logo
Are cute children's books teaching kids about gender and sexuality? Supreme Court to weigh in

Are cute children's books teaching kids about gender and sexuality? Supreme Court to weigh in

USA Today20-04-2025
Are cute children's books teaching kids about gender and sexuality? Supreme Court to weigh in The book 'Intersection Allies' features a kid who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball, one who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to "skirts and frills."
Show Caption
Hide Caption
US schools banned 10,000 books last school year alone
It's Banned Books Week in the U.S. and it comes as we're learning more than 10,000 books were banned in public schools nationwide last year.
Straight Arrow News
WASHINGTON − In the children's picture book 'Prince & Knight,' the handsome prince falls in love not with a princess, but with the knight who helps him defeat a dragon.
Officials in the Maryland school district that included the book – along with others with LGBTQ+ characters – into its reading program, say the story is no more about sex than are classic fairy tales with romantic themes like Cinderella and Snow White.
But to some parents, cute children's books are being used to teach ideas about gender and sexuality against their religion.
They say they should be able to get their elementary school children excused from class when any of the LGBTQ+ inclusive books are being used, the same way the Montgomery County school district allows older students to opt out of sex education instruction.
When the district refused, the parents sued.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether the school has unconstitutionally burdened the parents' ability to freely exercise their religion under the First Amendment.
Their appeal is one of three religious rights cases the Supreme Court is deciding in the coming weeks, and could be part of a recent trend of the court siding with religious rights advocates.
National organizations representing school boards and superintendents, which have not taken a position on the books being used in Maryland, warn about the potential wider impact of a court decision agreeing with the parents. Schools could face a 'bewildering variety' of religious rights claims, they said in a filing that emphasized 'the importance of deference to the decisions of local school officials.'
'Whatever rule the Court promulgates in this case will apply far beyond the circumstances of this dispute,' they wrote.
What are the controversial books?
Montgomery County Public Schools officials said they introduced a handful of books with LGBTQ+ characters into the reading curriculum at the start of the 2022-2023 school year as part of an effort to better reflect the community.
'In addition to helping students explore sentence structure, word choice, and style, the storybooks support students' ability to empathize, connect, and collaborate with peers and encourage respect for all,' lawyers for the schools told the Supreme Court.
The school district is one of the nation's largest and most ethnically and religiously diverse.
The book 'Intersection Allies' features nine kids from different backgrounds, including Alejandra who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball; Adilah who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to 'skirts and frills.'
In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' Chloe's favorite uncle gets married to another man.
"I've read so many comments talking about sex being inappropriate in books for kindergartners," author Sarah S. Brannen said in an interview with PEN America, a writers and free expression group. "There is no sex in my book. It's a story about a family that ends with everyone dancing at a wedding."
In the alphabet primer 'Pride Puppy,' children chase their dog through a pride parade. The parents who sued complain that the book 'invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes' to search for images that include 'underwear,' 'leather,' and 'lip ring.' The school says the parents are trying to give a salacious bent to objects like a leather jacket. But since the lawsuit began, Montgomery County has stopped using 'Pride Puppy' as well as 'My Rainbow,' a book about a mom who makes a rainbow-colored wig for her transgender daughter.
Parents say private or homeschool is the only way to avoid conflict with religion
After various teachers, administrators and parents raised concerns about the effectiveness and age-appropriateness of the books, the school system allowed students to be excused when they were read in class.
But officials said they had to stop that because the growing number of opt-out requests created other problems, such as high absenteeism and the difficulty of administering the absences. They also said students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families could face social stigma and isolation if classmates leave the room when the books are read.
The parents who then sued said they shouldn't have to send their kids to private school or to homeschool to avoid instruction that goes against the tenets of their religions which include Islam, Catholicism and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
'Intentionally exposing our young, impressionable, elementary-aged son to activities and curriculum on sex, sexuality, and gender that undermine Islamic teaching on these subjects would be immoral and would conflict with our religious duty to raise our children in accordance with our faith,' parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat said in a court filing about why they didn't want their son to be part of his second grade class's reading of 'Prince & Knight.'
But a divided panel of appeals court judges said the parents hadn't shown that they or their children had been coerced to believe or act contrary to their religious views.
Simply "hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one's religious faith requires," 4th Circuit Appeals Court Judge G. Steven Agee wrote.
Are the books 'compelled instruction'?
Colt Stanberry, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing the parents, said the books are 'compelled instruction' when a teacher reads them to a class.
Even without any commentary from the teacher, Stanberry said, children know what's being taught when, in 'Born Ready,' a mother is supportive of her transgender son, saying: 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.'
Students are meant to learn that children can choose their own sex, the Becket Fund says.
School officials say no one is being asked to change how they feel about gender and sexuality. Instead, the books are meant to promote acceptance and respect and to show that the world is diverse.
Exposing students to ideas that clash with their parents' religious beliefs does not violate their constitutional rights, they argue.
'Abandoning this longstanding principle would render public education unworkable,' lawyers for the school said in a filing.
More: Supreme Court appears poised to side with Catholic Charities as string of religion test cases arrive
Are objections to evolution next?
Outside groups – including the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Civil Liberties Union – echo that concern.
They say teachers would be left guessing what lessons or reading assignments might conflict with someone's religious beliefs and would put judges in the position of policing day-to-day curricular decisions, homework assignments and classroom-management techniques.
Could a student with same-sex parents give a presentation on his family tree? Can teachers talk about historical figures, such as astronaut Sally Ride, who happen to be gay?
'In other words, the principles that apply to kindergarten parents seeking to prevent their child from being exposed to Pride Puppy will also apply to the parents of a high-school or middle-school student who wish to prevent their ninth grader from being exposed to evolution or their sixth grader being exposed to any pictures of girls who are not wearing a hijab,' attorneys for the School Superintendents Association and the Consortium of State School Boards Associations said in a filing.
Stanberry, the Becket Fund attorney, said he doesn't expect a tidal wave of religious opt-out requests if the Supreme Court sides with the Maryland parents. Schools know what the sensitive areas are and have usually allowed the kind of opt-outs being requested in Montgomery County.
'I don't think we're really asking for something,' he said, 'that's going to blow the whole system up.'
A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by the end of June.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Same-sex marriage is no threat to religious liberty
Same-sex marriage is no threat to religious liberty

