Thread: Saying No To The Nanny State

Saying No To The Nanny State

By Lisa Fabrizio
March 13, 2008

Five years ago, when the smoking ban in restaurants first went into effect in my home state of Connecticut, I told a few folks who were happy about it, that it was only a matter of time before the government came after their private property rights or other issues that were near and dear to their hearts. Most people scoffed at my defense of the restaurant owners' property rights and one fellow actually said, ""The problem with you people is that all you care about is the Constitution."

Of course, the ensuing years only saw more government intrusion and some shocking court decisions eat away at the liberties of a proud, freedom-loving people. The case that most disturbed my liberal friends was the U.S. Supreme Court's shocking 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London, which essentially eviscerated the Fifth Amendment's proscription against depriving citizens of their private property except for "public use."

Now, when I repeat my warnings that, with liberals in power, no one's rights are safe, I hear little or no argument at all. And the fellow who chastised me about the Constitution has since actually read the eight-page document and is now a proud conservative who joins me in castigating those still in denial.

Yet, while I bemoan the liberal goings-on in my once liberty-loving state, I only have that much more empathy for the many good people of California, who also have a RINO governor, but labor under the 'leadership' of a much worse regime. This week's outrage concerns the ruling of an appellate court that "parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children" and that those who do so might be subject to severe penalties.

Now the judges in this case may actually have a legal leg to stand on, given that California really has no concrete provisions either for or against homeschooling on the books, but of course, that is not really the issue at hand. That more and more parents are taking direct responsibility for the raising of their own children is naturally troubling to the proprietors of the Nanny State.

The father in the case said (web site) that he withdrew his children from the public school system because, ""We just don't want them teaching our children. They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe." This is an affront to those who would wean our children on their secular, socialist agenda. Here is the real kicker from Judge H. Walter Croskey, writing the unanimous opinion (emphasis mine): (web site)

The parents in the instant case have asserted in a declaration that it is because of their "sincerely held religious beliefs" that they home school their children and those religious beliefs "are based on Biblical teachings and principles"... [T]hose assertions are not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights. Their statements are conclusional, not factually specific. Moreover, such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to home school his or her child.

One of the many reasons that Judge Croskey and friends fear additional "easily asserted" claims, just might have something to do with a law recently passed in California which states that: "'Gender' means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." (web site)

Yep, this law basically says that God might have erred when handing out sex assignments and that the little kiddies--no doubt aided by their state-sponsored counselors and teachers--can now assume whatever gender they choose. The bill also deals with revised "activities and instructional materials" to be used in class. I'll leave it to you to figure out what that means.

Homeschooling is a threat to these folks because in states that continue to refuse to permit realistic school 'choice', concerned parents must look elsewhere. This particularly bucks the feminist agenda, which is huge in the educational field, because it encourages moms to stay at home and make the raising and educating of their children their number one priority instead of going out to do battle with the dreaded 'glass ceiling'. And it has the anti-God squad foaming at the mouth as well.

Liberals get really testy when some folks, devout Christians for example, choose to live their lives under God's laws; but have no compunction in compelling others to live under the tender mercies of the Nanny State where they make the rules. They seem genuinely shocked when citizens refuse to cede their parental rights to them so they can fashion their children into liberal clones.

The case in California might unfortunately lead to more government regulation of homeschooling, but hopefully it will be overturned on appeal. In his opinion, Judge Croskey cited parts of Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1972 Supreme Court case dealing with an Amish family who wanted to withdraw their children from public school after the eighth grade. What Croskey didn't cite was this from the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger:

This case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the state, to guide the religious future and education of their children. The 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 tradition.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/lfabri ... 3131.shtml

Moving to Other Topics...

Congress outraged by California homeschool case
'There are a variety of things being considered'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 13, 2008
10:12 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Members of Congress privately are infuriated and worried over a California appeals court ruling that essentially banned homeschooling in the state, where at least 166,000 students are being educated that way, according to a homeschooling expert who has met with them.

"There's a lot of concern and outrage from members of Congress," Michael Farris, the chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, told WND today, shortly after he met with several members on this issue.

"There's a variety of things being considered," he said. "There could be a brief by members filed in the appellate court in support of parental rights. There could be a resolution from Congress there."

Plans still were being developed, he said. But the ultimate resolution, Farris suggested, would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizing the rights and responsibilities of parents to direct their own children's education.


That effort already was under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

The website notes the campaign exists "to secure a constitutional amendment that defends the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. … We believe that no government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child."

The campaign said, "Without secured parental rights, the vital child-parent relationship is exposed to the imminent danger posed by anti-parent judges within the federal courts, as well as to the risks of international law which seeks to undermine the parental role."

The California case involved the family of Phillip and Mary Long, and stemmed from a juvenile proceeding. That case already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for their children appealed specifically trying to have homeschooling banned, and the ruling from the Court of Appeal for the 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles essentially met their desires.

The opinion, by H. Walt Croskey, holds that homeschooling simply is not a legal option in California. The HSLDA said if the opinion stands, California would have the most regressive law in the nation.

Spokesman Allan Carlson of the The World Congress of Families said that would put California on the same standard as Germany and Brazil, two other governments that ban homeschooling.

The court ruling said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Those words echoed the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights," the court said.

The family told WND it was working on its options for appeal, but they remained indefinite. But there are other developments already.

Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the state Legislature in California that calls for the Croskey ruling to be overturned.


Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."


California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."


The HSLDA said it would coordinate a petition seeking to have the legal opinion "de-published," which is a process that would prevent it from being used as a widespread precedent for other homeschooling families.


Another petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the state legislature and is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.


Yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.


"We have seen God’s hand of protection on the homeschooling movement for the 25 years we have been working together for this cause. There is no reason to begin to doubt God now," Farris said.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"Don't panic," the school said in a statement. "Help those who feel distraught and afraid, to be at peace and have faith for a favorable outcome. While we are appealing this ruling, it won’t be used in court against homeschoolers. Continue to homeschool effectively, caring about your family, children, their growth and development and their academic instruction," the school said.

Pacific Justice chief Brad Dacus promised, "I will leave no stone unturned in an effort to reverse this heinous attack on parental rights, and that includes asking for your swift and immediate help."

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and promotion of the theory of evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

Croskey's ruling reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=58872