9th Circus Court strikes again

In one of the most unbelievable rulings I have ever seen (emphasis added):

SAN FRANCISCO Nov 2, 2005 — A federal appeals court Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by parents who were outraged that a school district had surveyed their elementary school-age children about sex.

The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the parents’ claim that they have the exclusive right to tell their children about sex.

In upholding a lower court ruling against the parents, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt said “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.”

[…]

An attorney for the parents, Erik Gunderson, said he was considering an appeal. Dennis Walsh, attorney for the Palmdale school district north of Los Angeles, said the survey was part of a legitimate effort aimed at helping students.

The district dropped the survey in 2002 amid complaints from parents. It was given to children in the first, third and fifth grades as part of a program to gauge early trauma and help youngsters overcome barriers to learning.

Among other things, the students were asked how often they thought about sex.

Parents whose students took the survey signed consent forms. But the forms never mentioned sex would be a topic.

So next time you hear from staunch pro sex-ed advocates that it’s no big deal that sex ed is taught in public schools to folks too young to even think about having sex simply because the schools have “consent forms” parents have to fill out, remember the above.

Let’s hope that, like many other rulings from the 9th Circus that have been overturned, that this one will be, too.

Hat tip: Donald Sensing.

More via the Conservative Voice, which provides more info that should concern us all regarding that elementary school sex ‘survey’:

Some of the questions asked of the elementary-aged students included subjects related to “touching my private parts”, “thinking about sex”, “thinking about others’ private parts” and “not trusting people because they might want sex”.

Sick.

(Cross-posted at California Conservative)

PCD says:

November 4, 2005 at 10:59 am

Stephen Rhinehardt is a past president of the ACLU chapter in Los Angeles, and his wife, Ramona Ripston, has also been LA Chapter president of the ACLU. Of all the judges on the 9th Circus, Rhinehardt is the most needing to be impeached and removed from the bench. He was the 2nd judge ruling for Michael Newdow in his origninal Pledge of Allegiance case.

Big Bang Hunter says:

November 4, 2005 at 8:57 pm

– As Judge Napolitano stated on Fox concerning this ruling…”this decision is almost “Stalin” like in asserting the state is the ruling authority in regards to your childrens schooling”…He also said that this is such a bad ruling it will go to the SC and be undoubtedly reversed, like so may other 9th circuit decisions are.

– Another pair of facts. the sexual questions were NOT included in the outline the parents were given to approve, and thankfully these questions were yanked after it came to the publics attenion through the court cases.

– I can’t think of a more scurellous finding. I truly think the ACLU should be disbanded.

– Big Bang

h.garner says:

November 5, 2005 at 1:11 am

“Let’s hope that, like many other rulings from the 9th Circus that have been overturned, that this one will be, too.”

I doubt it. The supreme court is more conservative than the 9th circuit. They’re not going to announce a privacy right were the 9th didn’t. Or, if they do, more power to privacy rights.