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

Same-sex marriage is no threat to religious liberty

This is the ridiculous accusation being made by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk. In 2015, she was briefly jailed for contempt of court after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as required by law. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up She is asking the Supreme Court, with a more staunchly conservative bench than the one that codified same-sex marriage, to rule that federally recognized unions between two men or two women threaten 'her sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage,' according to her lawyers. Advertisement Davis's challenge to Obergefell stems from her appeal of a $100,000 jury verdict plus $260,000 for attorney fees that she was ordered to pay to the gay couple to whom she denied a marriage license. The nine justices have not yet decided whether to review Davis's appeal. Davis is being represented by the Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group that specializes in religious liberty cases. In 2018, the group won a 7-2 Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of a Advertisement In a statement, Mat Staver, the Liberty Counsel's founder and chairman, said the Davis case 'underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman.' Davis herself has entered that sacred union four times with three men. For last year's 20th anniversary of the Goodridge decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas ticked off a list of other After Roe was outlawed, 'I remember thinking 'Oh my God, is it possible that all of the rights and privileges that we've won as a community, whether it's women's or LGBTQ rights, will be washed away in the same lifetime in which we won them?'' Julie Goodridge, one of the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case, told me. There's Advertisement But we're also witnessing the most tumultuous era in modern politics, when things we once believed impossible have now become as commonplace as they are alarming. The end of Roe proved that our civil rights are not sacrosanct. Opponents of reproductive rights chipped away at abortion access for decades until the political climate was primed to erase what had been considered settled law for nearly 50 years. So far, Trump hasn't mentioned Davis's appeal. That could change if the Supreme Court adds her case to its upcoming docket, but perhaps this White House may already be quietly tipping its hand. In 2022, Joe Biden signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act, which requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. But on the official White House website, instead of remarks from Biden officials about protecting same-sex marriage, there's now only a Here's hoping that a year from now, my friends, and every LGBTQ couple, will still have weddings and anniversaries to celebrate. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at

