Posted on 07/23/2004 12:33:23 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The New Mexico Health Department is standing behind a sex-education teacher in Santa Fe who encouraged ninth-graders to taste flavored condoms.
According to a report in the Santa Fe New Mexican, parent Lisa Gallegos said that when her 15-year-old daughter balked at putting a condom in her mouth, instructor Tony Escudero told her, "Come on, sweetie, have a little fun."
Also, Gallegos quotes her daughter as saying when a male student expressed his disgust with homosexual activity, Escudero said, "Never say never, because you never know. Someday you might like it that way."
"I agree with sex ed 100 percent," Gallegos, whose daughter attends Santa Fe High School, told the paper. "I also teach it here at my home. But I think that was inappropriate and wrong 100 percent."
According to the report, Dorothy Danfelser, deputy director for the public-health division of the state Health Department, said she wrote Gallegos last week to say Escudero did nothing wrong.
"It had been investigated," Danfelser told the New Mexican. "There was no wrongdoing. I have no more comment. ... (Gallegos) may or may not agree with that, but that's her prerogative."
Both Danfelser and Escudero claim this was the first complaint he has received about his presentation, which he has been doing for years.
"He didn't really tell them to just put (condoms) in their mouth," Danfelser said. "What he does, basically, in his classes, depending on the age appropriateness of the class, is to try to get them ... used to condoms and kind of destigmatize them.
"He tells them, if they're comfortable, they can open up the packages, they can touch them, they can stretch them out and those kind of things. And he has told them, if they're the flavored kind, they can go ahead and taste them if they want to. But it's generally to desensitize the whole stigma of 'Oh my God, it's a condom.'"
Publik Skools are pushers. They are run by perverts.
Tony, unless you think you look good in stripes, perhaps you should change your appetite and look for a more seasoned bait!
Stop using such big words...heh
G'evening, amigo
Already posted:
Teacher has kids tasting flavored condoms (Brave New Schools)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1176609/posts
Exactly--this guy is up to no good. He's getting a thrill out of having young girls sticking condoms in their mouth in front of him. The mother is an idiot if she keeps her daughter in this school.
If a grown man ever tried that with one of my girls, people would be saying, "What ever happened to Tony Escudero? He just disappeared."
What a bunch of GD perverts! No wonder they went for Gore. They deserve him.
And the very people who pay for it (taxpaying parents) can go f*** themselves if they don't like it. Is'nt that sweet?
Don't know what to say. This is nuts.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of what goes on in public schools. If people only knew the half of it, they would pull their children for their own safety.
Several years ago, a middle school kid was quoted in the newspaper as saying the same thing.
Be careful what you wish for.
In Massachusetts, this has been going on for over 10 years. We even had a comedienne turned sex-ed "teacher" do this on stage in front of an auditorium filled with 14-16 year olds. But the presentation was much worse than this. One girl tried to leave during the presentation, but teachers blocked her exit.
Her parents sued the school, and lost.
Brown v. Hot, Sexy, And Safer Productions, Inc. (1st Cir. 1995)This story only made the papers when someone leaked a video to a local Christian radio station. The Boston papers later grudgingly covered the story, portraying the complaining family as "Christian fundamentalists."The U.S. Court of Appeals For The First Circuit several years ago issued a decision calling into question whether a parent's right to direct the upbringing of his child is protected by the Constitution. 53 F. 3d. 152 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied (1996).
On April 8, 1992, the Chelmsford (Massachusetts) High School held two mandatory, school-wide assemblies for ninth through twelfth grades. The school district contracted through the chairperson of the PTO with a performer, Suzi Landolphi, head of "Hot, Sexy, and Safer Productions", to present an AIDS awareness program for $1000.
According to the Complaint, during her presentation, Ms. Landolphi: "1) told the students that they were going to have a 'group sexual experience, with audience participation'; 2) used profane, lewd, and lascivious language to describe body parts and excretory functions; 3) advocated and approved oral sex, masturbation, homosexual sexual activity, and condom use during promiscuous premarital sex; 4) simulated masturbation; 5) characterized the loose pants worn by one minor as 'erection wear'; 6) referred to being in 'deep shit' after anal sex; 7) had a male minor lick an oversized condom with her, after which she had a female minor pull it over the male minor's entire head and blow it up; 8) encouraged a male minor to display his 'orgasm face' with her for the camera; 9) informed a male minor that he was not having enough orgasms; 10) closely inspected a minor and told him he had a 'nice butt'; and 11) made eighteen references to orgasms, six references to male genitals, and eight references to female genitals." 68 F. 3d at 529.
Before contracting with Ms. Landolphi, the school physician and PTO chairperson had previewed a video showing segments of Ms. Landolphi's performance. School officials, including the school superintendent, were present at the assemblies. They knew in advance what she would say and how she would say it. But no advance notification of the presentation was given to parents, despite a school policy stating that written parental permission was a prerequisite to health classes dealing with human sexuality.
The parents of two students sued on behalf of themselves and their children, alleging that the school district had violated their privacy rights and their substantive due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, their RFRA rights and their Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment. The district court dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6), and the First Circuit affirmed.
In its discussion of the substantive protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the parent's right to rear his children, after discussing Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the First Circuit stated in dictum:
"Nevertheless, the Meyer and Pierce cases were decided well before the current "right to privacy" jurisprudence was developed, and the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the right to direct the upbringing and education of one's children is among those fundamental rights whose infringement merits heightened scrutiny. We need not decide here whether the right to rear one's children is fundamental because we find that, even if it were, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an intrusion of constitutional magnitude on this right."
68 F. 3d at 532 (footnote omitted)(emphasis supplied.)
The First Circuit then rejected the plaintiffs' free exercise claim. First, the court questioned "whether the Free Exercise Clause even applies to public education." 68 F. 3d at 536. Second, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that their parental rights were protected by the Free Exercise Clause under the "hybrid exception," noted in Employment Division v. Smith, for "the right of parents, acknowledged in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) to direct the education of their children, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)." Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881 (1990). The First Circuit stated:
"[A]s we explained, the plaintiffs' allegations of interference with family relations and parental prerogatives do not state a privacy or substantive due process claim. Their free exercise challenge is thus not conjoined with an independently protected constitutional protection."
68 F. 3d at 539.
Virtually all public school districts in the U.S. receive federal funds. So H.R. 1691 would once again level the playing field for parents who, for reasons of religious conscience, wish to have their child "opt out" of objectionable instruction such as this.
Government schools are no place for children, especially the children of Catholics, who should know better.
This is what we get when socialists run things. The teacher should be fired and the health department needs investigated. Parents need to be explaining these things not the villiage as Hitlery puts it. I don't care what people think of what I'm saying. Mom and Dad made the children. If they can make them they need to be responsible for them after they had the good time making them. My wife and I stayed with both of ours and raised them. Were we perfect, "No", but we did what we had to do and we came out pretty good with the way both our children turned out.
Nuts.
According to a district attorney in MA, museums, libraries, and public schools are exempt from state pornography laws.
Stupid public school officials wonder why kids act up in class and why there is an increase in sexual assaults.
I wonder if the plaintiffs pulled their kids out of this "school."
Well, at least he wasn't wearing them at the time.
That tells you something. At least it tells something to people willing to hear.
this was posted yesterday in another thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1176609/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.