Parents are the Enemy

locked out

Parents are the Enemy

What kind of cannibalistic society assumes the worst of it’s parents?  Or the flipside of the same coin, what society is so selfishly absorbed in personal “rights” for children that the purpose of those rights are lost?

It’s a topic I see surfacing again and again, and it’ s not just California.  Planned Parenthood has it’s fingers in many pots in their attempts to liberate children from the care of their parents.

See this from CRI

—Beetle Blogger

CRI: Parents are the Enemy According to Some School Districts

The school board in Modesto City School District voted 4-3 to exclude parents from knowing when their children leave class for confidential medical services, in a meeting last night.

Modesto parents still have time to protect their rights, however, because the board members will cast a new vote on July 13.

“Only four people — three from Planned Parenthood, plus one activist– testified in favor of excluding parents. Every single additional testimony asked the board to include parents,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

She drove to Modesto and testified with parents, at the request of citizens in Modesto.

The discussion was over proposed Board Policy 5113, which pertains to confidential medical appointments for students as young as 12 years of age.

The associate superintendents who proposed this policy claimed that it would “meet a mandate for such policy and regulation.” BP 5113’s actual language was written by the California School Boards Association, which advises many districts on their school board policies.

In reality, there is no mandate.

State law says that “school authorities MAY excuse any pupil” (Cal. Educ.C. 46010.1, emphasis added). England pointed this out during the meeting. The law provides permission for implementing confidential release, but it certainly does not impose a mandate.

There are over 900 public school districts in California and many do not offer their students confidential medical release. Modesto’s current policy is parent- friendly.

Unfortunately, Modesto has sided with Planned Parenthood for now, against parents.

This vote was only the first reading, however, and the board’s final vote will be at its second reading during the next meeting. CRI is hopeful that one or two board members can be persuaded to vote for parental knowledge of what happens to their children at school.

Modesto parents and pastors left the meeting fired up. They are ready to tell their communities what is going on — so that more families can get involved, because people are still unaware.

Here are four ways to take action and defend parents’ rights in Modesto: Contact the board members, contact the media, educate your friends, and show up at the next board meeting.

Contact every board member, so they can go to the final vote saying that the community has spoken. Urge them to enact a parent-friendly policy. Tell them to include parents, not exclude parents. It is possible to sway some votes and protect families in Modesto.

Steven Grenbeaux – voted to exclude parents
Board President
Term: 2007-2011

Kimberly Gerber Spina – voted to exclude parents
Vice President
Term: 2007-2011

Nancy Cline – voted to INCLUDE parents
Term: 2001-2009

Steve Collins – voted to exclude parents
Term: 2005-2009

Gary Lopez – voted to INCLUDE parents
Term: 1999-2011

Cindy Marks – voted to INCLUDE parents
Term: 1997-2009

Belinda Rolicheck – voted to exclude parents
Term: 2005-2009



  1. Smokezero said,

    June 25, 2009 at 12:13 pm

    You know, for a self proclaimed “libertarian” you sure do have it out against Planned Parenthood. But of course, that is usually the problem with being a libertarian. You want the government out of your lives in every way except your “Golden Calf Issue.”

    If your child is afraid of telling you about a serious life changing problem such as getting pregnant, you’ve got a lot more problems than the Modesto School Board. No matter the situation, I know I can come to my parents and tell them exactly whats going on. Its always been that way, and frankly, I have even disagreed with them many times on the opinion expressed, but I knew that I could rely on my parents to have my best interests at heart. If you need the government to regulate what your kids should be telling you, then maybe you should rethink your parenting style.

    The problem today isn’t “Planned Parenthood” but parents who forget that their job is parenting. Its asking the questions, being involved in their child’s life. Showing their child that they matter, and come hell or high water, the child’s best interests are always the focus. Many kids may be afraid to tell their parents that they are going to get an abortion, because their family life is less than good. There is no support in the home. Mandating communication won’t fix the broken home. Having parents with half a brain will.

    This isn’t an attack against you beetle, I’m using “you” very loosely. I’m sure you’re a fine parent. The “you” is anyone who feels that being a parent entitles them to ANYTHING just by having that role. You as an individual have shown to be a decent person, with opinions I do tend to disagree with.

