1. Summary Mr. and Mrs.

Smith are suing the Hatfield School District for the distribution of condoms on the high school campus. They feel that it promotes instead of demotes sexual activity. Hatfield School District says that they are not promoting sex but safety. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have children in the high school who have reported that in a sex education class taught at the school a poll was taken at both the beginning and end of the school year. The poll showed a significant increase in the amount of students participating in sexual activity. In mid-January the school implemented their, Think of it as a hard hat, safety first theme with the construction of free condom dispensers in both the male and female restrooms on campus. Mr. and Mrs. Smith feel there is a direct correlation between the two events. They think that a No-Sex policy should be the only thing taught on school campus. They believe that giving the students condoms is like telling them to have sex. The Smiths want the condom dispensers to be removed from the school bathrooms to keep the students safe and sex free. The Hatfield School District says that the students would be sexually active regardless of the dispersion of condoms to the students. The school district believes that they are not telling the students to have sex, but helping them protect themselves if they do. They would prefer to give the students a place to get condoms when they need them, to keep the students from contracting a sexually transmitted disease and from getting pregnant. The Smiths are fighting the Hatfield School District to maintain the lifestyle of morality and virginity for their own children and all the fighting Trojans at Ramsey High School. 2. Constitutional Question Does the prohibition of condom distribution violate the Due Process Clause (14th Amendment) and the Privacy Clause (9th Amendment)? 3. Precedent Cases A. Alfonso v. Fernandez (1993) Court held that voluntary condom distribution program in high school violated parental right to rear children as parents saw fit but did not violate right to exercise religious freedom. Program constituted a health service for which parental consent was required under public health law. B. Mo. S. B. 647 (Statue) Prohibits school districts from distributing condoms or other contraceptives, but allows local boards to determine policies concerning referrals and parental notification regarding contraception. C. N. J. A. B. 687 (Statue) Prohibits distribution of condoms in state institutions and specifically prohibits Department of Education from distributing condoms to students attending a school or educational facility. Statement preceding bill notes that bills sponsor believes that condom distribution program sends false signal to students regarding the safety of use

D.

E.

F.

G.

in preventing disease transmission and subjects persons involved in program to untold liability. N.C. Gen. Stat. 115C-81 (Statue) Prohibits making available or distributing contraceptives, including condoms, on school property. S. C. H. B. 3734 (Statue) Prohibits Department of Health and Environmental Control and any other state agency or department from distributing condoms or other types of contraceptives to persons under 16 years old without the written consent of a parent or guardian. Tex. Educ. Code Ann. 28.004 (Statue) Provides that a school district may not distribute condoms in connection with instruction relating to human sexuality. Parham v. J.R (1979) Upholding a state health care statute that permits parents to commit their child to a mental hospital, even against that childs wishes, so long as the decision is reasonable, and certain procedural safeguards are followed.

4. Refutations A. An opposing argument may be that the condoms provided by the school would be completely voluntary, and only by option. The school is in a unique position of loco parentis, for eight hours a day and children spend a significant part of each weekday in public schools, as required by state law. The school officials occupy positions at school that command respect from students, so by providing condoms for school children to use the school officials effectively usurp any message by either the parent or sex education program that abstinence is best. Although the idea of placing condoms at school and taking them may be voluntary, the underlying message without question is, it is permissible to have sex as long as you use a condom. B. An opposing argument may be that the school is only looking out for the students best interest, by implementing condoms at schools with the intentions of reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. This argument is invalid because of the constant interaction between parent and child; parents are in a better position to know the best interest of their child in comparison to the state. In Parham v. J. R. the Supreme Court acknowledged that parents are better able than the state to ascertain and act upon their childs best interest because parents possess sensitivity to the childs personality and needs that the state cannot match. C. An opposing argument might be that an investment in the funding of condoms, instead of the treatment of aids would be significantly cheaper. (the idea of stopping a problem before it happens) Regardless of your beliefs on the situation, as a taxpayer your dollars would go into this public program.