I Haven't Been This Angry In A LONG Time - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling on Sex Education

Please forgive me in advance, as I am still reading through the entire ruling referenced above which I first learned about very early this morning (try 3:30am, I couldn't sleep) on CNN's website;

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/02/sex.survey.ap/index.html

I emailed my mom initially (as she is a well respected attorney and understands things to do with legal rulings that I might have misunderstood right off the bat) about this as I wanted her to make sure that what I was reading was correct. Well, I'll just paste my email to her here, excuse the typos in advance, it was the middle of the night, I was uncomfortable and upset....

Hi Mom:

Was out on CNN browsing (I can’t sleep, I’m too uncomfortable- aided somewhat by the fact I had the heating on too high – but I’d rather not sleep due to a hungry/cranky baby rather than being uncomfortable) and came across this article regarding parents’ claim that they have the exclusive right to tell their children about sex.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/02/sex.survey.ap/index.html

In the article, circuit Judge Reinhardt makes this statement:

"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."

But couldn’t it also be argued that back when our nation was founded, children were taught about such things exclusively at home, by their parents?

Something about this ruling just makes me very….I don’t know what the word is. It’s like it suggests that taking the issue [of rights in regard to this issue] out of the parents hands is ok, because there’s no conclusive evidence that they ever had it in the first place. And personally, I don’t want someone else teaching Gidget about this subject matter, nor do I like a court telling me that I don’t have an exclusive right to teach my child about sex. (I don’t mind the schools perhaps emphasizing certain aspects of the subject matter) And maybe I’m misunderstanding the concept of “ordered liberty” but couldn’t I also argue that as part of my ordered liberties is the right to impart upon my children my values, exclusively?

This bothers me so much because – and I’m fully open to admitting that I’m completely misunderstanding the ruling- that sex education can be taken out of my hands and left to those who are part of whatever [public] education system we put Gidget into, and that school districts can interpret this ruling to mean that parents indeed do not have exclusive rights to educate their children on matters of sex, and wouldn’t that possibly open more doors to more objectionable content regarding sex-education in school? Now, I know I’ve taken this a few steps forward, and like I said, I may be misconstruing the entire thing, but I feel this ruling takes something very basic and fundamental out of my hands.

This is just one prime example of why Gareth and I will probably opt for private school. Gidget will by no stretch of the imagination grow up ignorant when it comes to this, but I have serious problems with the court telling me that I don’t have the exclusive right to educate my child at home, about sex. As a matter of fact, if that ruling stands, then I am IRATE! If this ruling stands, wouldn’t it then make it harder for us, as parents (if we put Gidg in public schools) to pull her out of a sex-education class that we objected to based on content? If so, I’d have little ground to stand on with an argument based on it being my right to educate my child in a manner I see fit, as that’s my right. The school would hold up that ruling like a trophy and shove it back in my face that the courts found no such exclusivity.

If this ruling stands, what other things can a [liberal] court find that we as parents don’t have specific rights about, just because it wasn’t mentioned when our nation’s foundations were set? I’m mean hell, back then people had MORALS and CLEAR CUT VALUES! And they knew that in polite society, you don’t bandy about certain subjects that are better left, discussed at home and that golly gosh, parents sometimes do know what’s best for their children!

I’m not, by any stretch of the imagination, suggesting all sex education be pulled out of our schools, what I am suggesting is that the decision be left up to me as to what I deem appropriate for my child, and that matters as important as this one where one’s values and morals can into play is indeed the exclusive playground for Moms and Dads.

But then again, maybe this is my idea of utopia, and maybe I have no [specific] right to that. I don’t know.

I was going to blog about this, but I wanted to make sure I understood this from a legal point of view as well, before I opened my mouth. And I might have totally misunderstood the ruling. And then of course, there is always the fact that in the strictest interpretation of the Constitution, well hey, if it wasn’t mentioned as a right, it’s not! And that’s a very scary thought.

So what do you think? I’m asking you as an attorney first, as a parent, second and as my parent, third.

Love ya,

Auds

So, while I take some time to ruminate over this entire ruling, which is 23 pages long, just know that I'm far from done on this one. I'm angry that a court has once again decided to interpret the constitution and set a very distrubing precedent.

It appears I was correct in my initial assumption about this ruling.

And for the record, my feelings on this are not bourne of religious convictions, but rather personal feelings about the matter. Especially when I read this first paragraph:

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
When parents of schoolchildren in Palmdale, California
learned from their sons and daughters that they had been
questioned in their public elementary school about sexual topics
such as the frequency of “thinking about having sex” and
“thinking about touching other peoples’ private parts,” some
of them exercised their constitutional right to take their grievance
to the courts. The questioning was part of a survey the
Palmdale School District was conducting regarding psychological
barriers to learning. The parents brought an action in
district court against the School District and two of its officials
for violating their right to privacy and their right “to control
the upbringing of their children by introducing them to
matters of and relating to sex.” They brought both federal and
state claims.

These are ELEMENTARY school aged children for God's sake! Who the hell introduces topics such as thinking about other's private parts and masturbation at that age? I understand that a certain amount of curiousity is normal at a young age, but giving an ELEMENTARY school aged child a questionairre with subject matter such as the outlined above, that is, in my opinion, unexcusable!