November has been a banner month so far in California for assaulting the traditional family. Last Tuesday, California voters rejected Proposition 73, which would have required parental notification before allowing a minor to receive an abortion. The week before, California's wacko 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parents do not have "exclusive" right in their children's sex education.
So California assaulted the "family" by doing nothing and leaving things the way they were. How deviant of us.
And, as any idiot knows, the Ninth Circuit is not a California court, but a federal court with multi-state jurisdiction. And the Ninth Circuit's ruling had nothing to do with California law.
But Parker's written an entire paragraph without characterizing African-Americans as victims of liberals. Not even a mention of the "Democrat plantation!" She's really slipping.
Wait, here it is:
Aside from the angst that comes from watching the long-term implosion of a society, I have immediate concerns that California's assault on the traditional family is simultaneously an assault on blacks and the poor.
Of course you do, Star.
Government subsidization and protection of irresponsible behavior has gotten blacks into the social black hole in which they now find themselves. Black kids are not suffering because they need more rights. They are suffering because they are not learning, from an early age, about responsibilities and consequences.
If you make abortions cheap enough, everyone will want one.
Parker displays equal ignorance, or dishonesty, regarding the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Parker writes:
Parents sued claiming that the school had intruded on their fundamental right to "control the upbringing of their children" regarding matters of values and sex. [Para.] No, said the court. Parents have no "exclusive" right here. The school is their partner in raising their children. According to the court's Justice [sic] Reinhardt, parents have no 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."
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The court only addressed whether the parents had a federal constitutional right to dictate school policy according to their individual whims. (Read the opinion, Fields vs. Palmdale, 11/2/05, here. Warning: .pdf file.) The court specifically did not address any state law rights or claims because, in the absence of a valid federal claim, federal jurisdiction was lacking.
It would seem Parker knows that she's misrepresenting the Court's holding, since she omits the word "constitutional" which immediately precedes the language she quotes. (Of course, honesty then would require her to identify the federal constitutional right she would create for the occasion.) On the other hand, Parker could just be unnaturally stupid. It's a close call.
Post a Comment