From WorldNetDaily.com LAW
OF THE LAND Posted: November 3, 2005
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, 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. |