A few weeks ago I blogged about an outrageous decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals three-panel judge in California on the ruling of parents' rights regarding their children and education. The U.S. House of Representatives in California heard about this case and considered it a ridiculous ruling believing that the "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District" and that they are prepared to send this case to the Supreme Court.
U.S. House Passes Resolution Urging Ninth Circuit to Rehear Sex Survey Case Liberty Counsel will ask the Ninth Circuit to set aside the ruling and rehear the case
Palmdale, CA - Late yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the sex survey case of Fields v. Palmdale School District. Following the ruling by the court a few weeks ago, the seven parents in the case asked Liberty Counsel to represent them and become lead counsel. Liberty Counsel has taken up the fight of these parents and will soon be filing a petition asking the Ninth Circuit to set aside the ruling and rehear the case.
Writing for the court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the same judge who ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, wrote that parental rights stop at the "threshold of the school door." In the Fields case, the parents objected to sex questions given to children as young as seven. The survey required a "Yes" or "No" answer to questions such as: "Can't stop thinking about sex."
The resolution (H. Res. 547), sponsored by Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., passed by a vote of 320-91. Twenty-two representatives did not cast votes, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The resolution urges the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case "en banc," which means that all the judges in the circuit would participate in the ruling, rather than just the original three-judge panel. The resolution states that "the fundamental right of parents to direct the education of their children is firmly grounded in the Nation's Constitution and traditions." The resolution also states that the Ninth Circuit's ruling "undermines the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children." Rep. Murphy stated: "I believe the Court's decision overreached the issues in the case, overreached in its conclusions, and needs to be overturned." He also stated: "On behalf of every parent in America, Congress calls upon the courts to correct this deplorable injustice."
Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated: "Congress rarely passes a resolution condemning a court's ruling. This resolution is extraordinary because the decision by the Ninth Circuit is extraordinary. This resolution expresses the overwhelming sentiment in America that this ruling is deplorable. No one would ever think that when they drop their children off at school, they forfeit their parental rights, but that's exactly what this court ruled. (AMEN! - KOKO) This ruling is the worst assault on parental rights issued by any court. We will ask the full panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit to rehear this case, and we pray that this ruling will become a mere blip on the radar screen that quickly fades away."
Liberty Counsel will ask the full panel of the Ninth Circuit to set aside the ruling. Liberty Counsel is also prepared to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Get Involved Now!This case should alarm all parents! We must not lose this battle. Please help support our efforts to preserve parental rights by giving a year-end contribution to Liberty Counsel.
Now, here's my take why the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling with the 3-panel (liberal) judges was flawed in dismissing the case.
1. The parents considered all this as a privacy violation toward their children and themselves when sex was discussed. It is in their personal and professional (they're parents y'know) opinions that schools shouldn't be discussing sex with their children unless the parents already agreed in the form of a signed consent form made explicit on the fact that sex will be discussed or asked.
2. If the court agreed that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, then why did the school provide a consent form with the full knowledge that 10 of their questions were to be about sex?
3. When is a survey a "provider of information" to the child being asked of? It has nothing to do with the education of that student child. It's a survey, not an education.
4. The school failed to fully disclose all of the questions that will be asked of the students on the consent form. The school is at fault with this aspect.
Whereas without the informed consent of their parents, the young students were instead administered a questionnaire that contained sexually explicit and developmentally inappropriate questions;
5. California schools have used consent forms routinely on the subject matter of sex at schools for the parents to sign (or not). This is required by law in California anyway.
California Gov. Davis Signs Legislative Package of Reproductive Health-Related Bills [Oct 06, 2003] California Gov. Gray Davis (D) on Thursday signed into law a package of six reproductive health-related bills, including a bill that would streamline the state's sex education curriculum, the Los Angeles Times reports (Halper, Los Angeles Times, 10/3). The sex education law (SB 71) ensures that students who receive sex education in schools receive accurate information on abstinence, human sexuality, contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in an age-appropriate manner (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 8/14). According to Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D), who sponsored the bill, the law will require schools that teach sex education or HIV prevention classes to send notices to parents at the start of the school year informing them of the dates students are scheduled to take sex education or HIV/AIDS prevention classes and if they are scheduled to participate in sexual behavior surveys. Under the new law, parents who do not want their children participating in the classes or surveys can return the notification form indicating that they wish to exclude their child from the instruction or survey. However, if the notification form is not returned, parental consent for all classes or surveys is assumed (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 9/15).
This law recognizes the fact that parents do have a greater say on sex and sex education (health) than do schools for their own child, and it was never about preventing all students from sex surveys or sex education classes.
The 3-judge panel is now the laughing stock of California.
No comments:
Post a Comment