Is there such a thing as “implied consent” – such as if one has a driver’s license, it is “implied” one consents to a breathalyzer test during a traffic stop? Or, if one works for any level of government, it is “implied” that you forego certain God-given individual unalienable rights as a condition of employment. Or maybe, if you are in a horrific car accident and rendered unconscious, it is “implied” that you consent to medical treatment. When talking about “implied consent”, one can see it is conditional on the consequences whether consent is implied. This is different than an employer requiring a drug test for employment in certain critical jobs such as the medical profession.
What about high school attendance? When students attend high school, is it “implied” these students and their parents or guardians “consent” to have students tested for drugs? At one Ohio high school, it is and the administration sent a letter to students’ parents indicating such.
A Catholic high school in Ohio will drug test all of its students beginning in January 2020.
Stephen T. Badin High School, located in the city of Hamilton, will launch the required testing as part of its health and wellness initiative to keep the campus and students drug free, according to a letter from the school on Tuesday.
“Given the great pressure our students face, now is the time to take an even more aggressive stance against the threat of drug use,” the letter read.
The school will only release the results of positive tests to a student, a student’s parents or guardians and, depending on the circumstances, medical or counseling personnel for substance abuse screening with the parent’s permission.
If a student refuses, the test will be treated as a positive test.
“Every student who attends this school, as well as his/her parent(s) or guardian(s), freely and willingly consent to allow the student to undergo drug testing,” according to the letter.
Disciplinary actions will vary depending on if it is a student’s first offense, and they have not been caught otherwise with substances on campus, or if there have been multiple offenses.
If more than one offense is registered, it could “jeopardize the student’s enrollment at the school and could result in dismissal,” according to the letter.
According to the developed policy, “Students and parents/guardians are required to consent to this policy as a condition of a student’s continued enrollment at Badin High School” – Section II of the policy. Not only will the testing be looking for illicit/illegal drugs, the testing will be extended to include alcohol, nicotine, and tobacco. The policy reminded students and parents/guardians that attendance at Badin High School is a privilege, not a right and all are expected to “act in a way that supports the health, safety, and well-being of all students”.
Granted, Badin High School is a private, Catholic school; however, attendance at a school is not a condition of consent for any type of medical testing of students, which a test to detect their list of “banned” substances is a medical test. All schools prohibit alcohol, nicotine, illegal/illicit drugs on campus. But, not all schools make it policy to violate the rights of students and parents when it comes to keeping these substances off the campus or students from using or possessing when not on school grounds. The school has also targeted vaping products as being contraband.
In Section I, the school indicates that drug-detecting dogs may be used inside school buildings and on school grounds to promote a drug-free environment. Students who are found possessing any illegal substance will be referred to the police. Moreover, “Students possessing or using any amount of alcohol, drugs or counterfeit drugs/look-alike drugs (including prescription and no-prescription drugs), or in possession of drug paraphernalia, before school, during school, at a school-related function and any time out of school will be required to comply” with the school’s intervention on offenses listed in the policy, depending on whether it is the student’s first, second, or third offense.
According to Badin High School’s policy:
All students will be tested at least once annually. Students may also be tested if a member of the faculty, staff, or administration suspects them of being under the influence of a controlled substance. In addition, students may be tested at random. There is no maximum number of times a student may be tested.
Badin High School will let students know what tests, which will be administered by Great Lakes Biomedical, will be conducted and the results.
Parents who think their child’s test has resulted in a false positive can request an immediate second test.
Before anyone asserts the claim, “Suzanne Hamner doesn’t care if kids are doing drugs because she is against this policy that will keep kids safe and help parents deal with their children found to be doing drugs”, let me assure you that children who become entangled with illegal/illicit drugs is a tragedy and should be prevented as much as possible. However, violating the rights of an individual and the rights of parents is not the way to do it.
First of all, the policy is claiming that any student who attends and their parents/guardians “automatically” consent to this policy and the “medical testing” to detect contraband. There is no implied consent – consent must be informed, explicit, and obtained individually, regardless of being a private, public or governmental organization. There is no “opt out” option except denial to attend the school, which is within the administration’s discretion. However, the privilege of attending a school or being employed with any corporation does not negate the need for individual consent nor condone violating an individual’s rights. And, no one should be penalized for exercising their rights to be secure in their person and free from unreasonable searches, which a medical test to detect illegal/illicit substances without any provocation is unreasonable.
