No Parents Allowed

[Updated 6/6/17]

If your children attend public school, you are among those parents whose rights will end the moment your child enters the school. That’s because in 2005 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in Fields v. Palmdale School District “that the Meyer-Pierce right [of parents to direct the upbringing of their children] does not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”

You read that right. Parental Rights “[do] not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”1

“We conclude that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on the subject [of sexuality] to their students in any forum or manner they select” (emphasis added).

Of course, most parents would contend that they don’t have a choice in where their children are schooled. Either economic constraints or personal circumstances leave them with no practical alternative to the local public school (which, after all, their taxes are paying for). And that leaves no parental rights at all.

Please act to reverse this assault by big government courts against parental rights. Sign up for our email alerts and get more information at ParentalRights.org.

Then, please pass this on. Every parent of a public school student needs to know the extent to which the courts have robbed them of their rights. Use the share buttons below to add it to virtually any other social network.

The courts’ disregard for the traditional formative role of parents in a child’s life needs to be brought to light. And while the Parental Rights Amendment will not give parents any greater power to control the school’s choice of curriculum, it will protect their right to pull their individual child out of any program of an outrageous or offensive nature, like the program in the Palmdale case.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

NOTE: (1) This sentence was edited out by the en banc decision after severe public and congressional outcry, but the intent of the decision was unchanged. The quote appearing in the next paragraph here was left intact.