Latest news with #BornReady
02-07-2025
- Politics
LGBTQ book opt-out ruling triggers national response from parents, educators, advocates
After the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, must be allowed to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed elementary school lessons, reactions were swift and sharply divided. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, stemmed from Montgomery County's 2022 decision to incorporate LGBTQ-inclusive books into elementary classrooms. Titles included "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which features a same-sex couple, and "Born Ready," which tells the story of a transgender child. The school district initially allowed parents to opt out their children from exposure to the books but later reversed that policy, citing administrative burdens and in an effort to foster inclusion. In a press briefing shortly after the decision, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the ruling. "Restoring the right of parents to make decisions about their children's education might seem like common sense," Blanche said, "but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight." For some, however, the ruling felt like a step backward. "I think the ruling is a huge setback," Beth Hoffman, a Maryland-based mom of two, whose children attend public school in Frederick County, told "GMA." "Public schools should be an inclusive space. I hope that this isn't an end-all be-all. We need to celebrate our differences and educate our youth to accept people for who they are." The Frederick County Public School District, like Montgomery County, allows parents to opt children out of its Family Life Education curriculum, part of its "Comprehensive Health Education for students in grades 5-12," according to a spokesperson. Bill Horn, a gay father of two based in Los Angeles, whose kids will be attending public school in the fall, said his initial reaction was sadness. "I feel sorry for any young person whose family takes them out of an LGBTQ+ inclusive lesson, because ultimately that lesson might save their lives," he told "GMA" in an email. Debate intensifies over parental rights and LGBTQ inclusion in public schools Mahmoud v. Taylor was brought by brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents who argued the district's curriculum opt-out change violated their religious freedom. The Supreme Court's conservative majority agreed and upheld a preliminary injunction that requires schools to notify parents and permit opt-outs when such content is used. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying exposure to diverse ideas does not amount to government indoctrination but is instead the purpose of public education. While the decision applies directly to Montgomery County, it sets a precedent for similar lawsuits and policies nationwide. In a statement following the ruling, Montgomery County Public Schools reaffirmed its commitment to diversity and inclusion, while expressing disappointment in the outcome. "Although not surprised, we are disappointed in today's ruling. This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system. It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community," the district said. "Montgomery County Public Schools remains a welcoming and inclusive school system that embraces and celebrates each and every one of our students," the statement continued. "We will maintain an environment where all students feel valued and supported. Equity is one of our core values and is foundational to who we are as a system that serves one of the most diverse communities in the United States of America." MCPS added that it is reviewing the Supreme Court's decision and developing a plan for implementation that honors both the legal directive and the district's mission. "We will continue to analyze the Supreme Court decision and develop next steps in alignment with today's decision and, as importantly, our values. Schools and families will receive further guidance prior to the start of the upcoming school year," the statement read. "MCPS will continue to have inclusive books, which reflect the rich diversity of the students and families that we serve in Montgomery County." Supporters have hailed the court's decision as a long-overdue affirmation of family values. "The Supreme Court sent a powerful message today: parents do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids," Grace Morrison, a board member for Kids First, a parental rights advocacy group, said in an official statement. "I am deeply grateful to have been part of this historic triumph for parental rights nationwide." Critics, however, warn that the decision could mean further marginalization of LGBTQ students and could undermine efforts to build more inclusive classrooms moving forward. Sari Beth Rosenberg, a U.S. history and AP U.S. history teacher in New York City, said the ruling could make it significantly harder to create welcoming spaces for all students. "It sends a message to LGBTQ students and families that their identities are controversial or unwelcome, which completely undermines my efforts to build a respectful, supportive learning environment," Rosenberg said. "Our schools are supposed to prepare students to participate in a diverse democracy, and we can't do that if we're forced to erase entire communities from the curriculum." Differing views on liberty and inclusion Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling "a historic victory for parental rights" in an official statement. "Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents -- not government -- have the final say in how their children are raised," he added. But LGBTQ advocates say the ruling allows families to exempt their children from learning about diverse identities, sending harmful messages to students whose families reflect those very realities. "Every child deserves to see themselves reflected in the stories they read and to be celebrated in their classrooms for who they truly are," said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "This ruling not only tells LGBTQ+ students that they don't belong, but that their experiences and existence are less worthy of respect. It's wrong, it's dangerous, and it's cruel, plain and simple." Ruling on online access raises censorship concerns In a separate 6-3 decision Friday, the court upheld a Texas law requiring websites with significant sexual content to implement strict age-verification systems. The law mandates that adult sites where more than one-third of content is deemed "harmful to minors" must verify users' age using secure identification before granting access. The court's decision only affects the Texas law and not similar laws instituted in other states. Titania Jordan, chief parent officer at Bark Technologies, a parental controls company that helps parents protect their children online, said enforcing such a requirement at scale poses major technological and financial challenges, particularly for smaller platforms. "Sites would need to integrate reliable identity providers or build their own verification systems, which can be expensive and technically complex," Jordan told "GMA." "Implementing biometric checks or secure document scans requires strict anti-fraud measures." Still, she