June 14, 1996
In Falmouth, MA, condoms are available to junior and senior high school students for 75 cents from bathroom vending machines, or free from the school nurse. Parents of four students recently sued the School Committee on the grounds that the very existence of this policy and the availability of condoms interfered with their constitutional right to guide the upbringing of their children. The lower court essentially ruled that since the program was voluntary, the parents should instruct their children not to take part in it (i.e., don't ask for or buy condoms!).Swans was recently pleased to learn that the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the lower court decision that upheld the right of the School Committee. The Court did not comment on the case.
Swans, however, *would* like to comment on the case by congratulating the Supreme Court for its rationality and offer some potential lawsuits for like-minded parents seeking to shirk their responsibilities as role-models and moral mentors:
The People vs. Sears, Roebuck & Co.: The very existence of polyester in the store interferes with parents' constitutional right to bring up their children with good taste in clothing.The People vs. Lucky's: The very existence of candy in the store interferes with parents' constitutional right to bring up their children according to FDA nutritional recommendations.
The People vs. United Artist: The very presence of R-rated movies interferes with parents' constitutional right to prevent their children from seeing or hearing materials of a sexually explicit nature thus increasing the likelihood that they will wish to purchase condoms.
The People vs. The School Board of Alabama: The very presence of African-American students in the classroom interferes with parents' constitutional right to raise their children as proper racists.
The People vs. All Non-Christians: The very presence of non-Christian students in the classroom interferes with parents' constitutional right to raise their children according to their own religion and without exposure to other practices and beliefs.
The People vs. The Constitution: The very presence of the Constitution interferes with parents' inherent rights to raise their children in any way they please.
The People vs. The People: The very presence of people interferes with parents' unconstitutional rights to raise their children as non-people.
And so on, and so on, until we have created the ultimate, perpetual enemy who will justify our Defense budget and keep attorneys employed until the end of time.
The enemy? We the People.
Back to Swans Main Page