What Hillary Clinton actually believes bears little resemblance to the caricature drawn by the Republicans. The charge that she is anti-family was concocted from a scholarly article she wrote in 1973, while still a student at Yale Law School. Entitled “Children Under the Law” and published in The Harvard Educational Review, it examines the murky area of children’s rights and argues that in certain situations, children should be allowed to separate from their parents. While mildly radical at the time, Clinton’s views are now accepted as standard fare by the American Bar Association. “I’ve read everything Hillary Clinton has written on this topic, and it’s very clear she’s writing about abused and neglected kids, cases where the courts are already involved,” says Howard Davidson of the ABA’s Center on Children and the Law.
Mrs. Clinton insists that she is not trying to give children a blanket right to sue. “There is no way that anybody could fairly read the article and say I was advocating that children sue parents over taking the garbage out,” she told NEWSWEEK. The article makes it clear that she would reserve the right for children who suffer from extreme cases of abuse or neglect. A child with a cleft palate whose parents refuse treatment would likely have a case; one whose parents refuse cosmetic surgery would not. Most attorneys now believe that when any abusive family situation reaches the courts, the child is entitled to a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton became a children’s-rights advocate after working as a law student at the Yale-New Haven Hospital. Her assignment was to define the standards by which child abuse would be judged and dealt with. “I know the situations that exist in this country whether the right wing wants to admit it or not,” she says. “I’m not talking about intervening in families over minor things.” In her work with the Children’s Defense Fund, a Washington-based lobbying group, Clinton has argued that adolescents should be treated more like adults. Conservatives claim that if Clinton’s views are fully embraced, they would shift the burden of proof in family disputes from the child to the parent–a reversal that would transform the legal system. Clinton dismisses these fears as politically inspired, and says an example of her philosophy at work is the way some states-including Arkansas-handle abortion rights for young women. The Clintons support parental notice but oppose parental consent. “If you can presume that a child is competent to make a decision, you still want that child to have parental guidance wherever possible,” she says. “But realistically, we know that in many cases that is not possible.”
Except in the case of Supreme Court nominees, it is rare for a legalistic article to become a political issue, especially when it is squarely in the mainstream of thinking by the organized bar. Conservatives argue that the American Bar Association’s backing only proves Hillary Clinton’s liberal leanings. The ABA is under fire from the Bush administration for its allegedly leftist agenda, which included hosting Anita Hill at its recent convention. But a careful reading of Hillary Clinton’s 27-page treatise leaves a different impression than the one created by her husband’s political opponents. Clinton concludes the article with a cautionary warning about overdoing government intervention. That is a sentiment that usually wins cheers at a Republican convention.
