From CNSNews:

A new ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is prompting cries of judicial activism.

On Wednesday the court dismissed a lawsuit brought by California parents who were outraged over a sex survey given to public school students in the first, third and fifth grades.

Among other things, the survey administered by the Palmdale School District asked children if they ever thought about having sex or touching other people’s “private parts” and whether they could “stop thinking about having sex.”

The parents argued that they — not the public schools — have the sole right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex.”

But on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit dismissed the case, saying, “There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children…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.”

In the court’s eyes, not only does it take a village, but to heck with parents. You have no say in the upbringing of your child. In fact, it’s not your child; it’s the government’s child.

But the story doesn’t end there. I went and looked at the actual court decision. The school’s “mental health counselor” (the quotes are the court’s, not mine) administered the survey after the parents had signed a consent form. Among the items on the consent form, it was stated:

The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure of children?s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence).

There are differences between sex and violence. And some parents have strong views about how their child will be exposed to each. Case in point: A parent may take his child who is not yet 17 to see Saving Private Ryan (an exceptionally violent film) because of its message, but would never dream of allowing the child to see a PG-13 film whose main rating comes from sexual material. That’s not a double-standard; that’s a parent’s evaluation of his/her morals and/or the child’s readiness for particular material.

The noting of violence (and the exclusion of reference to sex) in the consent form is — probably intentionally — deceptive. However, even the mention of questioning first-graders about exposure to violence should have set off major alarm bells for the parents. And if that didn’t, this passage should have:

I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable. If this occurs, then, Kristi Seymour, the research study coordinator, will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary.

They’re anticipating that their survey may land 6-year-olds in therapy!!! And the parents still consented!!!

While the reasoning behind the court’s decision is abominable, the parents acted in a monumentally stupid way. The court case sheds even more light on the thinking of the Ninth Circus, but to be honest, this was an absolutely frivolous lawsuit.