Court: It does take a village when it comes to sexuality

Worldnet Daily ^ | 11/3/2005 | Unknown

[Blood of Tyrants]

LAW OF THE LAND

Court: It does take a village when it comes to sexuality
Parents 'have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools'

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 much

Thinking 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 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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

THIS is what elections are about. The ability to appoint judges that will uphold the parents' rights to teach their children what they deem appropriate.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Pull please. Duplicate. The other one has a different title.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514818/posts

[little jeremiah]

ping out later.

Nazgul.

[E Rocc]

These judges are utterly clueless. Barring a Constitutionally base finding (virtually impossible in this case), the Hatch Amendment specifically forbids the schools from doing this kind of stuff without the positive consent of the parents.

-Eric

[Clock King]

The judges have made their ruling, let them enforce it. Ignore these sub-humans.

[Graymatter]

These questions about sex, what sort of "information" are they "providing?"

[sgtbono2002]

Get your kids out of these toilets posing as schools.

[SittinYonder]

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."

What about the kids who, according to their religion, aren't allowed to watch television? I went to school with such a child, and every time we watched a video or slide show he got up and left the room. How is it different?

There is a solution to this, but I'm not going to post what it is for fear that if someone burns down the 9th Circuit Court I'll be charged with inciting arson.

[weegee]

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.

[reegs]

Time to start building the guillotines. And when the revolution happens, the ruling class will be completely shocked, I'm sure.

[muawiyah]

The 9th Circuit's got more than a few judges whose primary concern is their own personal right to cruise the public school playgrounds.

What we need are some federal prosecutors in CA who have the guts to undertake surveillance of these characters to catch them in the act.

[pabianice]

Insanity.

[weegee]

The solution is to get the tyrants off the bench.

This is NOT how America operates. More decisions like this and there will be a movement to get the government out of the school business altogether.

The left is indoctrinating again.

Just try to go online to a "chat room" and pose these questions. You could be found guilty of corrupting a minor.

[bigcat00]

I hesitate (but not too much, obviously) to comment without having read the entire opinion, but it seems to me strange that the 9th Circuit would find it OK for a parent to sue on behalf of a child regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and find that making a kid say the Pledge is unconstitutional, while later holding that a parent cannot prohibit a school from asking kids extremely personal questions about sex. Of course, its the wacky 9th, which is why my state wants out of it. And, I fear that this is the kind of decision that will be used as precedent in the 9th to further force kids into state-sponsored programming on "diversity," abortion, etc., to attempt to prohibit home schooling and to control teaching at private schools.

[x5452]

Hopefully this goes the other way at a higher and more intelligent court.

[HamiltonJay]

9th Circuit once again.... Liberals are Jack Booted Thugs... its no coincidence that the NAZI party was the Socialist Party of Germany.

[Graybeard58]

It's a dupe because you used the correct title. The other poster did not.

[cubreporter]

Also...the parents need to march for their issues justlike others do to bring attention to their issues. It's not gonna happen by sitting on the sideline and not doing anything about it. Parents...it's up to the parents to gather peacefully but...come out in strong numbers. It's time to take back our country and all that is good in it.

[writer33]

What? And leave things to parents. Are you out of your mind?

:)

[SittinYonder]

This is NOT how America operates

More and more, this is how America operates. My oldest son is in fourth grade, and each year I've seen a steady increase in the number of instances where the school is usurping the rights of the parents. Often it's not even subtle, but you can't find more than a handful of parents who see it and understand it for what it is. And most, even when you tell them about it, simply don't care.