  2. June 25, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Wow – it makes me think of a clip I saw from The Killing Fields about how the Cambodian government taught children that their parents were the enemy so that the government would have a generation whose loyalty was to the state, not to family. This chillingly pushes for us to move that way…

  3. beetlebabee said,

    June 25, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    I think that’s true. It’s one more step away from self government toward socialism, government from the top down. I don’t think that’s the right way to go. Interfering with the family is a risky proposition socially and an affront to personal liberty and parental rights. Who knows what’s best for children, parents or some bureaucracy?

  4. beetlebabee said,

    June 25, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Why would a libertarian love planned parenthood? Isn’t it the epitome of government getting in the way of people living their lives? As for the golden calf… if the government is involved in marriage, we must deal with reality, it is. Then marriage ought to be upheld in a way that benefits everyone. I am not an anarchist. I do believe government has a role to play (albeit a substantially smaller one than it currently holds….which may encourage you to believe I am an anarchist).

    It doesn’t matter if your child is afraid to tell you something or not. Being nervous is not necessarily a reflection on the parents. Most kids would be nervous in situations like these. Telling your parents you made a bad mistake is never comfortable or easy. The last thing you need is some school counselor stepping into things and usurping the parental role. How easy would it be to go with a counselor who can hide your “problem” instead of facing the music? Aren’t you just setting them up for failure?

    The simple fact is that underage kids are not old enough, they do not have the necessary reasoning skills to be able to consider long term consequences. How many women have had abortions only to regret it the rest of their lives?

    I would rather take my chances with parents than with a counselor who has no interest in the child’s long term well being.

  5. Yours Sincerely said,

    June 25, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    I disagree wholeheartedly with Smokezero. Parents should not be excluded from their children’s medical decisions. It is the stewardship of parents, not the school, to determine proper medical care for a child. Best wishes to the parents in Modesto. Planned Parenthood doesn’t have the best interests of women and children; rather, the almighty dollar is their goal, as they get $$ every time someone accesses their services. It’s called “blood money.”

  6. beetlebabee said,

    June 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Yours Sincerely, I believe you are right on this one. The Mona Lisa Project has proven time and again that Planned Parenthood has an anti family, anti child agenda. It’s so pro-abortion that this bias colors everything it does. Have you seen ? They’re dedicated to stopping planned parenthood through de funding them at the local level. There’s no reason local governments need to be funding this monstrosity.

  7. Jason Echols said,

    June 25, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    Karen England and CRI will have run through their available funds within the next couple weeks. Good luck, K.

  8. Jason Echols said,

    June 25, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    Karen England & CRI will have run through their available funds within the next couple weeks. Good luck, K.

  9. Emissary said,

    June 25, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    I agree that there might be parents who are not doing the best job they can. They might be too tied-up in their careers (or whatever else separates them from their children) to know what’s really going on and have the lines of communication open. For them, finding out that a child is pregnant (or having other confidential medical care) could be a huge wake-up call. But if no one ever tells them, they might think that things are just fine.

    I believe that some parents need that jolt, that wake-up call for them to realize that things are not okay, that they are losing their children, and that they need to act NOW. I think for too many families, years of relative estrangement all of a sudden explode when children reach their late teen years. By that time, the children are no longer malleable and might be beyond parental help. The first line of defense needs to be the home, not the schools. Going around the parents only makes sense if it’s a potentially dangerous situation, and, if so, that should be discovered and dealt with anyway.

  10. Euripides said,

    June 25, 2009 at 2:10 pm


    This news story makes it quite clear that Planned Parenthood and government, even at the school board level, are linked. Show me an instance, any instance, where Planned Parenthood is not tied to government through money or lobbies. We’ve perhaps become so accustomed to disassociating abortion ideologies with government backing that we forget they tied together with a gordian knot.

  11. Chairm said,

    June 25, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    It is not the Government’s role to render the parental role subservient.

  12. beetlebabee said,

    June 25, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    Chino Blanco/Jason, where did you hear this information about CRI? I know many places are hurting with this economy, but I hadn’t heard it was that bad for them. It’s a shame because they’re such a great resource. Thanks for the tip. I’ll go make a donation.

