LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX, BUT NOT WITH PARENTS

LINK: http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/11/2/22125/7274


“There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has previously ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, has again thrust a dagger into the heart of the American way of life -- and has this time attacked the very institution which has kept the foundation of this country secure -- the family.

Well, the Ninth Jerkit Court of Shlameels, or Circus Court is at it again. When do they not hear a controversial and loaded case? But, for once, it's not ruling against God and Country. This one is targeted at your kids....

Fields v. Palmdale School Dist., -- F.3d-- (9th Cir. 2005), was decided today by the court. In that case, parents sued the Palmdale School District for giving a survey, which included ten questions of a sexual nature, to students between the ages of seven and ten.
The School District sent a note home to parents asking for parental consent to engage their children in a survey of early trauma. The survey was prepared by Kristi Seymour, a volunteer "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 School District, collaborating with the School of Psychology and Seymour, developed and administered the questionnaire to first, third, and fifth grade students. While parents were informed that the survey would cover "baseline . . . exposure to early trauma (for example, violence)," it specifically did not mention sex. In fact, the survey asked seven year olds to "rate the following activities" among which were these:
Read on . . .

Nov 2nd, 2005: 22:01:25
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

Seven year olds were asked these questions.

Seven year olds? Frickin seven year olds? OK, in junior high, it's time for THE TALK, but seven? WTF are these liberals thinking? Don't kids get confused enough without introducing graphic terms and questions about sex? And what if some of the kids had been molested? Ready to open that can of worms?

Another reason why the state ought not to play nanny with our kids. I'd sooner trust that British nanny with the kid shaking perclivity over these idiots. And this ruling, is from the Board and School District. I do wonder which promiscous or twisted liberal parent thought this was a good idea.

OK, in Kindergarten Cop, a kid said; "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina." That was funny at the time, but like then, Arnie is not laughing. Many parents are not laughing. And I don't blame them. Shall we let the teachers explain intercourse and mid-coitis to der kinder also?


The parents of the children learned of the survey questions when their children started telling them about the survey. Horrified, the parents complained to the school, arguing that had they know the true nature of the survey, they would have never offered their consent. The school district rebuffed the parents, and the parents sued.

About time the parents woke up and did something. And who does the school board think it is? True, we entrust bureaucrats to make teachers play second parent. But when that trust is breached, there is a time and place for reform or cleaning house in the education system. Where was the ACLU for the parents, this time? People for the American Way? No comment, again....

The trial court rejected the parents arguments and today, in stunning language, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the rejection.

What a shock, the Marxist Kangaroo Court ruled for the state. This is the same court that ruled against the Pledge of Allegiance, One Nation Under God, protects terrorists, cop killers, and pedophiles. What a fine bunch Clinton appointed in his tenure....


In fact, the Ninth Circuit, in its opinion stated
The district court dismissed the federal causes of action

"for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the state claims without prejudice to their right to re-file in state court. We agree, 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. "

Translated: We're taking over and there's nothing you can do about it. We don't want em to say God, we don't want patriotism, and we want the state to educate them on sex and other private acts of intimacy......

"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."

Translated: If we want to, we reject your rights. Granted, you birthed and are raising the kids, but they are ours now. And you may not challenge your own school board, which you voted for in the elections. You cannot change it, since you the people are under us, the mighty court.

Interestingly, while the court ruled that parents have no "right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which children might be exposed," the public schools, according to the Ninth Circuit, can only expose children to sex. Exposing children to prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance would indoctrinate the children unfairly.

More hypocrisy. It's fine to expose them to sex and weirdo behavior, but God forbid we let them see or talk about God, or patriotism. Idiots. Roland Freisler and Judge Vishinsky would be proud of these kangaroo socialist judges. Rubber stamps for the time warp stuck hippies and rapists of this country.

Indoctrinate unfairly? So Christian and conservative Orthodox kids ought to be "fairly exposed" to homosexuality which goes against their own private families and religious teaching? Well, these morons on the 9th Circus will run out of steam, and will push their luck one time too many.....

As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law. But, we should all be outraged at the lack of respect the Ninth Circuit showed to parents -- who should be the the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex. As Neodanite said, if the town pervert had grilled the seven year olds on masturbation, it would have been a crime. In the same way, I can hardly imagine the Ninth Circuit upholding a law that would give parents the exclusive right to education their children about sex. And that is just not right.

Bravo on the article. Good Luck America, and Good Night.....