"Hey little girl, do you think about sex a lot?"

How would you like an adult posing this question to your child? To be sure, any adult who asked this question to a seven-year-old would be, at the least a pervert and likely a sex offender: If having a strange adult ask a seven-year-old about whether or not they think about sex isn't a sex offense, it sure as hell should be. Now, how would you like it if this adult were a teacher or school district administrator? Well these are exactly the type of questions school administrators and teachers in the Palmdale, California school district are allowing to be asked of seven-year-olds on paper and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seems to think this is just fine. Not only that, but they think that the fact that teachers and administrators are allowing a "researcher" to ask seven-year-olds about sex is none of the parent's damn business:

(AgapePress) - Pro-family leaders are disturbed and incensed over Wednesday's decision by an appellate court panel in San Francisco, which held that parents have "no fundamental right" to control their kids' upbringing by introducing them to sexual information "in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs." Nor, according to the panel, do mothers and fathers have the right to prevent their kids' exposure to sexual information whenever and however the school chooses. (See earlier story)

'The Circus Has Now Ruled ...'
The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals informed six parents in California's Palmdale School District that they have "no fundamental right" to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sex to their children. It is a decision that the president and lead counsel of the pro-family firm Liberty Counsel describes as a declaration of war on parental rights.

I'll say it's a war on parental rights. Here's just a small sampling of the nature, if not the exact wording, of some of the questions on the survey as described last night by Tony Snow substituting for Bill O'Reilly on his show. Mind you, they were allowing seven-year-olds to be asked if they found themselves:

Touching my private parts too much

Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

Not trusting people because they might want sex

Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

Having sex feelings in my body

Can't stop thinking about sex

Getting upset when people talk about sex

As far as I'm concerned, any administrator of any school district that would allow questions about these subjects to be asked of seven-year-old kids deserves to be arrested on general principles as a sex offender right along with the "researcher". But of course, it wasn't the school district's fault.

The school district was quick to note that they had no idea that such questions were being asked in the survey:

But Palmdale School Superintendent Dr. Jack Gyves told Cybercast News Service Friday that the school district accepted responsibility for the "inappropriate survey" and apologized to parents before it ever went to court.

The survey was conducted by an outside health services consultant who was conducting research for her dissertation, and Gyves said the questionnaire given to the students "was not the version of the survey that had been approved by the district.

"Whether that was miscommunication or intent on the part of the person administering the survey, I don't know," Gyves said.

He added that parents weren't informed about the sexual nature of the questions because the school didn't know about them. "They were misinformed, not intentionally," he said. "It was acknowledged that that survey was inappropriate for that age level of kids and as far as we were concerned, locally it was a dead issue."

Excuse me, but if there was a charge of negligent sex abuse, this Gyves guy is a prime candidate for it. What in the hell does he mean the "parents weren't informed about the sexual nature of the questions because the school didn't know about them"? It's the school's job to KNOW what they are surveying kids about -- did no teacher or administrator bother to read what they were handing out to kids? This is either gross negligence or a cover-up and I would say that it's more than likely a cover-up. It's more plausible to me that Gyves knew full well what was in these surveys and lied about it than it is that he was completely ignorant of the suggestive questions that were being asked of the first, third and fifth grade students in his district.

But never mind: The 9th Circuit Court panel thinks it's perfectly okay to ask these questions of kids and it's none of the parents damn business. The salient excerpt from this arrogant and obnoxious piece of judicial malpractice is contained in the summary paragraph:

In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents "to control the upbringing of their children of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs" and that the asserted right is not encompassed any other fundamental right. In doing so, we do not quarrel with the parents' right to inform and advise their children about the subject of sex as they see fit. We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the schools from providing information on the subject in any forum or manner they select. We further hold that a psychological survey is a reasonable state action pursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state.

In other words, the 9th Circuit panel has come out wholesale in favor of Hillary Clinton’s Stalinist village where the right of the state to ask your seven-year-old invasive questions about sex -- a topic about which they may, legitimately, know absolutely nothing -- trumps any right the parent has to raise their child the way they see fit. Using this twisted logic, the state might as well take kids away from the parents shortly after birth and take them to a collectivist compound where they are indoctrinated from birth to age 18 with everything little thing it's in the "legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state" to teach them.

This opinion was written by Stephen Reinhardt, a notorious leftie judge appointed by -- SURPRISE -- James Earl Carter Jr. which means that this judicial imbecile has been causing chaos in the 9th Circus for the past 25 years.

The decision that parents have no right to stop school districts from asking their seven-year-olds if they think about sex all the time is only the latest outrage vested upon the good citizens of the 9th Circuit by Reinhardt and his leftist cronies. Who can forget the Michael Newdow case in which the 9th Circuit found that the words "under God" in the pledge was unconstitutional? Another recent 9th Circuit decision found that a law making it a crime to lie about the actions of a cop to get them in trouble was null and void because there was no law making it a crime to falsely praise a cop. In other sterling decisions, this wacko court has ruled the Second Amendment null and void by ruling the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't mean what it clearly says and this court also ruled, back in 2003, that punch card ballots are unconstitutional even though every study shows a higher error rate for more modern forms of marking your ballot. There's no shortage of loony decisions emanating from the screwy leftist court -- it has the distinction of being the most overturned appeals court in the nation. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court could keep a full docket just reviewing and overturning the 9th Circuit's leftist wacko decisions.

The 9th Circuit has wreaked havoc on common sense, constitutionality and the judiciary for years now, but Republicans are attempting to do something about it. The 9th Circuit presides over a huge area with 54 million people -- a disproportionately large area for an appeals court by virtue of the fact that this court covers not only California, but also the entire West Coast including Alaska and Hawaii. Republicans want to break this area up, creating a 12th Circuit Court of Appeals out of the leftist activists from the 9th and more Bush-appointed judges:

The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering a proposal to split the Ninth Circuit in two, something that would require President Bush to appoint more judges.

The new Ninth Circuit would include California, Hawaii, Guam, and the North Marianas Islands, while the new Twelfth Circuit would cover Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.

The proposal has passed the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering a similar proposal. If the plan ends up as part of a House budget reduction proposal, it could not be filibustered by the Senate. Liberals are predictably, pissed:

But on Thursday, House Minority Leader Pelosi said Republicans, in trying to split the Ninth Circuit, are attacking "an independent judiciary."

"On the merits, there is no justification for the Republican court splitting proposal. It is simply a partisan exercise to appease the radical right," Pelosi said in a press release.

Appease the radical right? Attacking and independent judiciary? That's okay, Nancy, go ahead and attack Republicans for opposing an "independent judiciary" that thinks it's none of the parent's damn business if the school is asking their seven-year-olds if they touch themselves and how much they touch themselves. That's got to be a losing issue for you even in the Peoples Republic of California.