said she supports the overall goal of the law. "Let's not lose focus of what's important here: keeping kids safer online," she said. "To protect both children and digital freedoms, any legislation should be narrowly tailored and paired with rigorous oversight to maximize data privacy." Legal experts say the ruling raises new questions about internet censorship, particularly if definitions of "sexual" content expand. Austin-based criminal defense attorney Sam Bassett noted that while the court backed Texas, it rejected the Fifth Circuit's earlier rationale. "The Fifth Circuit applied the rational basis test -- the least rigorous standard used to evaluate constitutional challenges -- agreeing with Texas that the ID requirement didn't implicate a fundamental right, since it only applied to minors," he told "GMA." "The Supreme Court decision did not agree with the Fifth Circuit's 'rational basis' application of First Amendment protections, yet it also rejected the higher 'strict scrutiny' standard of analysis," he continued. "The basis for their decision seems to be largely based upon an analysis that the Texas age-verification statute was targeted at limiting access only to those under the age of 18, and we have many laws which prohibit access to minors." Still, Bassett warned that if the law were applied more broadly to restrict access to non-explicit but sensitive material, such as information about gender identity or sexual orientation, it could raise serious constitutional issues. "A prohibition of access to those types of websites, in my view, would likely face a 'strict scrutiny' analysis under the First Amendment, as there is no recognized precedent to bar minors from information regarding those topics," he said. Together, the two rulings reflect a growing legal and political divide over who gets to decide what young people can see, learn and access, whether in a classroom or on the internet. Although the LGBTQ+ book ruling currently applies only to Montgomery County, legal analysts say it could shape broader education policy and religious liberty claims across the country in the years to come.
New York Post
29-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
No more LGBTQ brainwashing — SCOTUS school smackdown revives parents' rights
The Supreme Court on Friday handed down a sweeping victory for parental rights and religious freedom — and dealt a devastating blow to the progressive zealots bent on brainwashing America's children. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, Montgomery County, Md., parents fought their local school board over a policy requiring young children to read books centered on LGBTQ+ identity. The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of the parents, who sought the right to opt their kids out of lessons that undermine their religious beliefs. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito let the books speak for themselves via color reproductions of their pages. There was no better way to demonstrate that these were not books promoting tolerance and acceptance, but radical attempts at indoctrination. 'Pride Puppy,' part of the district's kindergarten curriculum, includes a word search listing topics detailed in the book's illustrations: drag king, drag queen, high heels, lip ring, lace, leather. Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore. Another book, 'Born Ready,' features a very young child who identifies as transgender. In it, the character's older brother protests, 'This doesn't make sense. You can't become a boy. You have to be born one.' Their mother scolds him: 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' The message is clear: If you want issues of sex and gender to make sense, you aren't a loving person. The school board, Alito wrote, 'encourages the teachers to correct the children and accuse them of being 'hurtful' when they express a degree of religious confusion.' They use the books to do it. At the heart of the case was the claim that parents' religious rights were being violated. But the deeper reality remained unspoken: The school-district progressives weren't simply undermining the beliefs of Muslim, Christian and Mormon parents. They were trying to induct the children of these families into their own ideology — one that dismisses biological reality and enshrines 'love,' as they define it, as the only acceptable truth. The conflict also exposed a stark divide between the progressive activists who run the county school system and the religious, largely immigrant families the district serves. Accustomed to lockstep minority support, leftist county officials were blindsided when the communities they claim to represent pushed back. And when the minority parents protested, the progressives lashed out. The curriculum dispute 'puts some Muslim families on the same side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots,' Montgomery County Council member Kristin Mink complained in one contentious public meeting. School board member Lynne Harris disparaged a Muslim student who testified at another meeting, telling the press she felt 'kind of sorry' for the girl and speculating she was 'parroting dogma' she'd learned from her parents. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded apologies from both officials. When progressives rallied outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments, speaker after speaker insisted the district's policy was about teaching tolerance to children of supposedly bigoted parents. After the ruling came down, the district declared in an email to staff, 'This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system.' But if tolerance and inclusivity were truly its goals, the county would have sought to respect the values of religious families. No, the objective was ideological control over every child in the county's schools. The progressive activists' message was brutally simple: Our way or the highway. This is what we do in public schools. If you don't like it, you can pay to educate your kids privately, or homeschool them yourself. Alito flatly rejected that argument. 'Public education is a public benefit,' he wrote, 'and the government cannot 'condition' its 'availability' on parents' willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.' In addition, he observed, 'since education is compulsory, the parents are not being asked simply to forgo a public benefit.' This case laid bare the hypocrisy of progressive ideology — and the flimsiness of those convictions when challenged. Progressives in Montgomery County had a choice: To respect the religious beliefs of minority families, or to force them to abandon those beliefs and cave to leftist views on gender and sexuality. Or, of course, the district could have dropped its leftist indoctrination mission altogether. Rather than offering an unbiased public education to these low-income, immigrant religious families, school officials told them to leave if they wouldn't comply. Mahmoud v. Taylor revealed the left's true colors on tolerance and privilege. But with its decision, the Supreme Court sent an unmistakable message: Parents' rights are not subject to the whims of progressive activists — and they don't evaporate at the schoolhouse door. Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars.
