Did the Ninth Circuit Court declare parenthood uncostitutional? Why or why not? If so, how?

Is the Ninth Circuit Court correct in its findings? Why or why not?

What are the implications of this ruling?

Will the appeals prosses for this case reach the Supreme Court?

Related articles by Google

Did the Ninth Circuit Court declare parenthood uncostitutional? Why or why not? If so how?

No. They said that the Constitution does not protect the parents' right to tell public schools what to do. That's very different from saying that the Constitution actually forbids it.

Is the Ninth Circuit Court correct in its findings? Why or why not?

I'd have to know more about the case, but my own view is that publics schools should have the same prerogatives that private schools have, and vice versa. If parents can't get a judicial order to stop a private school from teaching things they don't want their children taught, then I see nothing in the Constitution which should mandate that they be able to do the same to public schools.

In both cases, of course, they do have the option of disenrolling their children.

What are the implications of this ruling?

I'm pretty sure this ruling doesn't actually change anything that had already been understood to be the case. If the court had ruled the other way, then that would have had some considerable implications, such as to what extent parents have the power to dictate curricula.

Will the appeals prosses for this case reach the Supreme Court?

Given the reaction this ruling has had among the parents and the groups supporting them, I'm sure they will attempt to take this to the Supreme Court. If that happens, I predict that they will uphold the Ninth's decision. To do otherwise would open up a huge can of worms that they'd probably prefer not to deal with at this time.

The Supreme Court has ruled that public schools may not teach certain things. Creation science is a good example.

The court treats public schools much differently than private schools. Much of what is taught in private school cannot be taught in public school. A parochial school can require students to recite a prayer; a public school cannot.

I agree with the court on this statement. There is not right for the parents to be the exclusive provider of information to their children, regardless of the type of information.

I disagree with the opinion of Judge Reinhardt


If you look at American tradition, sex education was the exclusive responsibility of parents until about 20 years ago. I don't see how the judge could make this statement.

In this case, were I parent in the district, you can be sure I'd raise bloody hell about this policy, however.

The school district was asking 1st 3rd and 5th graders (i.e. 6,8, and 10 year olds) "if they ever thought about having sex or touching other people's "private parts" and whether they could "stop thinking about having sex."" That is over the line, in my book.

Parents whose kids participated had to sign a permission form, but the form never mentioned sex as a topic in the survey.

As it turns out, the district discontinued the survey in 2002 because of complaints by parents.

Did the Ninth Circuit Court declare parenthood unconstitutional? Why or why not? If so, how?

No, they didn't, but they have weakened a parents rights vis-a-vis the school system.

Is the Ninth Circuit Court correct in its findings? Why or why not?

Probably correct in the ruling, but incorrect in some of the verbiage used.

What are the implications of this ruling?

Ah, the rub.

Parental rights have been eroding for decades. Parental notification is still required for certain activities, but not others. Parents are often responsible for the actions of their children (monetarily) but are no longer able to discipline them in ways which they choose.

It should not surprise anyone that as authority over kids is taken from parents, the parent shy away from responsibility It should surprise few to learn that when a parent throws his hands up and says he cannot control a kid, society has caused a portion of the weakened authority that is the cause.

It isn't the end of the world, exactly. Kids will always be receiving information (about sex, about drugs, about alternative lifestyles, about culture, about many things) that parents themselves may disapprove of or wish to shield them from. This simply reinforces the parents' individual responsibility to teach kids and not to assume that others are teaching them as you would. Parents need to be open with their kids and actively provide them with the information that they want them to have. It is sad to say that this must start (with sex, at least) at age 6, if not before, thanks to an overzealous school district.

Will the appeals process for this case reach the Supreme Court?

I'm sure it will. I doubt the Supreme Court will decide it differently, although I think there may be a more balanced reasoning of the legal precedents.

Ah look at the hypocrisy here. On some issues you argue that the constitution and our laws should be strictly interpreted - except for when you disagree with them of course. There is no parental right either written or implied in our laws Amlord, Reinhardt is 100% correct and he is giving an accurate reading of the law.

It doesn't matter if sex education was the responsibility of parents 20 years ago, that doesn't mean that schools shouldn't teach children about it. If parents suddenly declared that teaching kids how to read was their responsibility does that mean schools shouldn't teach it? Regardless of what the "sex is dirty" set thinks it is important to arm kids with accurate information about sex so that they can make the right decisions when they are faced with those choices instead of ignoring it or arming them with fairy tales. These parents that are supposedly responsible for educating their kids about sex are asleep at the wheel and things would be a lot worse if schools didn't step in and take some responsibility.


What are these "parent's rights" you speak of? Where are they codified in law? Parents have the ability to vote for their representatives and for the school board, that is their only power in determining policy.


This sounds a whole lot like you are trying to pass the buck and blame everyone but the parents for what their kids learn and the choices they make.

Parental permission to take field trips and such is required for liability purposes only, the school does not need your permission to teach your children as they see fit.


What exactly does this have to do with schools?


Who exactly has done this, was there some law passed that I'm not aware of?

Did the Ninth Circuit Court declare parenthood unconstitutional? Why or why not? If so, how?

No, not at all. Parents are still in charge of the education their children get, as long as they take an active part in it. If there is curriculum being taught in class that the parents do not approve of, they can address it with their school boards.

In this case, however, the schools misled the parents about what the questionnaire, a dirty underhanded tactic in my opinion. And I think someone should be held responsible for it.

Is the Ninth Circuit Court correct in its findings? Why or why not?

Yes, I too agree there is no "right" given parents to be the fundamental provider of knowledge to their children. Parents can home school if they feel the public education system is broken. This is also another reason why I believe school vouchers would help.

I wonder if this particular court would have ruled the same if the class was teaching children about the proper use of firearms, or how to drink alcohol responsibly.