Second, the policy is written to be rife with abuse. If a faculty, staff or administration member has a “beef” with a student or the student’s parents/guardians, one way to make it difficult for the student to remain in school would be the continual referral for controlled substance testing because there is no maximum number of times that a student can be tested. All a member of the school staff, faculty or administration has to have is “suspicion”. Speaking from experience with the scenario of parents and administration staff and a faculty member having a “beef”, it can produce an uncomfortable situation for the student because of the way the student is treated by the administration/faculty employee of the school.
There are medical conditions that could cause an individual to exhibit signs of consumption of a contraband substance. If the individual has not yet been diagnosed, this could result in unnecessary referrals for testing. And, certain over-the-counter medications can cause these tests to render a false positive. Then, there is the human error factor, since no one is perfect. But, the policy is written with the understanding the test is infallible and presented as such.
Third, the school intends to use drug detection canines in order to find contraband substances. This is a measure implemented in prisons when it is suspected that illegal/illicit drugs have somehow entered the prison. School is not a prison and should not be treated as such. Knowing dogs, their sense of smell is much keener than a human’s and can delineate scents in parts per trillion, meaning their trigger is accurate. But, this is a measure that should not be employed in a school setting.
Fourth, any student who refuses is treated as automatically positive. This is a blatant violation of the right to due process. It is a presumption of guilt just because an individual is exercising their rights. Again, speaking from experience, this pressures the student to submit to a procedure without a parent present (these are still minor students) that could be degrading to the student, instilling a quiet fear of exercising a preference, and labeling one as guilty when innocent. In fact, it is the equivalent of issuing a threat to a minor.
Fifth, alcohol, vaping products, and nicotine are not illegal substances. Granted, children under the State’s legal age cannot obtain these substances and no child should be consuming such substances. However, kids do stupid stuff. Should these students be treated in the same manner as those who engage in consuming illegal/illicit substances? According to this policy, yes. All schools prohibit these types of substances on school grounds as well as any misuse of prescription medication. But, this policy is designed to detect these substances, as well as illegal/illicit substances, when used off school grounds, outside of school hours and the school year. Again, this policy violates individuals rights.
Sixth, once a student is found to test “positive” by Great Lakes Biomedical, the company tasked with selecting students to test and determining the tests administered, any “treatments” outlined in the policy fitting the student is to be paid in full by the parents. If the parent/guardian disagrees with the treatment protocol or recommendation, tough; the recommendations are required to be followed or it jeopardizes the student’s continued enrollment at Badin High School. This is essentially saying that a parent/guardian relinquishes the right to participate in the “medical care” of their child by voicing disagreement with the medical recommendations/treatments or refusing parts of the treatment. Every individual, a parent/guardian when the individual is a minor, has the right to refuse any medical treatment or recommendation by a medical professional. It is part of the Patients’ Bill of Rights concerning medical care and treatment. The school is removing this fundamental right reserved to the judgment of the parents/guardians.
Getting the picture? This is conditioning students as well as parents/guardians to “submit” to the authority of the school to prohibit the exercise of rights bestowed by God, unconditionally in order to attend and continue to attend the school. It is conditioning to accept the authority of institutions over children and their parents/guardians. And this coming from a so-called “Christian” operated and owned institution.
This policy also conditions students and parents/guardians to submit to any authoritative body, entity or institution such as government by implementing this conditioning in the school environment.
It is up to the parents/guardians to determine if, when and how their child is to be “tested” regarding medical procedures, which this is despite their lame attempt to cloak it as something else. It is in the authority of the parents/guardians to refuse any medical procedure performed on their child regardless of circumstance. The policy serves its purpose – readying students along with their parents/guardians to submit to any authority, which would include government, without protest. Atrocious doesn’t begin to describe this policy or the people who drafted it.
It is rather odd that a private school, operated by a Catholic Archdiocese, chooses to engage in mandatory substance testing of students to “quell” students’ use of prohibited substances while the Catholic Church, in general, allows sodomites to be priests and covers for pedophile priests. It is with direct knowledge that sodomite Catholics continue to be allowed into the priesthood since one is currently striving to be a priest entered approximately three years ago. Moreover, it’s odd that the Catholic Church seeks to protect illegal alien invaders, some with criminal backgrounds, from deportation and actively participates in the “refugee programs”; yet, this Catholic Archdiocese run school seeks to treat students, all of them, as criminals, who have been tried and convicted of a crime, residing in prison. However, even inmates in prison can refuse any medical procedure and often do.