New York Times
27-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Supreme Court Requires Schools to Allow Opting Out From L.G.B.T.Q. Stories
Public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious objections to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with L.G.B.T.Q. themes are discussed, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday. The vote was 6 to 3, with the court's liberal members in dissent. The case extended a winning streak for claims of religious freedom at the court, gains that have often come at the expense of other values, notably gay rights. The case concerned a new curriculum adopted in 2022 for prekindergarten through the fifth grade by the Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland's largest school system. The storybooks included 'Pride Puppy,' an alphabet primer about a family whose puppy gets lost at a Pride parade; 'Love, Violet,' about a girl who develops a crush on her female classmate; 'Born Ready,' about a transgender boy; and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' about a same-sex union. At first, the school system gave parents notice when the storybooks were to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their children excused. But school administrators soon eliminated the advanced notice and opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer, led to absenteeism and risked 'exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.' Parents of several faiths sued, saying the books violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion. The books, their complaint said, 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Post
27-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Supreme surprise: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accidentally came out — for school choice
During oral arguments in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unintentionally made a practical and convincing case for universal school choice. A few years back, the Montgomery County, Md., school board instituted an 'LGBTQ-inclusive' curriculum that included storybooks for kids as young as pre-kindergarten. The books are ostensibly part of the English curriculum because apparently they feature words and sentences. Advertisement But the rationale for the program, according to the school system itself, is to 'disrupt' the 'binary' thinking of skeptical kids. Which sounds very much like indoctrination. For instance, one of the 'think aloud moments' for kids reading 'Born Ready,' the tale of a confused girl, is 'noticing how happy Penelope is when his mom hears him and commits to sharing with their loved ones that he is a boy.' 'Pride Puppy' is about a cute little dog who wanders into the Pride parade and meets friendly drag queens and leather-clad participants. Advertisement 'Love, Violet' and 'Prince & Knight' are about same-sex attraction. Even secular parents should find the idea of strangers teaching their prepubescent children about sexuality and gender dysphoria at such a young age and in such a frivolous manner unacceptable. As most conscientious parents understand, kids do not 'know themselves best.' Advertisement One of the most vital duties of parenting is guiding children through the confusion of adolescence and teaching them morality. It is not consecrating every harebrained notion that pops into their precious, underdeveloped brains. In any event, a group of religious parents led by a Muslim family in Maryland who believe the messages in the books conflict with their beliefs sued the county — not to stop the classes, but for the right to opt out of them. Yet Montgomery County refused to allow them to do it, maintaining that the opt-out requests would be so numerous they would disrupt the class. This might sound crazy, but if enough parents oppose a non-academic curriculum that it would be endangered, shouldn't a public school do their best to accommodate taxpayers, rather than the opposite? Advertisement Of course, in the progressive mindset the individual is subservient to the state, not vice-versa. So, Mahmoud v. Taylor is now in front of the court. During Tuesday's oral arguments, which seemed to be going relatively well for parents, Jackson conceded that she was 'struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something the parent disagrees with.' After all, they have a 'choice,' she noted. 'You don't have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation.' Theoretically speaking, this makes complete sense. You can surrender your impressionable young child to hokum about gender transformation that conflicts with your faith, or you can leave the school entirely and, presumably, send your kids to a private institution or home-school them. The problem here is that Maryland is one of the worst states for parental choice. Jackson, who spent years on the board of a Christian academy in Maryland, should know this. Other than a tiny voucher program, there is nowhere to go. Maryland doesn't have open enrollment policies that, at a bare minimum, allow parents to change schools within the district. Whichever school happens to be closest, no matter how poorly it performs or how ill-fitted it is for your child's needs, is where they must go. Advertisement Children might be the valuable thing in your life, but a Maryland parent is afforded more choices on where to buy a television than where they educate their kids. Maryland barely has any charter schools. Parents who want to homeschool, which is challenging enough, must wrestle with needless regulatory burdens to teach their own children. Anti-reform activists argue that school choice would result in an exodus of parents (and funding), undermining public schools' ability to function. This is called a marketplace. If you can't attract parents, it's probably because your service is substandard. Advertisement Anti-reform activists also argue that voucher programs are for rich people, when the reality is that they are mostly for the middle and working classes, who are unable to escape these propagandizing institutions. Montgomery County is one of the wealthiest in the country, so perhaps parents there have a better chance of escaping than most. Irrespective of who school reform would help, it is an exceedingly small favor to ask schools to allow parents to opt out of classes that teach 'inclusivity' — a euphemism for a radical cultural agenda. Advertisement The fact that schools refuse to meet this request only illustrates the radicalism of these institutions. But fortunately, Jackson has the answer on how to fix it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Parental Opt-Outs for Controversial Books
