Posted on 07/23/2004 4:26:02 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
My hope is they fight it; if they can intrude into the personal lives of parents then who's to say churches won't be next, or even that being a Christian is somehow mentally questionable?
They can do that now through a court order. But if this law takes effect the way it looks they won't be asking for anyone's permission, they'll just go ahead and do it.
Check this out (from another thread):
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.
__________
To tell you the truth, I think a lot of public schools make kids sick -- mentally, morally, emotionally, and physically sick.
Drug manufacturers and psychiatrists are going to have a field day in IL.
Thanks for that info. I've read and am looking for links that the Supreme Court has made past decisions which upheld parental rights in matters such as the child's welfare. I wonder if this First Circuit court ruling was appealed?
Don't really know how this law affects them but I'm sure if they're not included now they will be down the road.
No psychiatists and mental health professionals are going to treat children without parental or legal guardian consent. I do not see mandatory treatment requirement mentioned, and I doubt it will pass any constitutional challenge.
To me, this law is just trying to screen for at risk children and postpartum women. I still don't know how they are going to pay for it though.
I don't know if it was appealed. Considering the caliber of US Supreme Court justices and some of their flaky rulings, maybe it's best if something like this is just left alone even if the outcome isn't what the plaintiffs wanted.
I neglected to add this when I copied:
"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."
There is an opt out provision and schools can now lose federal funds if they force this nonsense on their students, but it looks like it has to be for "religious reasons." Well, what if a parent isn't religious, but still doesn't want their kid subjected to this garbage? Who decides -- the parents or the school?
I can see why homeschooling is growing year by year. It's just so much easier, for both parents and children.
They're saying here it's going to be required by all pregnant women and children up to 18. I don't know how they can mandate a 30 year old woman into mental health screening, that is so blatantly unconstitutional this story would be a joke if it hadn't already passed.
Barbara Shaw, Director of the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority has been appointed Partnership Chairwoman. Referring to the challenging task before her committee, she commented,
"I look forward to working with the Partnership and the Blagojevich Administration to build our children's social and emotional strength so they can become happy, achieving students and productive, caring citizens. We expect that Illinois will be a national leader in this effort." -- from Illinois.gov
New year brings new laws
Another new law permits criminal charges against gun owners who fail to store weapons safely _ perhaps by using trigger locks _ in cases where a child ends up injuring someone with the gun. The gun owner could be fined and jailed for 30 days.
Such laws won't stop gun violence, but they can have a real impact, said Barbara Shaw, director of the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority.
``The more society puts its collective foot down, so to speak, the more deterrence we´ll have,´´ she said.
--www.beloitdailynews.com/1299/2ill31.htm
Wow! Barbara Shaw--propagandist extraordinaire! Sounds like she'll be real busy for awhile, coordinating all the sheeple. Sickening! (But, good find!)
If state Legislatures like those of Illinois persist in trashing the Constitution I'm sure there will be a movement in Congress to give parents more control over the process.
Considering the caliber of US Supreme Court justices and some of their flaky rulings, maybe it's best if something like this is just left alone even if the outcome isn't what the plaintiffs wanted.
Couldn't agree with you more on the current Supreme Court, I do not trust them to decide a case of this matter either, it's far better to work with Congress.
I don't think they'd be directly affected by the public school plan, but the proposed Federal plan for mental health screening would bring family MDs and pediatricians on board.
I'd guess that would also be the case with Illinois.
Any bets on whether personal family questions will be asked, such as gun ownership and how they are stored?
No I don't. There is no requirement for pregnant Illinios 18 year olds to be tested for mental health. While the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003 may be a bad law, the misleading OP article disgraces its cause.
Let's look again:
This week, a series of public forums on a program requiring all pregnant women and children through age 18 years to be tested for mental health needs
Now - if I'm reading this incorrectly, the author of this piece needs a refresher course in basic writing skills. I mean - who considers someone who's 18 to still be a child?
And granted, whatever their proposing isn't law yet. Looks like their testing the waters with their "forums".
"Sighting early intervention as key to academic success and crime prevention, this new law, if enacted according to current recommendations, would also require all pregnant women to be screened prior to delivery for depression and periodically for the first six months after she gives birth." by Rhonda Robinson, Central Illinois correspondent...
And this one:
"The draft government plan before us today, however, goes far beyond any previous statutory role we have seen to date. Proposing that state government set mental health competency standards for all Illinois pregnant women and children to age 18 stuns human sensibilities." by Karen Hayes, associate director of Concerned Women for America-Illinois...
Are both of these writers mistaken as well?
This stuff scares me to death.
It gets even better. Look at this initiative from June 2004 with a catchy name:
Initiative expanded to promote healthy eating and physical activity among children
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich today announced that 14 additional elementary schools have been selected to participate in an Initiative designed to promote good nutrition and exercise habits.
The program, called CATCH (Coordinated Approach to Child Health), began in January with six schools and eventually may be expanded to schools statewide.
"Obesity has become a critical health program for our children and, if unchecked, is on pace to become the leading cause of preventable death in this country," Blagojevich said. "As adults, we must teach our children how to lead healthier lives. To that end, I am pleased that we can expand this pilot program to additional schools so that other children will have the opportunity to learn how to make better food choices and to increase their activity level."
CATCH is a multi-component health intervention program, which builds an alliance of parents, teachers, child nutrition personnel, school staff and community partners to teach children and their families how to be healthy throughout their lives. It is targeted at students in third through fifth grade. [End of excerpt]
INTREP - sociology - socialism
People aren't happy about this:
http://www.illinoisleader.com/letters/lettersview.asp?c=17886
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.