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?
Okay, by the time I'm done you'll probably think I'm nutz, but the 1st Circut Court of Appeals is right. You cannot expect a 'right to privacy' outside your own home and 'due process' has to do with being charged with a crime, not being in disagreement with someone.
What the school did was interfere with the obligation of the contract between the parent and the child. You have a right to raise your child as you conscience dictates...and that includes having the right to refuse to have your child exposed to what you consider to be inappropriate material.
It's the same type of 'assumed' contract that makes you legally responsible for you children until they reach their age of majority.
It is a deprivation of rights because the school impaired (or tried to interfere with) the obligation of the parental contract.
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Remember that a school is run by a city and a city is nothing more than the extension of a State. If the political entity of the State is prohibited from committing a certain act by the Constitution, so are all of its subdivisions.
-----
On a side note, my daughters recently had an assembly at school concerning sex. We found out later that a mixed-sex group of middle schoolers were shown pictures of the genitalia of both sexes.
My daughters didn't attend. Even though the opt-out form was (conveniently) mailed too late for them to get it back to the school in time, they both told their teachers that they didn't think I'd approve of them attending such as seminar and asked where they should report to while it was going on.
I was SO proud when they came home and told me what they'd done...and I'm thankful that I had instructed them that any function that required to be either opted into OR out of, they were to ask to be excused ....forms or no forms. If the school refuses them, they are to say nothing else but "I need to call my mother immediately."
The school has yet to hassle them over this stance.
(No I'm not a lawyer, but the law is veerry interesting once you start to figure out how it works! :-)