  13. Chino Blanco said,

    June 26, 2009 at 1:53 am

    Not sure why my previous comment double-posted, sorry about that.

    No problem. Let me know once you’ve made your donation, and then I’ll tell you what I’ve heard.

  14. beetlebabee said,

    June 26, 2009 at 8:13 am

    Done. Spill it.

  15. Smokezero said,

    June 27, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    The point of indignation I see is that she is upset with “abortion clinics” and other more religious issues. The govenrment giving money to planned parenthood is a bad idea, but I’d focus my “righteous indignation” towards the entire practice of Corporate Welfare, not just abortion. Lobbyists are a horrible mechanism that has inbedded itself in our system, but I don’t see the anger towards those soulless leaches. Just “planned parenthood.”

    James Dobson, Planned Parenthood, and a plethora of other lobby groups have made their beds as overglorified ideas, and if you are going to get mad at PP, why not focus some of this anger towards Focus on the Family too? They also get government kickbacks.

  16. Chairm said,

    June 27, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    There is the question of proportionality. PP tips the scales by a huge amount, Smokezero, because its influence is not just as a lobby group and its purpose is profoundly insiduous, anti-family, and anti-liberty.

  17. Smokezero said,

    June 27, 2009 at 11:13 pm

    Only if you think that a woman doesn’t have a right to choose her own medical procedures. And I’d put “Focus on the Family” as well as many other “Religious Right” lobby groups as more insidious and anti-liberty than P.P.

    The outrage towards this lobby group does not match the other lobby groups, corporate interests, and other vile people who are siphoning money, so its not just about “evil lobby groups.” This is about “Lobby group I disagree with.”

  18. beetlebabee said,

    June 27, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    “Only if you think that a woman doesn’t have a right to choose her own medical procedures. And I’d put “Focus on the Family” as well as many other “Religious Right” lobby groups as more insidious and anti-liberty than P.P.”

    Smokezero, that only makes sense if you believe the woman’s rights to be the only rights at stake, as Planned Parenthood does. Somehow, children don’t enter into Planned Parenthood’s picture of who gets to have rights.

  19. Smokezero said,

    June 28, 2009 at 12:55 am

    Its a collection of cellular tissue, which may constitute a life, but that is up to the mother to decide. Sometimes, abortions are necessary to save the life of the would be mother. The fetus can get lodged in the fallopian tubes, and could rupture the tubes, causing the death of the fetus, possible death of the mother, and if not death, she could not have children again because of the destruction caused.

    Planned Parenthood does not encourage people to get out and have abortions because they are fun, exciting, worth while, will make you cool, could save your soul, etc. They offer a service to women who need a medical procedure. Some see the fetus as a simple collection of genetic tissue, much like a cancerous tumor. Others see the fetus as a baby. But, it isn’t the “government’s job” to mandate that type of “moral code.” That is left up to self governance. The same self governance that is touted as the center for “free market economics” must be available for “free society.”

  20. Chairm said,

    June 29, 2009 at 12:51 am

    No one is a human being on the sayso of someone else. The embryonic human being possesses her own life albeit as premature and highly dependant individual who relies on other human beings — including her mother.

    You, Smokezero, are a collection of cellular tissue and genetic material. But that does not disqualify you as a unique member of the human species.

    If there is a conflcit between your right to continue to live and the right of someone else to continue to live, then, obviously there would be a dire need for balancing competing rights. So your tragic examples (the hard cases) that you have just emphasized do not demonstrate that the human being at her most vulnerable stage of development is analogous with the cancerous tissue that is part of an individual and not a distinct human being.

    It doesn’t matter that some people are ill-informed and choose to see the human being as something other than a human being. Their misperception does not decide the objective facts of human embryology.

    Self-governance is based on respecting the human dignity of our fellow human beings — the most vulnerable amongst demand by their very existence far more protection than what you just described.

    Since when is one’s freedom defined by discarding someone else just because that someone else is unwanted? You know that is what PP is really about and not really about the hard cases and the dire circumstances that you described. Hence my previous comment about proportionality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: