Skip to comments.Court says parents not sole providers of kids' sex education
Posted on 11/02/2005 2:26:45 PM PST by SmithL
an Francisco (AP) --
A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by elementary school parents who were outraged that the Palmdale School District had surveyed students about sex.
While the surveys asked students how often they thought about sex, among other questions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said parents of public school children have no "fundamental right" to be the exclusive provider of sexual information to their children. The parents maintained they had the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."
The plaintiffs had sought unspecified monetary damages.
In upholding a lower court that had also ruled against the parents, a three-judge panel of the appeals court here dismissed the case, ruling unanimously that "parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
So I guess the father who didn't want his young daughter exposed to books about homosexuals at school doesn't have the right to complain, either
Is this story actually true? I can't imagine anyone asking my students questions like these. It doesn't belong in an elementary school.
"In upholding a lower court that had also ruled against the parents, a three-judge panel of the appeals court here dismissed the case, ruling unanimously that "parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select."
Send your kids to public school and they cease to be yours any longer. Wards of the state.
The Stench in the Bench is making me Clench! -- Savage
All your children are belong to us...
Palmdale's a pretty conservative town - they often open their city council meetings with prayer (or use to).
SCHOOL CHOICE! ... SCHOOL CHOICE! ... SCHOOL CHOICE!
Sounds rather Communist to me.
I hope some bright legal type can explain to me how the clowns found in the Constitution such a right accruing to schools when schools are not even mentioned in the Constitution.
An explanation is not too much to expect, is it?
I know it's called an opinion, but it can't be an arbitrary one.
While I don't like what the school district is doing, the proper course of action for the parents is either to (a) vote the idiots out (the school board in this case)or (b) educate your kids somewhere else. Like most of you, I don't want a court (especially the 9th Cir.) dictating what - and what not - is taught to my kids.
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy
Born 1931 in New York, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on November 30, 1979, to a new seat created by 92 Stat. 1629; Confirmed by the Senate on September 11, 1980, and received commission on September 11, 1980.
Pomona College, B.A., 1951
Yale Law School, LL.B., 1954
U.S. Air Force, 1954-1956
Law clerk, Hon. Luther W. Youngdahl, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 1956-1957
Private practice, Los Angeles, California, 1957-1980
Race or Ethnicity: White
Dear Arthur Wildfire! March,
We pay our own piper, and call our own tune. We homeschool.