About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 53 (1999-2000)
What Does Frieda Yoder Believe?

handle is hein.journals/upjcl2 and id is 61 raw text is: WHAT DOES FRIEDA YODER BELIEVE? Emily Buss In his dissent in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the case upholding Amish parents' right to withdraw their children from high school for religious reasons, Justice Douglas challenged the Court's focus on the rights of parents.' In his view, if an Amish child desires to attend high school, and is mature enough to have that desire respected, the State may well be able to override the parents' religiously motivated objec- tions.2 To ascertain the child's desires, Douglas suggested that the State should simply ask her what she thinks.' While I share Douglas's view that the Yoder decision is deficient in its account of children's rights, I think Douglas's cure is worse than the disease. We should have no confidence that the State, in interjecting itself into a child's development of a religious identity with its clumsy, uninvited questions, will further the rights of children, let alone improve their lives. In the three decades since its publication, Douglas's dis- sent has served as a beacon for those calling for the recogni- tion of children's rights independent of the rights of their par- ents.' While the implications of his argument extend to any . Assistant Professor of Law. University of Chicago Law School. My thanks to participants in the Law and Philosophy Workshop at the University of Chicago Law School for their helpful comments on the topic, to Erynne Ross. whose class pres- entation and paper assisted me in analyzing minors' rights in the abortion context. and to Yael Karabelnik and Christopher Snell for their helpful research assistance. The Arnold and Frieda Shure Research Fund and the Max Rheinstein Research Fund in Family Law provided support for this research. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205. 241-49 (1972) (Douglas. J.. dissenting). 2 Id. at 242. 3 See icl. at 244. 246 n.4 (noting that oin the important and vital matter of edu- cation, I think the children should be entitled to be heard' and calling for the 'can- vassing [oil the views of all school-age Amish children). 4 See, e.g., David Orentlicher, Spanking and Other Corporal Punishment of Chil- dren by Parents: Overvaluing Pain, Undervaluing Children. 35 HOUs. L REV. 1478 (1998) (exempting Justice Douglas's dissent in Yoder from his general criticism of the law's undervaluation of children); Catherine J. Ross. From Vulnerability to Voke: Ap- pointing Counsel for Children in Civil Litigation. 64 FORDHAM L REV. 1571. 1587 (1996) (citing Justice Douglas's dissent in support of her argument that children should be represented by counsel in judicial proceedings affecting their interests). Catherine Grevers Schmidt, Where Privacy Falls: Equal Protection and the Abortion Right of Minors, 68 N.Y.U. L. REV. 597, 630 (1993) (citing Justice Douglas's dissent to support her argument for expanding mature minors' abortion rights): Leslie A. Fithian, Note, Forcible Repatriation of Minors: The Competing Rights of Parent and Child, 37 STAN. L. REV. 187. 204 (1984) (citing Justice Douglas as the first Supreme

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most