Ninth Circuit's Parental Rights Ruling Appealed

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Freddie53, Sep 5, 2006.

  1. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Likes Received:
    The South, USA
    This particular article is deploring the Ninth Circuit Court's Ruling. Do schools have the right to teach all children sexual education with the same cirruculum rights as schools have in teaching math, and reading, or is sex education different?

    My position is that the Ninth Circuit Court ruled correctly and that the Supreme Court should not hear the case or if they do uphold it.

    Agree or disagree and on constitutional grounds why?

    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT,sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Ninth Circuit's 'Deplorable' Parental Rights Ruling Appealed to SCOTUS[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]By Allie Martin
    September 5, 2006

    (AgapePress) - The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to hear a case involving a California school district that gave an explicit sex survey to elementary students.
    Five years ago, the Palmdale School District sent the survey to students in the first, third, and fifth grades (ages seven to ten) at Mesquite Elementary School. The survey, which was meant to measure children's exposure to early trauma, included ten questions about sex, asking the youngsters about such things as the frequency of "touching my private parts too much," "thinking about sex," "thinking about touching other people's private parts," and "having sex feelings in my body."
    Seven parents brought suit against the school district, claiming their constitutional rights were violated. But in November 2005, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit, claiming that parents relinquish their parental rights at the schoolhouse door. Ninth Circuit Judge Steven Reinhardt wrote that except for the Establishment and Treason Clauses, parents have no constitutional right to object to psychological sex surveys given to children as young as seven. According to Reinhardt -- who has been described as one of the most reversed judges in the country -- public schools have the right to administer sex instruction to any children, at any time and in any manner, notwithstanding the objections of their parents.
    Pro-family leaders were incensed by the ruling, one referring to it as an "egregious example of judicial tyranny" and another suggesting that it is hard to imagine that any of the Ninth Circuit judges ever had any young children.
    Liberty Counsel, enlisted by the parents, has now asked the highest court in the nation to hear Fields v. Palmdale School District. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the legal group, says the Ninth Circuit ruling is "intolerable" and an assault on every parent whose child attends public school.
    Mat Staver"It is outrageous that this court would say that parental rights stop at the schoolhouse gate; that whenever you drop off your child at school, you literally have lost your parental rights between the first bell of the day and the last bell that releases them," Staver comments. "That doesn't make any sense."
    The Liberty Counsel attorney says in the normal activities of life, parental rights are not pushed to the side. "I think parents, for example, who drop off their child at day care or soccer practice or even a summer camp clearly don't believe that they've severed their parental rights," he says. "Nor do they believe their parental rights stop at the schoolhouse gate and that the schools can teach anything in any manner in any way to any child on any topic."
    Liberty Counsel's petition for the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case was denied. "That just simply is intolerable, and it is contrary to Supreme Court precedent," Staver concludes. "That's why we're asking the court to get involved in this case."
    Staver, who is optimistic the high court will hear the case, says parents' involvement in the education of their children should be encouraged, not punished.
    Allie Martin, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.​
    [​IMG][FONT=arial, Helvetica, Zurich BT, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]E-mail this page to a friend
  2. brainzz_n_dong

    brainzz_n_dong New Member

    Feb 13, 2005
    Likes Received:
    What do I think - in a word - ludicrous.

    Let me get this straight. When it comes to a baby in the womb, the SC in 1973 saw a "right to privacy" in the Constitution and gave the thumbs-up to abortions if the mother so chooses...although the "r.t.p." isn't discussed anywhere in the Constitution. Be that as it may, a circuit court, no matter how staunchly originalist or liberal in their leanings, cannot overrule a SC decision. They have to use SC decisions as precedent in their own decision making.

    So we're left with the 9th circuit finding that there is nothing that you can hold private to discuss with your own children, especially on the subject of sex, but the SC has decided - 33 yrs ago - that you do have a right to privacy to decide to abort your own children? Beam me up, Scotty.

    What health and welfare interests of California are advanced by asking 7 to 10-yr olds questions dealing with the frequency of things such as "touching my private parts too much", "not trusting people because they might want sex", "having sex feelings in my body", or "can't stop thinking about sex"? How can these 'interviews' be purported to fulfill some legitimate interest & necessary concern of the state? I thought things of legitimate interest and necessary concern to the state (per 7-10 yr olds) extended to things like math education, proficiency in English and grammar usage, knowledge of history, rhetorical thinking and critical decision making, scientific learning, etc.

    Justice Reinhardt was so gracious to concede that "parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex", but turns right around and divests them of parental rights with the follow-up "...have no constitutional prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so".

    If that is the logic that wins the day and gets upheld by the SC, then one would not have any right to gripe about a school district deciding to teach Intelligent Design. If all that is needed is a simple majority in a school board vote, that would be following in the footsteps of a public school providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide....under Justice Reinhardt's "Otherwise Implementation Clause".
Draft saved Draft deleted