Since religion is banned from schools, and issues such as sex cross the moral boundary, many parents feel that the teaching of sex should not be the purview of those that do not share the same morals as they do.

Does this whole topic strike anybody else as ironic? One hundred years ago, kids didn't learn about sex at school because the school systems were engaged in something arguably more important: teaching kids to READ, WRITE, and FIGURE! Now we have kids in some inner city districts who get worthless high school diplomas after being "passed through" the system like a dodgeball at recess, who can't get jobs because they don't even have the basic English and math skills to cope in society!

Parents have GOT to take responsibility for teaching the moral values they want their kids to have. It is not up to the schools to teach Junior that it's not a good idea to play Hide the Salami with his eighth-grade girlfriend. Sheesh.

Parents do have such a right. According to the courts, "parents have a right to direct their children's education." The courts have also ruled that a state cannot require parents to send their children to public school. In some communities, children aren't allowed to leave; they can't watch tv or listen to radio or get on the internet; and they go to school at church. An entire community can severly restrict a child's access to any information regarding the rest of the world.

I've seen such communities here in the U.S. They're not all that uncommon in certain areas.

Regardless of whatever childish name you come up with for the traditional values "set", is there any indication that kids, as a whole, were getting into more problems with sex when this "set" was in charge of sex education, than when the schools took over with their own ideas? I'm talking about the overall situation, not isolated anecdotes.

Did you see that I agreed with the ruling?

What I disagreed with is Reinhardt's assertion that there is nothing in the "nation's history or tradition" which implies that sex education is in the hands on parents. Twenty years ago it was exclusively in the parents hands.

You seem to agree with me that 20 years ago it was exclusively the parents' responsibility. The judge, however, could not even acknowledge this much history.

Judge Reinhardt has cast aside a hundred years of "history and tradition" (the approximate length of time that public schools have been around) in which sex education was the responsibility of parents. He has supplanted that with a finding of "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."

Judge Reinhardt has nannyfied sex education. Parents, don't worry, he says, the system will tell your 6-year-old all he needs to know by asking him whether or not he thinks about sex all the time. He will quiz your 6 year old to see if he has touched another person's private parts (making your child wonder whether or not he should have done so already).

Parents have taken the appropriate road by protesting to the offending school board. The school board has removed this survey.

I could have hoped that the court could have acknowledged that sex education in school is in the realm of health class and further acknowledged that these health discussions to children of the appropriate age category. Asking 6-year-olds some of the questions contained in this survey seems neither educational nor healthy. Apparently, enough parents in the district agree with me here.

The justices were correct, as I have maintained, in finding that the parents do not have exclusive rights. However, the language used (at least as reported thus far) by the court could have been better chosen.

Did the Ninth Circuit Court declare parenthood unconstitutional? Why or why not? If so, how]
I have not found any excerpt from the ruling which mentions parenthood. Therefore, it has not declared parenthood unconstitutional since the subject was not broached.

Is the Ninth Circuit Court correct in its findings? Why or why not?
The court defines what is correct. If you are attempting to ask if we agree with the decision or not, I agree with the ruling. The logic and critical thinking is sound.

What are the implications of this ruling?
Parents can not tell schools what the curriculum should not be via the court system.

Will the appeals prosses for this case reach the Supreme Court?
This is unlikely. The issue is cut and dry as far as a constitutional issue.

It's easy to disagree with a statement that you yourself have attributed to others. There is nothing in the ruling that asserts this... this was a judicial decision. Judge Reinhardt was obviously commenting on the fact that at no point was parenting, especially in the consideration of sex, considered a right. Just because something was universally practiced, does not mean that it was ever considered a right.

Now, your argument would have merit if you could find some documentation that demonstrates that at some point parenting and sex education was considered the sole right of the parent; but you haven't done so.

But where in the Constitution is the power to mandate how our children should be taught. If the power in not in the Constitution and the Amendments, then I start with the premise that I have the right to parent how I choose. So rights exist that are not granted to the government as powers. These are our liberties and we pride them and should be very cautious about infringement upon them.

The ruling does, BTW, seem sound. When you use the public schools (and it is your option as a parent not to) you should not be able to mandate what the curriculum will be.

That isn't what he wrote, he wrote that there is no "right" and he is correct. From your post you quoted him as saying (emphasis added):



"History and Tradition" are just that Amlord and they belong on a bookshelf or in stories told round the campfire. If you start trying to make arguments that "history and tradition" should bind us today then you have to side with a lot of stuff that I hope you don't really support.

Just because something was done in the past or it used to be done a certain way doesn't give it any special reverence in my book. If it is the right solution for the current problem in society then so be it, if not then I reject it.


Nannyfied sex education? Sex education in this country is extremely lacking, even today. I'm fairly certain that based on your age and the state you live in that you probably didn't get very much of that from the school, I know I sure didn't in Texas. We could debate whether or not that is right but that isn't what this thread nor this ruling are about. I haven't yet seen a link to the actual survey the school gave, and it very well might have been in poor taste. However, this case isn't about that, it is about a school's ability to teach the subjects it feels appropriate. It states that parents don't have a monopoly on teaching their kids certain subjects, they don't have any "rights" to certain knowledge.


Great, due process at work as things should be.


Again not commenting on the specific survey because it isn't really relevant, as I said above it could have been in poor taste and I haven't read it - just because a child is a certain age doesn't preclude them from being taught a subject. Should we be teaching six year olds about STDs and pregnancy? Definitely not, but I would think it is an appropriate age to teach them about sexual predators and how to avoid them. This doesn't necessarily have to get into the nuts and bolts of sex to be taught.

If you as a parent don't want that taught in your school then it is certainly well within your rights to protest to the school board about it.


