Home > Ninth Circuit Body Slams Parent's Rights

Ninth Circuit Body Slams Parent's Rights

from the November 08, 2005 eNews issue
http://www.khouse.org (visit our website for a FREE subscription)
America's favorite appeals court has done it again! The 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, notorious for ruling against "under God" in the Pledge, upset families across America last week with another controversial decision, this time undermining parents' rights. In the case of Fields v. Palmdale School District, the 9th Circuit ruled that parents have no constitutional right to prevent a school district from introducing sexual ideas to their children.

Parents of 1st, 3rd, and 5th graders at Mesquite Elementary School in Palmdale, California, were asked to sign a parental consent letter, giving the school permission to administer a psychological test to their children. The stated goal of the study was "to establish a community baseline measure of childrens exposure to early trauma (for example, violence)" and to "identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse." The results of the study would be used to help create a better learning environment for troubled children.

A number of parents who agreed to let their children participate were later dismayed to learn that the survey involved eight sex-related questions inappropriate for the average 6-10 year old. These included "Thinking about touching other peoples private parts" and "Cant stop thinking about sex."

Several parents eventually took the issue to court. They argued that the school district had robbed them of their fundamental 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."

The 9th Circuit, however, ruled that no such fundamental right existed - either in the Constitution or in statute law, or even in the nation's history and tradition. In his opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt argued that allowing parents that right would place an undue burden on schools to cater to the moral beliefs of each student. Parents had the right, Reinhardt said, to decide where to send their children to school, but not to dictate what a public school exposed to their children.

"...once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished."

The Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to control the disclosure of sensitive information, but Reinhardt pointed out that the plaintiffs had not brought the case on those grounds.

Reinhardt's opinion could be considered legally compelling - the Constitution says nothing about parents' rights, after all. The parents might also have done better to argue their case from the 1st or 4th Amendments. Yet, Reinhardt's liberal ideology still oozes through the rhetoric; the Constitution says nothing about public schools' rights either. This is the same Judge Reinhardt, remember, who ruled in 1996 that the "right to privacy" guaranteed a right to physician assisted suicide. He's argued that farmers cannot fight the Endangered Species Act when it destroys their livelihood because an "economic interest" is involved. He comes up with all sorts of ways to get "rights" from the succinct lines of the Constitution text. Yet, in Fields v. Palmdale, he decided public schools are free to expose young children to sensual concepts, and parents did not have the right to stop them.

Thank you 9th Circuit for another blow at the knees of the family in favor of the state.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in these articles, enews and linked websites are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views held by Koinonia House. Koinonia House is providing this information as a resource to individuals who are interested in current news and events that may have an impact on Christian Life and Biblical trends. Koinonia House is not responsible for any information contained in these articles that may be inaccurate, or does not present an unbiased or complete perspective. Koinonia House disavows any obligation to correct or update the information contained in these articles.

PLEASE NOTE: Unless otherwise expressly stated, pricing and offers mentioned in these articles are only valid for up to 30 days from initial publication date and may be subject to change.

Related Links:

  •   Court Says Parents Aren't Sole Providers of Sex Education - Desert Sun
  •   9th Circuit 'Declares War' on Parental Rights - Focus on the Family
  •   Fields v. Palmdale School Dist. - 9th Circuit Court
  •   The Judge the Supreme Court Loves to Overturn - Weekly Standard