Skip to comments.U.S. Court Allows Survey of Children on Sex Topics
Posted on 11/03/2005 7:37:18 AM PST by Syco
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Parents have no constitutional right to prevent public schools from exposing children to sexual topics, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision that found the rights of parents were not violated by a California public school district that allowed a psychological survey of its elementary school children.
Among the survey questions asked of the children were 10 with sexual references, such as "Can't stop thinking about sex" and "Not trusting people because they might want sex."
A group of parents whose children were surveyed sued the Palmdale School District, alleging their right to privacy and civil rights had been violated because control of their children's upbringing had been "robbed."
A three-judge panel held the parents have a right to inform their children as they wish about sex but do not have the right to prevent a public school from providing students with information it deems appropriate.
"Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the panel. "Such an obligation would not only contravene the educational mission of the public schools, but also would be impossible to satisfy."
If you're a parent or ever plan to be you need to call your Senators on this one!
Here is an excerpt from the text of the court's decision:
" 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.... In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents 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 and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right. In doing so, we do not quarrel with the parents right to inform and advise their children about the subject of sex as they see fit. We conclude only that the 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."
This is one more attempt by the Ninth Circuit to eliminate the rights of parents. Alito can't be seated fast enough!
Even if there is no fundamental right of parents to be the "exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children", there IS a fundamental right to be the gatekeeper in determining what is appropriate for their children and parents absolutely have a right to know if the school intends to give the children a "survey" with intrusive personal questions about sexual topics.
You know, they get by with this stuff all the time by labeling anything that comes down the pipe as "information." Who can be opposed to "information"? A tactic conservatives should start using also until they get it. Creationist stuff is "information." Pictures of unborn babies being ripped apart are "information." Etc.
Easy answer....do away with public schools!!! That would also take care of the NEA.......
there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children"
Really? I say there is, and always has been. Who gave those leftist slugs the authority to negate human rights?
Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state. The state will take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing. Your child belongs to us already....what are you?.... Adolph Hitler
The obvious - get 'em out of there!
I think it could be argued that this survey is an act of violence against a seven-year old. I would see about getting a group of parents together, find a pro-bono lawyer, and absolutely sue the sh*t out of the school board/district that allowed this.
No. But they can take their money and their kids.
Why, oh why, isn't the 9th Circus Court a footnote in history by now? For that matter, why aren't "public" schools?
Bravo sierra like this is why I'm home-schooling my daughter when she gets older.
This decision is so bad, it is obnoxious.
I'm not a lawyer, but there must be some legal basis for parents having the right to raise their children as they see fit. Schools are the agents of the parents, not some separate independent "parent" authority. This is just one more reason for not sending your children to public school!
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.
From The Weekly Standard:
The Judge the Supreme Court Loves to Overturn
From the May 5, 1997 issue: Judge Stephen Reinhardt was notorious long before his 9th Circuit's Pledge of Allegiance decision.
by Matt Rees 05/05/1997, Volume 002, Issue 33
STEPHEN REINHARDT is the liberal badboy of the federal judiciary. He is ideological, outlandish, and never dull. The 66-year-old judge, appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1980 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, is well known to the Supreme Court, which has a habit of overturning his opinions.
In fact, Reinhardt is one of the most overturned judges in history. In this term alone, the high court has reversed seven opinions that Reinhardt has either written or been party to. These haven't been narrow reversals, either--all seven of them have been unanimous. Moreover, four other opinions in which Reinhardt had a hand--including his notorious conclusion that there is a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide--are now pending before the court. In his many years on the bench, Reinhardt has proven himself one of those judges who view the Constitution as an infinitely malleable document in which myriad "rights" can be divined. He has ruled that farmers lack the standing to challenge the Endangered Species Act because they are motivated by "an economic interest." He has ruled that the use of police dogs to track down drugs or criminal suspects violates the Fourth Amendment (which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures). Decisions such as these have made him a revered figure of the legal Left--in 1987, the California Trial Lawyers named him "Appellate Judge of the Year." With every reversal, Reinhardt's image grows in the eyes of those who view him as a last, left-activist outpost.
That WMD expert will be pleased.
January 11, 2005:
... Grady Arnold is a Southern Baptist pastor who heads "http://GetTheKidsOut.org/ ," a group that advocates a Christian exodus from public schools. He is openly critical of what he sees happening but says, unfortunately, many Christian pastors are afraid to speak out against anti-Christian discrimination in government-funded schools.
We sit here and declare our outrage and we all nod in agreement on this and many other topics.
What we need is not just a forum to vent, but a way to take some action.
That's because the churches have bought into being government puppets through their IRS 501(C)(3) status. Just wait. You ain't seen nothin yet!
Makes me wonder who would be interested in what elementary school children have to say about sex anyways.
Last I checked, those 10 and under shouldn't have much of a reason to be concerned about sex.
The Pontifical Counsel for the Family specifically assigns to parents the basic right and duty of sex education, in Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, in Sections 112-148.
A couple of excerpts:
It follows that any educative activity, related to education for love and carried out by persons outside the family, must be subject to the parents' acceptance of it and must be seen not as a substitute but as a support for their work. In fact, "Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them".
. . .
The rights of parents must be recognized, protected and maintained, not only to ensure solid formation of children and young people, but also to guarantee the right order of cooperation and collaboration between parents and those who can help them in their task.
This decision ignores the basic rights of parents. It goes so far, in my opinion, to preclude the free exercise of religion by Catholics in public schools.