But you do have the right to choose Eeyore, the people that make decisions regarding your child's education are elected officials. If you don't like the direction of the school you have the ability to vote them out or at the very least protest the decisions.

You also have the ability to take advantage of our lovely free market and send a child to a private school where they cater their teachings to what pays the bills. Or you can even educate your child yourself and have full control.

I know you aren't arguing against this ruling but people do have a choice but once you make that choice (e.g sending your child to public school) then you have to accept certain things.

The Supreme Court has said that parenting is a fundamental right. Reinhardt was saying that parents had no right to tell the school what it could or could not teach.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

From the first paragraph of the 9th circuit opinion:



The argument made by plaintiff parents in this case was that they have a fundamental right "to privacy and to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of an relating to sex." They go on to argue that this fundamental right would be guaranteed by the 14th amendment substantive due process clause.

A "fundamental right" is defined as one that is rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

What is most disturbing to me about this ruling is that it illustrates how very subjective the substantive due process (fundamental right) analysis is in the first place.

On the one hand, we know that the right to abort (an illegal act in most states prior to Roe) is a fundamental right rooted in our nation's history and traditions and thus guaranteed constitutional protection.

And on the other hand, we have the 9th circuit decreeing that the right to privacy and control in the upbringing of one's child in matters relating to sex is not a fundamental right (i.e. not rooted in our nation's history and traditions).

How can this blatantly illogical application of the definition of "fundamental right" be explained? If a fundamental right is truly one that is rooted in our nation's history and traditions-- how then can abortion (illegal prior to Roe) be a fundamental right --- but the right to control your child's upbringing in matters relating to sex not be a fundamental right?

It makes no sense. It is a perfect illustration of how amorphous these so-called substantive due process rights are under the 14th amendment, and subject to the whims of the judges applying the definition.

The decision doesn't say that the right to privacy or the right to control your child's upbringing aren't fundamental rights. What it says is this: that you send your children to public school doesn't give you a right to tell that school what it may or may not teach your children. Decisions about what's taught in public school are made by the state; an individual cannot trump the state when it comes to these decisions.

It's a good ruling.

No, LyricalReckoner, that is not correct. The court absolutely says that it is not a fundamental right. In fact, the finding of no fundamental right in the case is what dictated the court's level of scrutiny when determining if it was a constitutional violation. Because the court did not identify "the right to control one's child's upbringing in matters related to sex" as a fundamental right, it applied a "rational basis" level of scrutiny. It held, and I quote: "we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose". This is the language a court uses when it is applying the "rational basis" test where no fundamental right is involved.

Cite the decision. State the right the decision refers to.

That is the language of the decision that I quoted in my original post. I even added a bold emphasis to the portion of the quoted language where the court is describing the right asserted by the plaintiffs.

Did the Ninth Circuit Court declare parenthood uncostitutional? Why or why not? If so, how?
Not at all. As stated previously, the decision said nothing about parenting or the parent's rights to raise their children. After this decision parents still have complete control of what their children experience (within reason). Sooner or later, though, they will learn something about sex (and it will usually be all wrong).
The decision is very sensible. IF you don't like the food at a restaurant you don't storm the kitchen and demand the head chef change the menu for you. If thousands of other people frequent the place and like it as it is then it will stay that way. You must go elsewhere.


Is the Ninth Circuit Court correct in its findings? Why or why not?
Sure is. To be honest, I think the plaintiffs were not practical in this lawsuit. If there was truly some foul play by the school system in tricking parents then they could have won the case with a less far-reaching and abstract suit.
Claiming that they have a right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex" is broad and far-reaching in its implications. They asked for too much. Had they pressed for less, say for the "right to full disclosure by the school system of their practices in order to make an appropriate parental decision" then they may have won. Their lawyer was not versed in the ontological argument. The more you try to prove the harder it is to argue the point. The less you try to prove the easier.

What are the implications of this ruling?
There are none I think. As the lawsuit is worded it will go nowhere. Parents don't have the right to choose curriculum except by their local voting. In the Northeast parents still weild considerable power over school boards. I remember a few years ago the school board made that science teacher take away the "F's" she gave for plagiarism because they were pestered by vocal parents. I have seen no erosion of parental rights at all in my school. In fact, most recent educational law gives them mroe power to handpick their kid's education..within reason. If you want I will gladly provide proof of this but otherwise I won't waste time.

Will the appeals prosses for this case reach the Supreme Court?

I don't follow the courts enough to have a good answer for this but my bad answer is "no". This case doesn't have much legs in my opinion.

In Prince v Massachusetts (1944) the Court found that "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 can neither supply nor hinder."

In Carey v. Population Planning International (1977) the Court ruled:



This decision seems to include sex education in the realm of privacy.

Here is an entire page of rulings that touch on the subject of parental rights as fundamental rights: Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Rights as “Fundamental”

It must be noted that the Court has not necessarily forced schools to conform to these rights. They have allowed the states to promote one form as long as it did not overly restrict parental rights. Such cases include the fact that a school does not have to teach German (for example) and may teach Spanish at its discretion. However, all public schools must provide instruction in languages other than English.

Given this evidence, I find it difficult to explain Reinhardt's statement that this right does not exist in the traditions and history of this country.

The read the decision again. Nowhere does it say that parents do not have a fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children.

Don't read into the decision things that ain't there.

While I realize this is a reference to the district court decision, this seems to be an important point. Isn't this the issue of standing? How does the due process clause of the 14th Amendment connect the Bill of Rights to deciding what the curriculum of public schools is?

Fourteenth Amendment

Due Process



Are you arguing that parents have the fundamental American right to be the only providers of information regarding sexual matters to their children? How could such a fundamental right be enforced?

The issue of parents having no due process right or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools is hazier ground. But I do not see the civil rights violation here.

If I were a parent I would be upset with the school. But I do not know that I feel I have a right to control the content of my school district's sex education program.



