M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E
Parents Should be Outraged
If you are concerned about the moral decline of our world, join Family Leader Network. Come to www.familyleader.net and learn about the organization that educates and energizes people around the issues that matter. Subscribe to the weekly email and take action alerts so you can know when and how you can take your stand.
If
this ruling outrages you, let your voice be heard. You can write your local
media by clicking
here. You can use some of the talking points in the article
below.
What if, by law, you couldn’t protect your child from something you felt would
hurt him or her? What if the state said you had no right to control what enters
your child’s life?
This sounds like the worst kind of nightmare for parents who love their children and are concerned about the erosion of the moral environment.
According
to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, the nightmare has arrived.
On Wednesday November
2, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
a lawsuit by parents outraged that the Palmdale School District in California surveyed their elementary
school children about sex.
The survey was given to children in the first, third and fifth grades as part of a program to supposedly “gauge early trauma and help youngsters overcome barriers to learning.”
The
survey included 79 questions administered to first, third and fifth graders,
many who could not read. This included sexually explicit questions including:
8. Touching my private parts too much
17. Thinking about having sex
22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts
23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
44. Having sex feelings in my body
47. Can’t stop thinking about sex
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex
Kristi Seymour, a research assistant to Director of Psychology Michael Geisser
and a professor from California School of Professional Psychology, volunteered
as a “mental health counselor” at Mesquite Elementary School while she was enrolled
in a master’s degree program at the California School of Professional Psychology.
The Palmdale School District, of which Mesquite was a
part, collaborated with the School of Professional Psychology, the Children’s
Bureau of Southern California, and Seymour to develop and administer a psychological
assessment questionnaire for first, third, and fifth grade students with the
announced goal of “establish[ing] a community baseline measure of children’s
exposure to early trauma (for example, violence).”
Prior to administering the survey, the school mailed a letter to the parents
of the children to be surveyed informing them of the questionnaire’s nature
and purpose, and requesting their consent to its administration.
The
parental consent letter was enclosed in a School District envelope and was mailed
using School District postage. The letter did not explicitly state that some
questions involved sexual topics, although it did specify that the survey questions
were about “early trauma (for example, violence)” and there was a warning that
“answering questions may make [the] child feel uncomfortable.”
After the School District approved the survey, Seymour administered it during school hours at Mesquite Elementary School. She sat with the students, aged seven to ten, while
they completed the survey and ensured that they read and responded to each question.
What
the Court Said
Outraged parents sued the Palmdale School District and last week the infamous 9th Circuit, who also ruled against “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance dismissed the case.
As shocking as the survey is the court’s response:
"...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."
"there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children..."
"no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation's history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty."
This means that the court ruled that the state can step between a parent and child, dictating what that child will be exposed to — and the parent has no right to stop that.
Not
only does this severely undermine a parent’s right to protect and guide their
children, but it is based on the flimsiest of reasons. They claim that the school
has a legitimate state interest to assault little children in this way.
The court found “it is reasonable for the School District to believe that the
students’ answers to questions posed by its employee, who was trained in evaluating
mental health, would aid the establishment of a district-wide intervention program
to identify and treat barriers to learning caused by exposure to childhood trauma.”
Accordingly, the School District’s administration of the survey was rationally
related to its legitimate state interest in effective education and the mental
welfare of its students.”
What’s
more, the judges found it easy to make this decision — meaning that they already
embrace a philosophy that undermines parents and family.
The court states, “Although we reach our conclusions with little difficulty
and firmly endorse the School District’s authority to conduct a survey for the
purposes involved here, we reiterate that we express no view on the wisdom of
posing some of the particular questions asked or of conducting an inquiry into
some of the particular areas surveyed by the School District. That determination
is properly left to the school authorities.”
The court states that, “We note at the outset that it is not our role to rule
on the wisdom of the School District’s actions. That is a matter that must be decided in
other fora. The question before us is simply whether the parents have a constitutional
right to exclusive control over the introduction and flow of sexual information
to their children.”
The court also found that “as with all constitutional rights, the right of parents
to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children
is not without limitations …Parents have a right to inform their children
when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right,
however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever
information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school
determines that it is appropriate to do so.”
The parent-plaintiffs learned of the sexual nature of some of the questions
on the survey when their children informed them of the questions after they
had completed the questionnaires.
Responses
Carrie Gordon Earll, Director with Focus on the Family, states, “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."
From the Family Research Council: “It is hard to imagine that any of those sitting
judges who issued this infamous ruling ever had a seven-year-old child. This
outrageous and offensive result must be overturned. It is one more horrible
example of what happens to parents' rights when liberal judicial activists are
unchecked. Whatever happened to the child's right to be a child? Long ago, the
U.S. Supreme Court recognized parents' rights in the landmark case of Pierce
v. Society of Sisters (1925). There, the high court said: 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. Those who "nurture" the child and "direct his destiny"
are commonly called parents. Eighty years ago, the Supreme Court showed great
respect for parents' rights.”
The 9th circuits own decision states “The Supreme Court has held that the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (plurality opinion) (“[I]t 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
right is commonly referred to as the Meyer-Pierce right because it finds its
origin in two Supreme Court cases, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).”
In the 1920’s, the Supreme Court asserted that the right of parents to raise
and educate their children was a “fundamental” type of “liberty” protected by
the Due Process Clause. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262
Over
the years, the courts have often asserted that parental rights are constitutionally
protected such as a parent's “right to the care, custody, management and companionship
of [his or her] minor children” which is an interest "far more precious
than… property rights” (where a mother had her rights to custody jeopardized
by a competing custody decree improperly obtained in another state). May v.
Anderson, 345
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 502 (1965), Justice White in his concurring
opinion offered “this Court has had occasion to articulate that the liberty
entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right "to
marry, establish a home and bring up children," and "the liberty ...
to direct the upbringing and education of children," and that these are
among "the basic civil rights of man.”
The RIGHT of parenting existed before governments of men, and existed at the
first human, or preter-human birth, LONG BEFORE the zenith of the law’s existence.
This “RIGHT” of parents existed before the edicts of tyrants, before the sovereign
decrees of kings, before the 10 commandments, before Hammurabi’s code, before
the Magna Carta, and even before the great Constitution of the
In Stanley v. Illinois, 405
In Prince v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court admitted the high responsibility
and right of parents to control the upbringing of their children against that
of the State. “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.”
In Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972, Chief Justice Burger stated, “This case involves
the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the state, to
guide the religious future and education of their children. 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
tradition.”
The 9th Circuit Court has just flown in the face of a long-established
precedent.
© Meridian Magazine. All Rights Reserved.