[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 547 Introduced in House (IH)]







109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 547

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on 
         parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 10, 2005

 Mr. Murphy (for himself, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Poe, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mrs. 
 Myrick, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. 
 Kuhl of New York, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Jindal, Mr. 
 Issa, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Chocola, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. 
  Gohmert, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Kline, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. 
Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. 
 Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Neugebauer, 
 Mr. Feeney, Mr. Pence, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Sullivan, 
   Mr. McKeon, Ms. Hart, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Franks of Arizona) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on 
         parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District.

Whereas the Palmdale School District sent parents of elementary school students 
        at Mesquite Elementary School in Palmdale, California a letter 
        requesting consent to give a psychological assessment questionnaire to 
        their first, third, and fifth grade students;
Whereas without the informed consent of their parents, the young students were 
        instead administered a questionnaire that contained sexually explicit 
        and developmentally inappropriate questions;
Whereas seven parents subsequently filed a complaint against the Palmdale School 
        District in a Federal district court;
Whereas on November 2, 2005, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of 
        Appeals affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for 
        the Central District of California in the case (Fields v. Palmdale 
        School District) and held that parents ``have no constitutional right . 
        . . to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever 
        information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the 
        school determines that it is appropriate to do so'';
Whereas the Ninth Circuit stated, ``once parents make the choice as to which 
        school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control 
        the education of their children is, at the least, substantially 
        diminished'';
Whereas in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 401 (1923), the Supreme Court 
        recognized that the liberty guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the 
        Constitution encompasses ``the power of parents to control the education 
        of their [children]'';
Whereas the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 
        (1925), highlighted the Meyer doctrine that parents and guardians have 
        the liberty ``to direct the upbringing and education of children under 
        control'' and emphasized that ``[t]he child is not the mere creature of 
        the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, 
        coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional 
        obligations'';
Whereas in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232-33 (1972), the Supreme Court 
        acknowledged that ``[t]he history and culture of Western civilization 
        reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and 
        upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the 
        upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an 
        enduring American tradition. . . . The duty to prepare the child for 
        `additional obligations', referred to by the Court [in Pierce] must be 
        read to include the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, 
        and elements of good citizenship'';
Whereas a plurality of the Supreme Court has stated, ``it cannot now be doubted 
        that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the 
        fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, 
        custody, and control of their children'' (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 
        57, 66 (2000) (plurality opinion));
Whereas the Ninth Circuit's decision in Fields v. Palmdale School District 
        presupposes that ``parents make the choice as to which school their 
        children will attend'' when, in fact, many parents do not have such a 
        choice;
Whereas the decision in Fields establishes a dangerous precedent for limiting 
        parental involvement in the public education of their children; and
Whereas the rights of parents ought to be strengthened whenever possible as they 
        are the cornerstone of American society: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the fundamental right of parents to direct the 
        education of their children is firmly grounded in the Nation's 
        Constitution and traditions;
            (2) the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Fields v. Palmdale School 
        District undermines the fundamental right of parents to direct 
        the upbringing of their children; and
            (3) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
        Circuit should agree to rehear the case en banc in order to 
        reverse this constitutionally infirm ruling.
                                 <all>