I believe that there is a legitimate purpose in trying to teach sex education in schools.





Maybe this is where I cross the line from trying to understand law to trying to understand what I think is right.

We should have a voice and a say in how our children are educated. But we are already have remedies that are not necessarily the federal court. Is education the jurisdiction of the federal government? We have other remedies, and the semi-amusing thing here, is that the remedy has been exercised. The program required parental consent from the beginning and the program was not adequately described for the parents who signed these consent forms.

Then when this became controversial and discussed, the program was terminated. So even though the court did not retroactively rule that they had standing to stop a local public school's sexual education program, the program was stop locally, where it should have been.

However, this ruling underscores an uncomfortable reality about education that the decision also points out with wording I do not agree with. We lose control of our children when we put them in the doors of a school. They are then subject to the policies of that school during the hours of operation.

LyricalReckoner, I don't think you are grasping the legal significance attached to a court's use of the term "fundamental right" in constitutional analysis. As I said in my prior post, the fact that the 9th circuit analyzed the constitutionality of the school's policy using the rational basis test (i.e. does the policy serve a legitimate state purpose), means that the court refused to find that the parents had a "fundamental right" of any kind at issue here.


Eeyore wrote:




Eeyore, it does not relate to standing. Apparently the parents brought a number of claims, some federal and some state. The federal cause of action would be the parents' assertion that their substantive due process rights under the fourteenth amendment had been violated. I don't know what the state claims were. In any case, the district court (lower court) held that the parents failed to state a valid claim upon which relief could be granted. This means that the court looked at the pleadings -- in a light most favorable to plaintiff -- and still held that the plaintiff had no claim. I suspect the decision rested on an analysis that there was no "fundamental right" at issue and therefore the relevant test would be rational basis. Since the school had a legitimate purpose for furthering its interest in educating children when it employed this policy, the court found the plaintiff could state no claim.



I don't follow your question here. You know that the Court has held that the bill of rights is applicable to the states via the 14th amendment. So, what are you suggesting? Surely you cannot be suggesting that the curriculum of a public school is somehow free from a federal constitutional challenge. The issue of whether the bill of rights applies via the 14th in this case would be the same as in a case where the school curriculum required, for example, the teaching of creationism. And I don't think there is any dispute as to its applicability in the latter case. So, what am I missing?




I am not a fan of substantive due process at all. My original point was to highlight how a fundamental right of this type (relating to parents teaching children) makes a heck of a lot more sense than a fundamental right to abort (another substantive due process right), particularly since the courts have defined fundamental right to mean one that is rooted in our nation's history and traditions.



Why the reference to civil rights here? What is the relevance?



If a fundamental right was found-- then there would have to be some solution arrived at with respect to the school district. Perhaps a stringent policy requiring parents full involvement in any kind of instruction etc. Who knows. But putting aside concerns of how to iron out the practicalities, it is no different from the 9th circuit's ruling that because one man objected to his daughter saying the pledge in school -- that all students would no longer be able to say the pledge.





This is what happens when we apply the entire bill or rights to the states via the 14th amendment and come up with that whacky thing called : substantive due process. The result is that the feds can reach into local districts and tell them what they can or cannot do, if they simply identify something as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

Read the decision. In particular, read this part of it: "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."

The court explicitly refers to the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that parents have such a fundamental right, and an appeals court cannot decide otherwise. This court didn't attempt to do any such thing. What this court did was say that the parents of a student in public school can't demand that the school either teach or not teach their children certain things. That's all.

Methinks you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

You are overstating the court's holding. The 9th Circuit's ruling was not as broad as to say that the parents of a student in public school can't demand that the school either teach or not teach their children certain things. Of course parents have constitutional rights in this regard: a school can't teach religion.

The relevant question put to the 9th circuit had to do with whether parents have a fundamental right to "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex." The court unequivocally answered: No.

The point that I have been making throughout this thread has been to highlight that the 9th circuit's refusal to identify the parents rights as fundamental in this regard is not logical given the definition of "fundamental right" in constitutional jurisprudence. For example, it makes more sense to find a "fundamental right" in this case than it does in Roe.

But like I said, I am no fan of substantive due process for this very reason. It opens up the possibility of too much subjectivity in the judicial process as well as opportunity for judicial activism.

I do think the use of the phrase 'history and traditions' is disingenuous or at least inexact. Use of this phrase can refer to many things. It could refer to the opinion of the majority of the citizens in the past or it could refer to their Supreme Court's interpretation as to the ideals stated in the Constitution.

The court was correct in avoiding the fundamental right issue. There is no fundamental right to go to a school district and determine sex education curriculum. Education is about disseminating information. There is no fundamental right to bar the dissemination of information disguised as a parental right.

If the school district was accused of teaching morals, what is right and wrong about sexual relationships, or some sort of belief system in regards to sex, there could be a case as that could be interpreted to violate parental rights as you have cited. For example, if a school district were to have sex education where abstinence was taught to be the only means for birth control, I would say that could be a parental rights issue as the district was teaching morales instead of providing information. Another example would be a sex education where it is taught that everyone who is not having sex is a wierdo. That would be teaching morales. I expect the first example is much more likely to be a problem in our schools than the second.

For those who believe teaching information about sex is immoral, I hope we continue to have courts who will disallow belief systems from blocking the dissemination of information.

It makes sense to me that abortion is a fundamental right while blocking the dissemination of information is not. One has to do with a person's ability to control their own reproduction and one's own body while the second involves a concept known as free speech.

I hope the courts in the future will base their opinions on the intended ideals expressed in the Constitution. I also hope they do not give opinions based on giving examples where we got it wrong as a society.

