Posted on 11/02/2005 2:26:45 PM PST by SmithL
an Francisco (AP) --
A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by elementary school parents who were outraged that the Palmdale School District had surveyed students about sex.
While the surveys asked students how often they thought about sex, among other questions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said parents of public school children have no "fundamental right" to be the exclusive provider of sexual information to their children. The parents maintained they had the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."
The plaintiffs had sought unspecified monetary damages.
In upholding a lower court that had also ruled against the parents, a three-judge panel of the appeals court here dismissed the case, ruling unanimously that "parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
What gives schools the "fundamental right"? What an upside-down world.
Well, duh, what do you think Playboy magazine and the back seat of cars are for?
My children will attend Government schools over my dead body.
Reinhardt is the jerk who wrought the fairly recent opinion out of the 9th Cir. that the Constitution did not protect an individual's right to bear arms.
It does sound as if they notified the parents and they didn't bother to dig into it. NEVER trust schools. Do your homework and I include my child's former private school in that.
bump
Biological reproductive discussions I can understand from 5th grade or so, but that's about it.
Send your kids to public school and they cease to be yours any longer. Wards of the state.
Only if you let them. My mother and father gave us the tools necessary to know what to do in the very few times we ran into different situations (note this includes the present). Such also prepared us for those we have run into later in life as well.
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1301
To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit judges, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into 3 circuits, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 23, 2005
Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit judges, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into 3 circuits, and for other purposes.
...
SEC. 3. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS.
Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
...
(A) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and inserting the following:
`Ninth
California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Marianas Islands.';
and
(B) by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh circuit the following:
`Twelfth
Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana.
`Thirteenth
Alaska, Oregon, Washington.'.
SEC. 4. JUDGESHIPS.
(a) NEW JUDGESHIPS- The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 5 additional circuit judges for the new ninth circuit court of appeals, whose official duty station shall be in California.
(b) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS-
(1) APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES- The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 2 additional circuit judges for the former ninth circuit court of appeals, whose official duty stations shall be in California.
(2) EFFECT OF VACANCIES- The first 2 vacancies occurring on the new ninth circuit court of appeals 10 years or more after judges are first confirmed to fill both temporary circuit judgeships created by this subsection shall not be filled.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE- This section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
...
SEC. 7. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.
Each circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service and whose official duty station on the day before the effective date of this Act--
(1) is in California, Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Marianas Islands shall be a circuit judge of the new ninth circuit as of such effective date;
(2) is in Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, or Montana shall be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date; and
(3) is in Alaska, Oregon, or Washington shall be a circuit judge of the thirteenth circuit as of such effective date.
...
I don't want a court (especially the 9th Cir.) dictating what - and what not - is taught to my kids.
I can agree with that.
Biological reproductive discussions I can understand from 5th grade or so, but that's about it.
That's what I agree with and what is done here. Students attend WITH THEIR PARENTS after school and it is NOT taught by teachers or any school personnel.
Reinhart is a dangerous man. His opinion should be a warning to all Americans just where these people would like to take this country.
The judges are making an excellent case why the gov't can no longer run schools.
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
"The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." We have long recognized that the Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, "guarantees more than fair process." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997). The Clause also includes a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests." 521 U.S. at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-302, 123 L. Ed. 2d 1, 113 S. Ct. 1439 (1993).
The liberty interest at issue in this case--the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923), we held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925), we again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." We explained in Pierce that "the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." 268 U.S. at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." 321 U.S. at 166.
In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 92 S. Ct. 1208 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'comes to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101, 99 S. Ct. 2493 (1979) ("Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982) (discussing "the fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720 ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."
This goes far beyond a biology discussion into unacceptable territory for any grade K~12.
The school board is elected?
I had someone else HERE say to me that it was ridiculous not to live with your wife-to-be before you were married because you had to "try her out" first to see if you were compatible. I replied that my wife was more than a new car to me.
Wedding rings can be the best birth control (I guess that could go both ways--hehe).
The problem in our area (San Jose) is that most of the school board (4 out of 5 seats) are in the northern part of our school district that is dominated by Latinos.
We could vote someone reasonable in our area, but they would be useless.
We're trying to split our district, but we can't get enough volunteers to help with getting petitions signed.
A small group of us is now trying to start a charter school in our area.
This will be overturned in the SCOTUS even with 5 liberals.
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.