Posted on 11/03/2005 6:15:02 AM PST by ff1787
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday against parents who sued their local school district after their elementary-age children were given a sexually charged survey, saying there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Government indoctrination camps. Period.
Another brilliant decision by the ninth circus.
Government indoctrination camps. Period.
Not really. This case has been posted and reposted and reposted and reposted and reposted.
and will more than likely be overturn. like always happens to the 9th
Well there isn't a constitutional argument (that I can think of) that says schools can't teach whatever they want. It's left up to the locally elected offiicials.
If you don't like it vote and encourage others to vote for different people. Move. Or home-school (which in Cali is getting tougher and tougher).
and will more than likely be overturn. like always happens to the 9th
That would be good. I wonder why these guys listen to these kinds of cases.
Later pingout. Nazgul.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514389/posts
lively discussion, same subject, different article, same facts, from yesterday
-Eric
Providing information to the student is one thing. This "survey" solicited sexual information from these children and violated their privacy. What this has to do with education, I have no idea.
The Sex Positive agenda at work. Seeking to make everyone sexually active at every age (including childhood) and seeking to eliminate all moral judgements over sexual activity including choice of partner regardless of age, sex, relation, marital status, number, or species.
Thank Dr. Kinsey.
How do you expect the homosexual recruiters and the perverts to be able to know which kids are susceptible without these little aids? Its always great to get this info so they know which kid to work on. they have 12 years to turn your kids into perverts.
"9th Circus"... Read no further...
"9th Circus"... Read no further...
9th circus has a fundamental right to be broken up and divided.
Then take your children out of that school. Period!!! Do not support it.
can someone of your opinion please explain to me then why a parent has the right to tell the school not to paddle their child?
Oh, look - the 9th circuit. How appropriate. When you can predict what the outcome will be, it seems to me there is absolutely no use for a 9th circuit court.
The court errors, when it says there is
"no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.";
when the fact is that there is
"no fundamental right of EDUCATORS to be providers of information regarding sexual matters to OUR children without our consent".
Educators have no valid "public" requirment or moral foundation for asking most all of the questions in the survey to any children, and much less grade school children.
I do not see how anyone cannot see that such a survey is intended not to find any needed information, but to introduce the questions in the survey into the childrens minds; questions which most grade school children would not even think of if not asked.
Well let me answer your question with a question. Can you explain to me why a parent can not tell a school they don't want their child taught 2+2=4?
It's a sliding scale. It used to be that a parent could NOT tell a school not to paddle their child. But locally elected officials changed that rule. Same goes for sex ed and math. If you don't like it, fight for better elected officials or move to where you have them.
When I had to move for my job there was only 3 locations I was willing to move to because I wanted to live in an area that agreed with me as opposed to being forced to accept other's beliefs upon my family.
Using the courts to get your beliefs forced upon someone is how we got legalized abortion across the land. It wasn't right then and it's not right now.
I disagree. It's a local/state issue. Sure I don't like it and I won't live in an area that has such policies (hence why I will never live on the left coast). This is not a federal issue--it's a states rights issue.
I disagree, with your disagreement.
Educators have the arrogant, elitist notion (erroneous) that beyond their students acquiring the academic skills and essential knowledge that educators should be teaching, that they have PRIMARY responsibility for "creating good citizens", and for making up for personal knowledge (sexuality) that parents may not be doing a good job at. Nothing, beyond academic skills and essential knowledge can be taught without it becoming propaganda, because it involves values, values which are not absolute, fixed and which free citizens have a right to have different opinions about. Parents have a right that my views, or you views about sexuality not be taught and an educator has no requirement to know what a grade school child knows about that subject. It is an invasion of the private life of families.
Will this finally spur Republican lawmakers to support tax credits for parents who send their kids to private schools?
I agree with your political view point fully. However, I'm just saying the proper place for this to be decided is at the state and local level--not the federal courts.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I may be wrong on this (and if I am I'd love for someone to educmacatem me), but the US constitution doesn't give the families the right to overrule state/local officials in educating their children.
Now on the federal level, I'd say the feds have no business in education and it's a state/local issue. But I have less people that agree with on that issue as well. Somewhere they found it constitutional to educate kids with federal funds, so there may be a tie in as to whether or not they can educate kids over parents objections.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday against parents who sued their local school district after their elementary-age children were given a sexually charged survey, saying there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."
The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:
Touching my private parts too muchThinking about having sex
Thinking about touching other people's private parts
Thinking about sex when I don't want to
Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
Not trusting people because they might want sex
Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
Having sex feelings in my body
Can't stop thinking about sex
Getting upset when people talk about sex
Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the unanimous opinion for the court [.pdf document]. Referring to the fact the parents lost their case at the district-court level, Reinhardt wrote:
We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [emphasis Reinhardt's].
Carrie Gordon Earll is director of issue analysis with Focus on the Family Action.
"Anyone who wonders why pro-family organizations like ours have been so concerned about activist courts only has to look at this case," Earll said in a statement. "The 9th Circuit did more than rule against parents who were upset that their elementary-school-aged children were being asked explicit questions about sex in class. They told all parents they have no right to protest what public schools tell their children."
Continued Earll: "What the court did here is declare parenthood unconstitutional. It's long been the liberal view that it takes a village to raise a child – but never before have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law, above mothers and fathers."
The controversy began in 2001 when a volunteer "mental health counselor" at Mesquite Elementary School set out to conduct a psychological assessment test of students in the first, third and fifth grades.
A letter to parents asked for their consent to conduct the study but did not indicate that questions of a sexual nature would be asked. The survey included 79 questions divided into four parts. Ten of those questions were of a sexual nature.
According to the court's opinion, the plaintiffs took action after their children participated in the survey and later told their parents about the sexual questions. Seeking damages and injunctive relief, the parents charged the district violated their federal constitutional right to privacy.
The lower court had ruled against the parents, saying the right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs" does not rise to the level of a fundamental right protected by substantive due process.
Wrote Reinhardt: "As with all constitutional rights, the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children is not without limitations. In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Court recognized that parents' liberty interest in the custody, care and nurture of their children resides 'first' in the parents, but does not reside there exclusively, nor is it 'beyond regulation [by the state] in the public interest.' For example, the state 'as parens patriae' may restrict parents' interest in the custody, care and nurture of their children 'by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor and in many other ways.'"
Reinhardt also cited previous cases that upheld the right of schools to educate children about issues of sexuality.
The State must rear children according to the Liberal Agenda!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514876/posts
U.S. Court Allows Survey of Children on Sex Topics
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514385/posts
Court says parents not sole providers of kids' sex education
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514815/posts
Appeals Court Declares Parenthood Unconstitutional
"Then take your children out of that school. Period!!! Do not support it."
And how do you suggest "not supporting it?" ... stop paying taxes? They will take your car and house.
YOU ARE FORCED TO SUPPORT IT and of course have no say in it! Heil 9th circus.
move if you have to! I know that is easier said than done but what is more important?
school vouchers/school choice
Well said.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
There are a lot of articles posted about this decision; I won't post them all. This one describes everything pretty clearly, and has the disgusting questions the children were asked in black and white. If you have kids, you want teachers handing them these questions?
Compare this article to the one I just pinged out about Spain (or was that the other list?). Even Spain gets it.
You see, they want our children. For fodder, for fresh meat, for voters and taxpayers, to overhaul society. Those who are enslaved by their physical urges (especially unnatural ones) are easy to enslave by others.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.