This is already the case in 49 states. Abstinence-only sex ed is a mandatory curriculum attached with the No Child Left Behind federal funds. I think California is the only state turned its nose to the legislation so it could continue teaching sex ed. This is more of a fiscal matter than a fundamental right issue (like raising the drinking age for highway funds), though, and I don't know of any parents challenging the states' decisions to sign up for NCLB in court.

I think I understand what hayleyanne is saying here, but I doubt the court could have ruled both ways. For parents to have a fundamental privacy zone with relation to the upbringing of their children, enforcing a parent's right as the ultimate authority over what information may reach their kids would require suing outside sources of information including schools, internet service providers, television, libraries, etc. willy-nilly.

Would there not be a First Amendment conflict here? I'm thinking along the lines of SCOTUS overruling the two incarnations of the Child Online Protection Act.

This is the sum of most of your objections/concerns/questions what have you about my last post on this thread.


My point is that something from the bill of rights (hence my use of civil rights, would you rather civil liberties?) must be identified as being violated. And since this is not an issue of forcing a private citizen into something, I do not see a fundamental right for parents to control the information being presented in a school, unless it can be identified as violating a specific civil liberty.

The right to privacy argument, which I'm beginning to think was horribly laid out because it could have been more easily identified as a limitation on the power of governments than an enumerated right, at least is protecting an individual from the governments.

Here, no one is being deprived of following his conscience.

I think there are a couple problems with your argument.



The problem with this is that there was nothing in this particular situation about the dissemination of information. I am not talking about the case but the situation that prompted the case. This was about a survey that "was part of a program to gauge exposure to early trauma and to assist in designing a program for children to overcome barriers to learning, according to the district."

"Questions the children answered included whether they thought about having sex, thought about touching other people's "private parts" and whether they could "stop thinking about having sex.""

"The poll was given to children in the first, third and fifth grades."

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/13068822.htm

Do you see anything wrong with asking 6 year olds these types of questions? I certainly do.



Free speech has nothing to do with education. If you think it is try going into a classroom and giving a speech on the superiority of the white race. That's free speech. It is also most likely going to get you arrested. Try teaching intelligent design. That is disseminating information as well. Disseminating information is not a fundamental right. Parenting is.

There is nothing in the Constitution specifically about sex education. Everyone here is arguing based on interpretations about various parts of the Constitution they feel apply. I personally think that it is something best left to the parents. The biology of it can be taught in the school but when you are talking about anything other than that you are getting into the morals side of it.

To many people sex education is bound up in their religion and so by teaching anything other than biology you are showing preference for a specific religious viewpoint and you are going to have problems with that faster than you can say "first amendment"

Now to put my view point out there I don't see a problem with having a sex education class in schools but it can not be a required class and the kids can not take it without parental approval.



So your moral beliefs are more important than anyone elses moral beliefs? Showing the latest porn flick in class can fall under the "dissemination of information" as well. Requiring the class to read a Playboy is "dissemination of information". So is discussing the easiest way to butcher a person. Does that mean that parents shouldn't have the right to prohibit their children from participating in this?

I apologize if I have offended anyone with the above paragraph but I was trying to make a point. What to one person is a simple dissemination of information is anothers immorality. I don't think that sex is immoral but I do believe it is sacred and a public school is not the place to discuss the sacred.

Why shouldn't parents have the right to have a say in their childs public education? They have the choice to register their child in a private school if they don't like the public one you say? What about those who don't have that luxury? Parents should have a say in what is taught in a public school. After all it is run "Of the People, by the People, and for the People" Shouldn't the People have a say?

I am not saying that they have the right to march into a class and go line by line down the curriculum, but they should have the choice in cases such as this to opt out of the class.

When ever someone starts talking about how the school is run by "The State" I have the urge to click my heels and say "heil!" The state is not a separate entity. The state is the people and if the people don't have a say in the state then things are very very wrong.

And I pretty much agree. The core problem is that we are not looking at anything specific in the Bill of Rights to identify a violation of the Constitution. The parents' argument that a fundamental right of this sort exists requires the court to look at the Bill of Rights as a whole and extrapolate from the now infamous "penumbra".

Would you agree that the right to abort is just as weakly linked to the Constitution as is the right in this case?

The Fifth Amendment: no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
The Fourteenth Amendment: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The fundamental right to control our childrens' upbringing is one of our liberties.

Syfir, disseminating information as a function of education is not the equivalent of saying anything you want to about anything. "Information" in the context I used it must have a scientific basis. To further illustrate the idea, the purpose of having schools is to either create information or disseminate information. Information is the product of learned people using scientific principle to gather data and draw conclusions. Proper understanding of the idea as to what 'disseminating information' may help to put my comments in proper perspective and not the one you are portraying with your hypotheticals (superiority of the white race, intelligent design, porn flicks) which do not fit concept of disseminating information.

----------

The questionnaire was an attempt to create information. I am not sure if first, third, and fifth graders can answer those questions or not. Psychology is a science. There are experts in that field who can better address it. As a parent of six, I can not see how the questions could cause my children harm. I am not certain if the repressive attitudes about talking about sex are innate or learned. I am convinced that the repressed approach to discussing sex is not the way we should go. Probably the results of the questionnaire would show that the subject matter was beyond those in the first grade. But I expect the results would be different for fifth grade. As long as the sex education is science based, it should be allowed.

----------

The two blue statements seem to conflict. Is not biology about sex eduction indeed sex education? It should be left to the parents but it can be taught. Are you saying you would prefer human reproductive biology not be taught in schools and parents should teach it?

----------

I agree with you that too many people are bound up with religion and other belief systems. A principle goal of our public education should be to educate as many people as possible to use critical thinking for decision making to combat this problem in society. I disagree with you that the first amendment will be used to squash this goal but quite the opposite. The first amendment will protect the goal of teaching critical thinking and disallow religion doctrine.

