The Domestic Threat

to
Parental Rights

The Parental Rights Amendment is not merely an answer to threats from international law. It
also seeks to halt the erosion of parental rights in the United States. Consider the following
examples of our current dangerous trend:

1. Federal courts consistently deny that parental rights deserve protection as a

“fundamental right.”

In the last Supreme Court decision on parental rights, Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Su-
preme Court split six different ways. Only Justice Thomas held that parental rights were a
fundamental right and used the normal test (strict judicial scrutiny) associated with any fun-
damental right. As a result of this confusion, the lower federal courts have rapidly eradicated
the idea that parental rights deserve the same level of protection as freedom of speech or
other fundamental rights. All of the legal rules become stacked against the parent when their
claims are evaluated as a non-fundamental right, and in virtually every case parents lose.

2. Current law on parental rights does not allow parents to protect their children
from outlandish assemblies in public schools.

In Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, Inc. (1995), the First Court of Appeals denied
that the Constitution gives parents any right to know about or control their children’s atten-
dance at a “sexually explicit” presentation in a public school assembly.

3. Current law on parental rights does not allow parents of a kindergarten stu-
dent to know about or have the right to opt out of indoctrination in homosexual
rights and practices.

In Parker v. Hurley, 514 F. 3d 87 (2008), a federal appeals court found that parents who op-
pose a particular part of the curriculum on moral grounds do not have a right to opt out their
child, or to be informed in advance of the curriculum content. The court held that this does
not violate parental freedoms, because parents who do not like the curriculum can send a
child to private school or educate their child at home (though their tax burden will not be
lightened for opting out of public schools). The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this
holding.

ParentalRights.Org * P.O. Box 1090 Purcellville, VA 20134 * 540-751-1200 * info@parentalrights.org

4. Current law on parental rights does not allow parents to stop public schools
from giving condoms to their children.

While a child can’t have an aspirin without parental permission and the cooperation of the
school nurse, schools can distribute condoms without parental consent. In Parents United for
Better Schools, Inc. v. School District of Philadelphia, 148 F. 3d 260 (1998), the federal ap-
peals court denied standing to the parents filing suit, because the court found the school dis-
trict to be “promoting public health” when it distributes prophylactics to students without pa-
rental consent.

5. Current law on parental rights tells parents that they have no say over their
children once they enter the door of a public school.

In Fields v. Palmdale School District, 427 F. 3d 1197 (2005), the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap-
peals “affirm[ed] that the [fundamental parental] right does not extend beyond the threshold
of the school door.” This case involved an outrageous survey about the values and attitudes of
children and their parents. Numerous school boards have determined that parents do not
even have a constitutional right to be present on the school grounds where their child attends.
See http://www.erusd.k12.ca.us/ERUSDPolicies/1250.pdf or http://sweetstevens.com/
articles/documents/PrntlRghtsClassVisit.pdf for examples.

6. Current law on parental rights gives the public schools, not parents, the power
to determine how children use some of their out-of-school hours.

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in Herndon v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Bd.
Of Educ. (1996) that “the district’s community service requirement [demanding 50 hours of
community service prior to graduation] does not intrude on the student’s freedom from invol-
untary servitude, their right to privacy, or their parents’ right to direct their upbringing and
education.” The school district made a list of acceptable community service organizations and
demanded that the students “volunteer.”

7. Current administrative law on parental rights blocks parents from seeing

their children’s medical records and information.

Many states have passed laws, and many corporations have set policies, which take advantage
of the federal Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to remove par-
ents from the medical care of children. In many states, parents cannot access or discuss their
child’s medical records in a variety of areas, including reproductive health and drug use.
These regulations make it impossible for parents to monitor and influence potentially danger-
ous health practices adopted by adolescents for whom they are still legally responsible.