[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Page S599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 189. A bill to amend the Head Start Act to require parental 
consent for nonemergency intrusive physical examinations; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
requiring parental consent for intrusive physical exams administered 
under the Head Start program.
  Young children attending Head Start programs should not be subjected 
to these intrusive physical exams without the prior knowledge or 
consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human 
Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. 
Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. To 
clarify the code, my bill will not allow any nonemergency intrusive 
exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent. This would not 
include exams such as hearing, vision or scoliosis screenings.
  This issue was brought to my attention by some of my constituents 
from Tulsa, OK who felt their rights were violated when their children 
were subjected to genital exams and blood tests without their consent. 
I am pleased to see that the Rutherford Institute has taken an interest 
in this crucial issue and are representing my constituents.
  As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be 
informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I 
hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the following article be 
printed in the Record, ``Federal Head Start suit pending.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Federal Head Start Suit Pending

       A lawsuit against Tulsa's Head Start program alleging a 
     violation of the constitutional rights of preschool children 
     remains pending in the U.S. District Court.
       The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the 
     lawsuit in July 2003 saying the program appears to have 
     ``directly violated'' their rights by subjecting children to 
     genital exams and blood tests without their parents' consent.
       The appellate decision reversed a 2001 decision by U.S. 
     District Judge Terence Kern in Tulsa in favor of the 
     Community Action Project.
       The lawsuit arose as a result of exams of Head Start boys 
     and girls at Roosevelt Elementary School on Nov. 5, 1998. The 
     appellate judges said a registered nurse, who was a CAP 
     employee, insisted on the exams over the objection of a 
     parent, who was also a CAP aide.
       The appeals court also reinstated claims for invasion of 
     privacy and ``technical battery'' under Oklahoma law, and 
     claims against CAP for allegedly interfering with the 
     parents' ``constitutional right to direct and control the 
     medical treatment of their children.''
       The parents are represented by Steven Aden, chief litigator 
     for the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, a conservative 
     legal foundation that focuses on religious rights, parental 
     rights and freedom from government intrusion.
                                 ______