Brazil's former president Bolsonaro temporarily leaves house arrest for medical exams

time7 hours ago

Brazil's former president Bolsonaro temporarily leaves house arrest for medical exams

SAO PAULO -- SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil's Former President Jair Bolsonaro temporarily left house arrest Saturday to undergo medical exams in Brasilia, after a judge authorized him to spend six to eight hours at a hospital. Doctors at DF Star hospital said Bolsonaro was admitted for evaluation of fever, cough, persistent gastroesophageal reflux and hiccups. Tests revealed residual signs of two recent pulmonary infections, as well as persistent esophagitis and gastritis. He was discharged later in the day and will continue treatment with medication. He has been hospitalized multiple times since being stabbed at a campaign event before the 2018 presidential election. His most recent surgery was in April, for a bowel obstruction. Bolsonaro is on trial at the Supreme Court over his alleged attempt to remain in power after losing the 2022 election to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. A five-justice panel is expected to deliver verdicts and sentences on five counts against him between Sept. 2 and 12. Bolsonaro denies any wrongdoing. The far-right leader has been under house arrest since Aug. 5. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case, said Bolsonaro violated precautionary measures by spreading content through his three lawmaker sons. A small group of fewer than 20 people gathered outside DF Star hospital Saturday, claiming Bolsonaro is a victim of political persecution. Some thanked U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called the prosecution a 'witch hunt' and linked his decision to impose a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports to Bolsonaro's legal troubles. ___ Luís Nova contributed reporting in Brasilia. ___

Judge expands Paxton restraining order against O'Rourke over Texas Dems fundraising
Judge expands Paxton restraining order against O'Rourke over Texas Dems fundraising

The Hill

time7 hours ago

  • The Hill

Judge expands Paxton restraining order against O'Rourke over Texas Dems fundraising

A judge on Saturday expanded Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's (R) restraining order against former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) and his political organization, Powered by People, over its fundraising for state Democratic lawmakers who fled Texas amid the redistricting battle. A Tarrant County judge ruled that O'Rourke and his political group are barred from sending money out of the Lone Star State, coming after Paxton sought to revoke the charter of O'Rourke's organization, accusing it of committing bribery. 'The Court finds that harm is imminent to the State, and if the Court does not issue this order, the State will be irreparably injured. Specifically, Defendants' fundraising conduct constitutes false, misleading, or deceptive acts under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, because Defendants are raising and utilizing political contributions from Texas consumers to pay for the personal expenses of Texas legislators, in violation of Texas law,' 348th District Court Judge Megan Fahey said in a four-page Saturday order. Fahey said that financial institutions and political fundraising platforms, like ActBlue, are barred from transferring O'Rourke's or Powered by People's, a leadership political action committee, donations 'outside of Texas in support of the unlawful scheme.' O'Rourke has been in Paxton's crosshairs as his PAC has been raising money for Texas state legislators who left the Lone Star State for nearly two weeks to prevent the new, GOP-friendly congressional maps from passing. On Friday afternoon, Texas Republicans gaveled in a second special session. Democrats are expected to return to Texas soon. Last week, a Texas judge granted a temporary restraining order against O'Rourke, a former presidential candidate, and his political organization after the Texas attorney general claimed that the PAC was misleading donors. O'Rourke said Saturday morning that Powered by People gave over $1 million to Texas Democrats during a special session, including to the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, the Texas House Democratic Caucus and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. Paxton celebrated the judge's decision, saying that in Texas, 'lawless actions have consequences, and Beto's finding that out the hard way.' 'His fraudulent attempt to pad the pockets of the rogue cowards abandoning Texas has been stopped, and now the court has rightly frozen his ability to continue to send money outside of Texas,' Paxton said in a statement. 'The cabal of Democrats who have colluded together to scam Texans and derail our Legislature will face the full force of the law, starting with Robert Francis O'Rourke.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store