----------

This sentence is a good example of when I am stumped. It seems simple to me to see the difference between the two. Communication becomes difficult when I realize humans see the world so differently. I do not know how to communicate the idea of science versus beliefs when the other person does not see them as separate. It is my feeling that those who can see the difference are at an advantage for decision making. Communicating such decision processes to those who do not see the difference is a skill I am lacking and a failing of mine.

No, I do not agree with this. Either we see this completely differently, I am doing a horrible job explaining myself, or I completely misunderstand this situation.

I am leaning heavily against the latter because I have pondered this issue for a long time and I would like to think that, even if my ideas about it have evolved, that I have not completely wasted my time.

I do not think there is a right to abort. I think that the government lacks sufficient reason to assert the right to stop a woman from getting an abortion from a doctor. I believe that the Right to Privacy is a mistake of the Roe v. Wade decision because I think that it is a question of the government impinging upon our liberties without authority rather than a clear right to privacy or an abortion. We have liberties and we created a limited government to value liberty and freedom highly. The government has to prove its case to step into our lives.

Yet when public institutions are created and citizens choose to send their children to public institutions, I do not see a reasonable right to control the information presented to those children. There should be standards for the school, but a right to exclusively control information about sex and sexuality that is introduced to our children?

Since this is a sensitive issue and public schools are controlled by the public, there are remedies to keep inappropriate material from being pushed on our children. Politicians respond to public opinion.

I guess the main difference for me is the difference between a public school and a private citizen.

I don't think the issue is inventing new rights implicated in the Bill of Rights, I think it is a case of governments having a limited right to interfere in our lives.

Among our rights in this case is to educate our children independent of the available public schools. But to have the precise publicly funded education of our expectations is not one of our rights. (IMHO of course)

There is a side to this particular situation that people seem ot be ignoring.
The questions, as posed to the young children were designed with a specific intent. They are intended to be a tool for detecting whether or not the child is a victim of abuse.
The questions would be confusing or completely meaningless to most children who hear them. Those who already have "experience" in these matters would have a different reaction to the questions. I am assuming that the people posing the questions are trained for this. I am also assuming that this is "taught" by a social worker or school psychologist, not by the classroom teacher.

The real question here is this: Is the school overstepping by subjecting ALL students to this form of diagnostic? Did ALL students experience this or was it used only for occassions?

If this was a school-wide dragnet looking for abused children then it may be a bit over the top.

Anyway, even if this is an attack on parenthood I would like to see more proof that such a thing IS protected in the Constitution.
My experience is that children are offered protections FROM bad parenting in the Constitution but nothing is guaranteed otherwise. We are free to have children as we are likewise free to have pets, own guns (sometimes), drive cars and make any number of life-changing decisions. Each comes with responsibilities SHOULD we choose to do them. They come with no guarantees.

Essentially a child is a responsibility, not a privilege. Were parents given Constitutional protections over their methods and practices of parenting we would have a huge conflict with the Constitutional rights of the children. No individual's rights can limit the rights of another. As soon as we give birth to our children we necessarily lose some access to them by virtue of the state.

Thank you for clarifying your stand here. However I notice that you did not address the reference to butchering people. Now I don't think that sex education is on the same level as this but still don't see how "disseminating information" is a fundamental right. I think one of the problems with our education system is there is to much teaching of what to think and not enough teaching how to think.



If this is the case how does it fit into your argument that "disseminating information is a fundamental right"? I suppose that the information that has to be disseminated has to be created somewhere but that is not the argument. Would you say that parents should have the right to be involved in the decision to use their children to create this type of information? If not, why not?



Now here is where the part of the problem is. When you use words such as "repressive attitudes" and "repressed approach" you seem to be implying that anything that isn't public sex education is negative. It seems to imply that this is a return to Hester of The Scarlet Letter. This seems a bit narrow minded and repressive. In this and other posts you seem to say that if we don't publicly talk about sex that we are narrow minded and think that sex is dirty.

There are other possibilities you know. As I previously stated I believe that it is not dirty but sacred and special and it diminishes it to be "taught" in schools.



If you think that sex is only about biology then you really don't understand how the other side feels. This is why the whole problem exists in the first place. One side sees it as just another science and the other sees it as part of their religion. Granted this is a very generalized way to put it but it does seem to summarize it well enough for the argument at hand.

If it is "just a part of science" then maybe the schools do have a right to step in. However many people don't see it that way and so the school should take that into account.

As I stated before I don't see a problem with the school having a sex education class but I don't think it should be mandatory and I do think that getting a parents permission before joining the class should be mandatory.




Due to a typo you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't support your position here nor did I mean for my quote to be taken the way you took it. The fault of course is mine but the quote should start "To many people," I am not saying that sex education shouldn't be bound up in their religion" simply that it IS. This is not right nor is it wrong in my opinion.

It frustrates me when people read the first amendment to say "The government shall ban all religion from public life" It doesn't say that. Nor does it say that the government shall "Force a secular belief system down the throats of those who are religious." What is different from forcing a person to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and forcing them to attend a sex ed class from a religious standpoint? In either case you are indicating a preference for a religious idea. Some wouldn't see it that way but then again you are still showing preference for a specific religious ideal.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " If my religion feels that sex education belongs in the home then who is the government to tell me other wise? That is the stand of most of the people I have talked to.

What I do disagree with is the people who say that teaching Sex Ed in school is immoral and so no ones children should have that option. That is forcing your religion on others.



Now you are changing your argument. I said nothing against teaching critical thinking. Also I don't see how the First Amendment has anything to do with teaching in school other than the religious angle I have already discussed. Also if the 1st Amendment disallows religion(sic.) doctrine, how does that justify teaching sex education which many see as religious doctrine?



