It’s the logical extension (and conservative regression to “traditional values”) of parents’ rights. As of now, a parent has the right to deny their child an education in most states, under the guise of “homeschooling” or “religious schooling”. They have the right to deny their child access to reproductive healthcare in some states (of course, that right was recently greatly reduced for adult women, too, in many states). They have the right to deny their children access to lifesaving preventative healthcare. It used to be that a man had the right to keep his children working for him, for no wages, until they were 21 years old; in fact, this was a clear benefit of having children, for farmers. So why should we be surprised that it is being argued that it’s the parents’ decision on whether or not a child should be working 12 hour night shifts, under dangerous working conditions, even on a school night? This is a family decision!
After all, it’s just the kids of immigrants and poor people, not “important” people, who will donate to political campaigns. Even more importantly, exploiting children will increase the profits of the people who do donate to political campaigns, so it’s a win-win situation, unless you happen to be a kid from a poor family.
The supreme irony of this is that many are the ones who shout “protect the children” the loudest, when talking about banning literature which these people deem “inappropriate”. So what if a 12 year old gets their fingers chopped off, at least they aren’t reading about kids with two fathers!