[gotrootdude]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Nov 2, 2005 against parents who sued their local school district after their elementary-age children were given a sexually charged survey, saying there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:

Touching my private parts too much

Thinking about having sex

Thinking about touching other people's private parts

Thinking about sex when I don't want to

Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

Not trusting people because they might want sex

Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

Having sex feelings in my body

Can't stop thinking about sex

Getting upset when people talk about sex

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the opinion for the court [.pdf document]. Referring to the fact the parents lost their case at the district-court level, Reinhardt wrote:

We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [emphasis Reinhardt's].

Carrie Gordon Earll is director of issue analysis with Focus on the Family Action.

"Anyone who wonders why pro-family organizations like ours have been so concerned about activist courts only has to look at this case," Earll said in a statement. "The 9th Circuit did more than rule against parents who were upset that their elementary-school-aged children were being asked explicit questions about sex in class. They told all parents they have no right to protest what public schools tell their children."

Continued Earll: "What the court did here is declare parenthood unconstitutional. It's long been the liberal view that it takes a village to raise a child – but never before have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law, above mothers and fathers."

Link to ruling: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...df?openelement

[gotrootdude]

I think I've seen enough liberalism.. When my kids grow up, I'm sending them to Canada.

[Mulderator]

Amazing isn't it. This is the world of the liberal--bassetman, combsdon, linsky, et al--they think the rest of the country thinks like the 9th Circuit Moore-Ons!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by gotrootdude

I think I've seen enough liberalism.. When my kids grow up, I'm sending them to Canada.

Check out LAN'S thread about using the school districts in LA using public fund and letting kids skip out of schoolt to attend anti-Bush rallies. You've got the usual Moore-Ons there that see no problem teaching kids to disrespect the President and using tax dollars to support it.

It makes you wonder what kind of brains these people have? Or whether they have any brains at all!

[gotrootdude]

Reminds me of the recent push for mandatory sex education in elementary schools.. I don't believe the majority of people are aware that statistically, children of school age have a higher chance of practicing sex during their teen years when they attended sex ed than when they did not receive the tutor-age.

I should be able to discuss these issues with my children without having to guess at what misconceptions another adult "do-gooder" may have intentionally or unintentionally brought into their heads.

I'll bet your children attend a private school, and I know why.

[Guyzer]

Originally Posted by gotrootdude

I think I've seen enough liberalism.. When my kids grow up, I'm sending them to Canada.

Don't wait till they grow up, send 'em now. We don't allow them to do any of the things mentioned in that list until they are about 28 yrs. old. Even then they must be supervised.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by gotrootdude

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Nov 2, 2005 against parents who sued their local school district after their elementary-age children were given a sexually charged survey, saying there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:

Touching my private parts too much

Thinking about having sex

Thinking about touching other people's private parts

Thinking about sex when I don't want to

Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

Not trusting people because they might want sex

Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

Having sex feelings in my body

Can't stop thinking about sex

Getting upset when people talk about sex

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the opinion for the court [.pdf document]. Referring to the fact the parents lost their case at the district-court level, Reinhardt wrote:

We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [emphasis Reinhardt's].

Carrie Gordon Earll is director of issue analysis with Focus on the Family Action.

"Anyone who wonders why pro-family organizations like ours have been so concerned about activist courts only has to look at this case," Earll said in a statement. "The 9th Circuit did more than rule against parents who were upset that their elementary-school-aged children were being asked explicit questions about sex in class. They told all parents they have no right to protest what public schools tell their children."

Continued Earll: "What the court did here is declare parenthood unconstitutional. It's long been the liberal view that it takes a village to raise a child – but never before have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law, above mothers and fathers."