You also said:



Then you would have no problem with me teaching your children the easiest way to butcher a person? The discoveries of Josef Mengele and the methods used are then fair game if you use this as your measuring stick. Granted these are extreme examples but half the information in a science textbook is either contested by some scientists or acknowledges as just being a theory.

One thing that annoys me is that so many people assume that if information is gathered using the scientific method then it must be the be the absolute truth. Much of what we "know" today is contradictory to what was known in the past. Many so called "natural laws" aren't. They are just theories. Granted many are theories that are accepted pretty much as law because there isn't a known exception or alternative but I am not conceited enough to believe that humans have unlocked the secrets of the universe, or even done more than scratched the surface.

One of my favorite science classes was Geology because I felt geologist have the strongest grasp on the real world. My professor got up in the first class and stated that there really aren't any laws that geologists are confident about calling laws. They are not conceited enough to state that they know everything about something. A good summary of this can be found here:

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry5.html

Now don't take this as an indication that I don't think science has a clue. I will accept most of what is accepted by science until a good alternative comes up. One of the exceptions I have is with Psychology.

Of all the sciences Psychology is one of the least firm. Human thought and behavior can invite no "laws" in the scientific meaning because there is just so much that isn't known. Part of this is due to Psychology being a fairly "new" science and part is due to it having so many variables. I would think it impossible to find a "law" in this science that is not contested by other psychologists of equal renown. So if you are basing your decision to support Sex Education based on Psychology then maybe you need to rethink it. Or not. You obviously have made up your mind regarding it and that is fine by me, but please allow me the same freedom without insinuating that I am not as smart just because you can not understand my position. I would think that if anything, it the other way around, after all I can understand your position. However I don't think I am smarter than you. I think that you do understand my position, you just reject it as an invalid position.

To clarify, I have no problem with the biology of sexual reproduction being taught in schools. The moral implications and the social portions of sexual education need to be left to the parents. If they are okay with those being taught in a formal class then who am I to dispute that? All I ask is the same courtesy in return.

Didn't know you were living in Orwell's Oceania, did you? To borrow from Gomer Pyle, surprise, surprise, surprise. From the opinion:

"[t]he Meyer and Pierce cases, we think, evince the principle that the state cannot prevent parents from choosing a specific educational program..."

Uhhh, Judge Reinhardt, isn't that what mom and dad said was occurring? That you and your friends were denying them the admitted right because you and your friends require children to go to school? And you and your friends don't merely require, you and your friends have also arrogated to yourselves the right to put mom and dad in jail if they don't [in Hawaii, it is a petty misdemeanor to fail to send your child to school without good and sufficient cause, with such failure subjecting one to the risk of imposition of a prison term not to exceed thirty (30) days]. So, Judge, if you are poor and cannot afford private school, cannot obtain a scholarship or tuiton waiver for the same, and cannot otherwise homeschool because such would remove you from the employment that, while keeping you poor, nevertheless provides you and your child with a home, clothes, food, and potable water [and not necessarily in that order], you have zero choice but public school [well, either that or defying a tyrannical state and risking the consequences]. And so, if it's only public school, and mom and dad say teach this and none else, but you and your friends insist otherwise, then you have, as Orwell would attest, prevented those parents from choosing a SPECIFIC educational program.

And that, Judge, is where your train jumped rather completely off the proverbial track, i.e., you said:

We do not think, however, that this freedom encompasses a fundamental constitutional right to dictate the curriculum at the public school to which THEY HAVE CHOSEN to send their children.

Again, Judge, did they choose? Or did you compel them under threat of imprisonment? It always helps to read the code Judge. Just as it helps to remember that the code purports to be a seamless web.

And, Judge, for the part that does nothing but prove that you are in fact an evil tyrant [despite your rather pretentious claims of dedication to those principles we call freedom, fraternity, and equality]:

As the First Circuit made clear in Brown, once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished.

I see. Might I suggest, Judge, that you and the First Circuit read Garrity v. New Jersey. Where the choice is between the rock [here, sex ed for 1st graders, Mein Kampf as an invaluable aid in improving vocabulary and reading comprehension in English class, The Birth Of A Nation as an exemplary statement of our proud American history, need I go on?] and the whirlpool [jail for the poor parent or parents who refuse to send their child to a public school system requiring sex ed for 1st graders, Mein Kampf as an invaluable aid in improving vocabulary and reading comprehension, and The Birth Of A Nation as an exemplary statement of our proud American history], duress is inherent in deciding to waive one or the other, indeed, it is THE characteristic of duress properly so called. And that's why, Judge, the State of New Jersey could not insist that its employees, as a condition of their public employment, waive their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against compulsory self-incrimination, so long as the investigation and accompanying questioning solely concerned the performance of their public employment. So who are you to claim that once parents make a choice, that their fundamental right is, at the least, substantially diminished? Are you being so bold as to claim that a parent has less a fundamental right to raise a child as he, she, they see fit, than a citizen-resident has to public employment? Remembering, of course, the long precedent that reports that there is no fundamental right to employment, public or otherwise. And, Judge, Mr. Garrity. He decided, or as you put it, he chose...he chose to accept public employment. And just as with the poor parent, he theoretically possessed the option of private employment, but since that didn't work, here he is working for the great State of New Jersey. So what's this again about, having made a choice, one's fundamental right is, at the least, substantially diminished? Again, Judge, where the choice is between the rock and the whirlpool....there is no diminished right[s]. But more on that in a bit.

Oh, and Judge, Pierce does not stand for merely choice of forum. The good State of Oregon didn't care about forum, it was trying to prohibit religious instruction in schools, all of them. So too with Meyer. At issue there was instruction, in whole or in part, in the German language, and never mind the forum, since no school could instruct in the German language, public or private.

