Moms in the Right

The LA Times article notes, "Many retailers and thrift stores appear to be unaware that the law is changing. Of half a dozen Southern California children's thrift stores contacted by The Times, only one had heard of the law. Organizations such as Goodwill say they're still investigating how the law will affect them because there is so much confusion about what will be banned."

It is important for us to contact our lawmakers and the minions at the Consumer Protection Agency while there is still time to comment and get some straight answers about the scope of this law.

UPDATE: Good News for Thrift Stores!

The Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement today which said, "Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards."

eBay stores, however are NOT out of the woods. World Net Daily reports:

The act's broad wording could extend to new children's items sold on eBay, Craig's List, Amazon. Critics also say landfills will be hit hard if stores, distributors and families simply throw their untested items away rather than face prosecution. And clothing, toys, furniture and books at large retailers could become more expensive to cover third-party testing costs.