Link to ruling: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...df?openelement

Why post the link if you didn't take the time to read the whole decision---just taking out some of the questions that had to do with sex---and completely ignoring the reason for the survey? Why did you not site the cases that support the decision? I think that these justices did a fine job, and in fact, unlike right wingers, they actually didn't read anything into the Constitution that doesn't exist! This is merely another case where the right wing wants the Courts to be activists-----when it comes to issues that they find iimportant, but wants them to be originalists when a case doesn't go their way. Great work by that court and I suggest that instead of knee-jerk reactions, you read the whole decision.

By the way, why is the religious right trying to cram Creationism down the throats of the rest of us? Oh, I see, there is something in the Constitution that says they can control what a public school teaches! (Could someone site that for us?).

[poochee]

Parents should stop spending so much money on more than one car, TV's, computers, etc. and put their children in private schools they approve of, or home school them. They are losing more and more control over what is being done in the public schools.

[combsdon]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Amazing isn't it. This is the world of the liberal--bassetman, combsdon, linsky, et al--they think the rest of the country thinks like the 9th Circuit Moore-Ons!

...........if we are upsetting you.......we need to stay the course.........

[ekim68]

We need to go back to why public schools and public education were originated.
There was very little choice until then....

[combsdon]

Originally Posted by poochee

Parents should stop spending so much money on more than one car, TV's, computers, etc. and put their children in private schools they approve of, or home school them. They are losing more and more control over what is being done in the public schools.

........what about the parent(s) that doesn't own more than one car, TV, computer..........you know the one(s) that can't afford private schools or can't be hiome to home school.......what about them.....

[poochee]

Originally Posted by gotrootdude

Reminds me of the recent push for mandatory sex education in elementary schools.. I don't believe the majority of people are aware that statistically, children of school age have a higher chance of practicing sex during their teen years when they attended sex ed than when they did not receive the tutor-age.

I am one who is aware of that statistic. Especially the way it is taught. No moral values are instilled.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by combsdon

........what about the parent(s) that doesn't own more than one car, TV, computer..........you know the one(s) that can't afford private schools or can't be hiome to home school.......what about them.....

Unfortunately, their children may be mislead, unless they take the time to find out what went on during their day in school. We didn't have much when I was a kid, but we had a lot of attention. The first thing my Mom would ask was what happened in school today and what did you learn? And we better have an answer. If she felt it necessary she would correct something we learned, or explain it in another context. And she would go to the school to check out things she disapproved of.

Also that saying about the family table is true. You learn a lot. Too many people eat dinner in front of the TV.

[jonasdatum]

Originally Posted by gotrootdude

Reminds me of the recent push for mandatory sex education in elementary schools.. I don't believe the majority of people are aware that statistically, children of school age have a higher chance of practicing sex during their teen years when they attended sex ed than when they did not receive the tutor-age.

I should be able to discuss these issues with my children without having to guess at what misconceptions another adult "do-gooder" may have intentionally or unintentionally brought into their heads.

I'll bet your children attend a private school, and I know why.

Hello. I have had sex education from middle school all through collage (never got less than 80% i.e. B), I think its a good idea. Why make children ignorant about sex. My mother and I never really talked that much about except when I had the classes. The only rules mom had about sex were:

1) Don't get her pregnant. 2) Don't give her or catch and illnesses 3) Don't be stupid!

Although, you have plenty young men and "women" who dispite haven taken these courses still become baby mamas and daddies! I know plenty of them. Most of the women I know had their first kid(s) before they were 20. Half to 2/3 of them are high school drop outs, and most don't even have an associates degree (or college credits). Just some real life statistics.

You must realize that people have brains. After a certain point in life a human is going to do what they want anyway. Like with smoking. You have a crapload of data on how it can hinder you, but if you want to be a fool [not the word I prefer to use] then you will.

Half of these young men and ladies grew up in two-parent [and often Christain] homes where as I was raised by a signal parent. LOL!

[plschwartz]

Mulder:
Since we know you love Scalia almost as much as you love (-d?) Bush just which of the enumerated restrictions on govt in the constitution reserve sex education for the family?