What should be the next question is, “Are staff, faculty, and administration required, as a condition of employment, to be tested for prohibited substances prior to extending a job invitation and annually thereafter”?
In fact, the school was contacted in order to ask several questions regarding the policy.
Dirk Allen, the individual responsible for answering questions about this policy to the media, was left a voicemail message and sent numerous questions to answer. Mr. Allen responded in his email “the release Badin HS put out about this initiative last week, will suffice as our statement.”
He also questioned the newsworthiness of this policy considering Badin is the 10th Catholic high school in the greater Cincinnati area to implement such a policy – beginning with LaSalle High School in October of 2013. (See Screenshots of email sent and response). While Mr. Allen indicated this policy is not intended to be punitive or throw students out of school – the goal being to provide students a way to do the right thing and steer clear of illegal behavior, calling this a health and wellness initiative, the policy states that any violation by the student and/or parent/guardian of the professional recommendations could result in dismissal. Just because this did not come to “newsworthy” attention in 2013, does not mean it should be swept under the rug now. Considering what is happening in the Cincinnati Archdiocese, it is understandable why very little response has been issued.
In looking into the Cincinnati Archdiocese, a report by Cincinnati.com/The Enquirer on Sept. 11, 2019, indicated Cincinnati’s highest ranking Roman Catholic church officials expects an investigation by the Vatican regarding the officials’ handling of complaints received about Rev. Geoff Drew, a former St. Ignatius pastor who has been jailed and charged with raping an altar boy 30 years ago. The highest ranking official of the Archdiocese is Archbishop Dennis Schnurr, who rose to the post in 2010. Schnurr, along with Auxillary Bishop Joe Binzer will come under scrutiny to determine if they aggressively enforced child protection rules. These individuals are also charged with swiftly disciplining priests or removing priests accused of wrongdoing.
According to Cincinnati.com/The Enquirer:
The archdiocese’s handling of Drew’s case has been in the spotlight since July, when church officials announced he was being removed from St. Ignatius after parents complained the priest had sent text messages to a boy there.
They said the texts were not sexual in nature, but the one-on-one communication violated the archdiocese’s child protection rules.
Soon after, however, church officials disclosed that they had received complaints in 2013 and 2015 about Drew while he was pastor at St. Maximilian Kolbe in Liberty Township. Those complaints involved physical contact with boys, such as rubbing shoulders and patting knees.
Prosecutors in Butler County and Hamilton County determined Drew behavior may not have been appropriate, but it did not rise to the level of a crime.
Parishioners at St. Ignatius were outraged they had not been told of the prior complaints about Drew. Church officials said Schnurr did not know about them because Binzer, who also served as the priest personnel director, had not told him about them.
Schnurr removed Binzer of his personnel duties but kept him as auxiliary bishop.
Weeks later, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters announced that a former altar boy had accused Drew of raping him on multiple occasions between 1988 and 1991 at St. Jude’s in Bridgetown. The boy, now 41, said he was 10 years old when the abuse began.
Drew, who was not a priest at the time, led St. Jude’s music ministry at the time and also taught music at Elder High School.
Drew has pleaded not guilty to the rape charges. He faces up to life in prison if he is convicted.
It appears no one wants to answer the questions posed regarding this student drug testing policy and it remains in question whether staff, faculty and administration are subject to the same scrutiny. Afterall, adults use the substances identified by the school’s drug testing policy and should not be immune from a policy such as this if the concern is child protection. With the Catholic Church having hypocrisy issues, it is no wonder that its schools would suffer the same.
Ultimately, the choice whether to submit their children to these tests rests with the parent/guardian. However, it is made clear that enrollment in the school is jeopardized if the student is not drug tested. There would be no way any child of mine, or my mother’s in speaking with her about this issue, would attend any school that implemented such measures nor would any medical procedures be performed on any child of mine or hers by the school-based upon mere suspicion. As more and more schools “progress” to usurp parental authority, parents should seriously consider home schooling since the authority to educate children was commanded of parents by God. Either parents are to reclaim their authority or lose it altogether to institutions that have zero authority to usurp what has been commanded by God.
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.