And, Judge, just so we are clear, you do know, yes, that the only reason why mom lost in Prince v. Massachusetts is because mom was a Jehovah's Witness? I mean, you yourself cited a case upholding mandatory community service for school children. As I am sure Ms. Prince would attest, her provision of free copies of the WatchTower and Awake to those members of the general public willing to accept the same is indeed a community service. Remembing, of course, those sure and certain words that not only appear in the gospel of Mark but also as the intro to Bob Guccione's Caligula, to wit, what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? Were she here to testify, I'm certain that Ms. Prince would report that such was all she and her child were trying to address.

Oh, and Judge, why did mom lose? Because according to you and your friends, little Johnny's standing on the street corner with mom handing out the WatchTower and Awake was "harming" Johnny, and that gave the State a compelling interest sufficient to override mom's fundamental right to raise little Johnny as she saw fit.

And back to Meyer. Why did Meyer prevail? Because according to you, instruction in the German language, and never mind notions of public and/or private, did not and does not present a risk of harm to our children.

And, Judge, for coming full circle, all mom and dad are saying is that the instruction provided by you and your friends is harming their child. And so, the question becomes, as always, who gets to make that call. You and your friends, or mom and dad? Remembering, of course, the above discussion concerning the inherent coercion involved. And, Judge, back to Garrity, again, you said, they made a choice. Who cares? Recall again, Judge, those sure and certain words:

"It is said that there was a "waiver." That, however, is a federal question for us to decide. Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Pub. Service Comm., 248 U.S. 67, 69 -70; Stevens v. Marks, 383 U.S. 234, 243 -244. The Court in Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Pub. Service Comm., supra, in speaking of a certificate exacted under protest and in violation of the Commerce Clause, said:

"Were it otherwise, as conduct under duress involves a choice, it always would be possible for a State to impose an unconstitutional burden by the threat of penalties worse than it in case of a failure to accept it, and then to declare the acceptance voluntary . . . ." Id., at 70.

Where the choice is "between the rock and the whirlpool," duress is inherent in deciding to "waive" one or the other.

"It always is for the interest of a party under duress to choose the lesser of two evils. But the fact that a choice was made according to interest does not exclude duress. It is the characteristic of duress properly so called." Ibid. [385 U.S. 493, 499]

So, Judge, again, you were saying something about choice, and that having been exercised, we now have substantially diminished rights? Could you pervert the US Constitution any more? "Were it otherwise, as conduct under duress involves a choice, it always would be possible for a State to impose an unconstitutional burden [here, mandate education that wholly conflicts with that desired by the parent and which otherwise undermines the parental authority and values such parent wants to instill in their child i.e, sex ed, Mein Kampf, and Birth of a Nation] by the threat of penalties worse than it in case of a failure to accept it [go to jail unless you send your child to our public school featuring sex ed for 1st graders, Mein Kampf as an invaluable aid in improving vocabulary and reading comprehension, and Birth of Nation as the singular testament to the proud history of America], AND THEN [LIKE YOU JUDGE] TO DECLARE THE ACCEPTANCE VOLUNTARY.

And Mr. Garrity had greater choice to work for the great State of New Jersey than mom and dad here did to send their child to school. As related, and that because Mr. Garrity didn't face jail if he failed to work for the State.

One otherwise wonders what the vote was to confirm Judge Reinhardt. Oh, and for a brief digression, to show that life, like the law, is a seamless web, yes, we are a fascist state [since someone inquired as to the same on another thread on this board]. But it's not Neandertal neo-cons like me who are making it so, but self-professed left-leaning liberals like Judge Reinhardt who are making it so. The hypocrisy here is sickening. And so we are clear, he's probably against school vouchers, which would be the one thing that would help ameliorate the problem concerning compulsion, i.e., if they didn't truly have the means to make a choice, the state would provide it. It does not solve the problem, since the rich, like lawyers, judges, and Mr. Garrity, are not subject to watered-down versions of their constitutional rights, and since they pay taxes to fund these schools, they have every right to avail themselves of the same in relation to their child[ren]. I simply used the poor of this country, since if nothing else, this decision is nothing but an assault on the poor parents of our country [and if evil tyrant doesn't work for you, given Judge Reinhardt's own professed beliefs, how about a rather rank hypocrisy, i.e, don't ever speak to me again, Judge, about having compassion for the poor].

Now, to answer the question[s], the split of the 9th Circuit, of which I am a member of the Bar, has been on the table more than a decade. I am in favor of the same, and never mind this decision, because we could put Judge Reinhardt on the bench of a jurisdiction containing a single family and we'd still have the same problem [at least so long as that single family jurisdiction had a school district teaching things found objectionable by mom and/or dad]. The 9th Circuit is simply too large to be efficient, and something is otherwise wrong, given that in terms of both raw numbers and percentages, the 9th Circuit gets reversed more than any other federal circuit court.

As a final word, "scientifically-validated theories of the origin of life." Uhhh, Judge, if it was scientifically-validated, it would be fact and not theory. And, Judge, the origin of life was a singular non-repeatable event, and so is not falsifiable, and thus concerns not science but faith. And, Judge, to say that Mr. X is homosexual is also not scientific, since the same is not falsifiable, i.e., he could be having sex with a woman only because he wants to prove us wrong and not because such is what he truly desires [and how can we ever "prove" his state of mind]. Something to remember and dwell on, not only in Rod Serling's Twilight Zone, but wherever men walk God's earth. Sorry, if some of you object, let me rephrase. To be accepted science, it must be testable against the empirical world. Again, since it was a singular occurrence never to be repeated, it is not testable against the empirical world. And never mind that while Stanley Miller managed to "create" some amino acids in the lab, that the attempts to accomplish the same with respect to proteins has been one long lesson in failure, and since proteins are indeed the building blocks of life....But thanks again, Judge, for demonstrating your rather appalling ignorance and why we leave it to parents, and not you and your friends, to decide what is best for their children.