I want to throw up....I'd just move ...

5:49 PM Edit This 0 Comments »
or sue or sue then move...something. We've got to stand up people...read on.

Here's the link if you'd rather read it from the horse's mouth....

9th Circuit 'Declares War' on Parental Rights
by Pete Winn, associate editor

Ultraliberal court makes outrageous ruling which dismisses the right of parents to challenge what their children are taught.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has told parents with children in California’s Palmdale School District they have no rights when it comes to what their children are being taught — nor do they even have the right to take action against anything they might object to.

"This decision declares war on parental rights," said Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver. "It essentially says that parents have no rights. Once you drop your kids off at school — according to this court's decision — you have severed all of your parental rights until you pick your kids up at the end of the day. But while they're in the public school's jurisdiction, there are no parents, according to this decision."

The Palmdale parents filed suit alleging the school had interfered with their constitutional rights by surveying their elementary-age children without disclosing that the survey contained personal questions about sex.
Writing for the unanimous panel, Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt said "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children . . ."

Further, in the court's opinion, ". . . 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."

Staver said the court had the audacity to say that parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, but they do not have a fundamental right to direct how that school teaches their child.

"That's just outrageous," he said. Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, said prior to administering the survey, the district mailed a letter to the parents of the children, who ranged in age from 7 to 10.

But the letter, he said, simply described the survey as establishing "a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma."
"The letter," Fahling said, "did not disclose that, of the 79 questions, the children would be asked 10 questions rating areas such as: touching my private parts, thinking about having sex, having sex feelings in my body and can’t stop thinking about sex.

Staver was explosive in his disgust.

"Understand that these are 7-year-old children that are being asked intrusive and controversial and inappropriate questions about sexual behavior," Staver said. "And this judge says, 'That's OK.' Well, it's not OK!"

Fahling said the decision puts the schools firmly in control.

"The court has held that once parents send their children to public schools the children are essentially guinea pigs that the school may do with as they please," he said.
Fahling also said the judge didn't rely upon law for his decision — he cited a few cases and tried to make them fit his predetermined conclusions.
"The court failed even to consider the deception of the school in failing to disclose that the children would be exposed to questions about sex," he said.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, called the ruling "an egregious example of judicial tyranny."
"Unless it's corrected, the entire future of public education and the rights of parents are in severe jeopardy," he said.
Hausknecht noted that Reinhardt is the same judge who ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in the case brought by atheist Michael Newdow.
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called the 9th Circuit "a bastion of goofy decisions."

"If it's not the parents talking to their children about such sensitive matters, who is it?" Graham asked rhetorically. "And what body has the right to trump a parent? What institution in this country, school or otherwise, has a greater right to provide information to a child than the parent? That's what's wrong with our courts.

"Courts are not elected officials. They should not become mini-legislators. They should not become the culture-setters in the country. They should follow the law. And there's nothing in the law, written anywhere in the country, that says that there's an institution greater than the parent when it comes to talking about sex."

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., agreed that parents have the responsibility of being the primary educators of their children.

"Parents have a right to know and to decide what their young children are being exposed to by the schools regarding sex education," he said.
Hausknecht said this decision certainly underscores the importance of putting judges like Samuel Alito on the bench — judges who are originalists and who understand the role of a judge is to interpret the law.

"Up to this point, parents have been walking around assuming that their children are still their children while they're in school," Hausknecht said. "But this is a wake-up call that Big Brother has other ideas for your children."

Meanwhile, Staver said there has been talk of breaking up the huge 9th Circuit and creating a new court, or perhaps two. The 9th covers most of the western U.S. and has the heaviest caseload of any of the appeals courts. Splitting it up would be a good idea, he said, not only because it's the largest, but because it's also the most liberal.

"It is the most reversed court, bar none, in the country," Staver said. "Hopefully, if this case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit will be reversed one more time."
TAKE ACTION:Please contact your members of Congress, and tell them that we need judges who will neither legislate from the bench nor usurp the rights of parents. Especially, tell your senators that it is important to give President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote.

All you Californians out there, please tell me this isn't what it seems. That the world isn't coming to this... excuse me while I go throw up. We've got to take a stand.