Catholic World News News Feature

Family advocates rip US court ruling on parents' rights November 04, 2005

An American pro-family leader has expressed his shock at a federal court ruling that parents have no right to control the education of their children regarding sexuality.

Allan Carlson, the founder of the World Congress of Families, observed that a 9th Circuit Court decision, released earlier this week, essentially argues that "once parents surrender their children to the state education system, the schools can attempt to inculcate attitudes and values which families find abhorrent-- over their strenuous objections."

In the November 2 decision, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the federal appeals court said: "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

The 3-judge panel dismissed a complaint by parents of children in a California school district who were asked to fill out a survey detailing their thoughts about sexuality. Although many parents found the survey intrusive, the court rule that the schools "cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral, or religious concerns of every parent."

In objecting to the decision, Allan Carlson argued that the survey was not a neutral scientific instrument. By encouraging students to participate in matter-of-fact discussion of sexual activity, he said, the survey was "meant to elicit certain responses and, in so doing, inculcate a mindset regarding sexuality in general and premarital sex specifically."

Carlson helped to organize the World Congress of Families meeting in Mexico City in 2004, at which delegates endorsed a statement that declared: " Parents possess the primary authority and responsibility to direct the upbringing and education of their children, except in cases of abuse and neglect." Carlson is also the author of The Natural Family: A Manifesto

The 9th Circuit Court has a history of judicial activism. Judge Reinhardt, the author of this week's opinion, also penned a decision three years ago in which he argued that the use of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment ban on federal establishment of religion.