Book battles come to the Supreme Court: Mahmoud v. Taylor is before the Court this week, dealing with the Montgomery County Board of Education, which took away both parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate transgenderism and pride parades, read to children as young as three and four. The plaintiffs are a coalition of religious parents from all different faith traditions, asking the Court to rule on "whether parents' rights to the free exercise of their faiths are burdened if public schools do not allow them to withdraw their children from classes on days" these themes are discussed, per a New York Times writeup. Oral arguments are happening now, and a decision is expected in June. At issue are the books Pride Puppy, an alphabet book about a puppy that gets lost at a Pride parade (at which there are drag queens and leather); Love, Violet, about a girl who crushes on her female classmate; Uncle Bobby's Wedding, which is self-explanatory; Born Ready, about a transgender child; Prince & Knight, a "modern fairy tale" about two boys falling in love and getting married after working together to battle a dragon; Intersection Allies which asks kids which pronouns fit them; and What Are Your Words? which tells kids that pronouns can "change like the weather." (The school district has since removed two of the books from the curriculum, though they remain in school libraries.) The lead plaintiffs are a Muslim couple—Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat—who have a son in elementary school in Montgomery County. Other plaintiffs are Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox. It's not just that these books are stocked in school libraries: In 2022, the school district added them to the language arts curriculum for students in pre-K through fifth grade. "At first, the Montgomery school system gave parents notice when the storybooks were to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their children excused from those sessions," reports the Times. "But the school system soon eliminated the advanced notice and opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer, led to absenteeism and risked 'exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.'" Several justices, even the liberal ones, expressed surprise at the themes and images depicted. "The Supreme Court will determine whether the school board policy burdens religious rights," reports NBC News. "The justices could then determine whether that burden violates the Constitution, or they could send the case back to lower courts to make that determination." Some of these books, like Born Ready, are teaching kids things that…are decidedly false (even if you agree with the transgenderism stuff): "Surprisingly to speakers of English and other Indo-European languages, gendering pronouns isn't actually all that common; most languages don't do it," posted Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle on X. "But the idea that this somehow means sex/gender isn't a 'big deal' in these cultures is Sapir-Whorfism run amok." Children might be walking away from these lessons thinking, for example, that Ghana is some promised land for gay rights, which is decidedly not the case. Pride Puppy, meanwhile, has a section that asks pre-schoolers (the intended audience!) to search for images from a word list that includes "intersex flag," "drag queen," "underwear," and "leather." (That book has since been removed from the curriculum.) "Despite faith differences, these parents believe the storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their children, and inconsistent with their religious beliefs," notes the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (which is representing the plaintiffs) in a press release about the case. Listen to some audio from oral arguments. "It's not just exposure to the idea, right?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked. "It's saying this is the right view of the world. This is how we think about things. This is how you should think about things. This is like 2 plus 2 is 4." "If the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Several of the plaintiffs have withdrawn their children from the school system as a result of this, opting for private schools and homeschooling.) It's not clear to me why Montgomery County schoolteachers and administrators would be so threatened by parents retaining their opt-out ability—unless it is, of course, about indoctrination into a particular set of ideas. Some teachers have claimed that the sheer number of opt-outs makes classroom management hard, to which my response would be: Interesting market signals you've got there! Maybe, just maybe, if the lessons are so broadly unpopular, they should be scrapped. (If I were put in this position—and I assume New York City will at some point spring this type of thing on me—homeschooling would be my move, personally.) For an opposing (and admittedly more informed on constitutional law) view, Eugene Volokh and Yale Law's Justin Driver submitted an amicus brief supporting the school system. You can read it here. Done with CECOT: Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been moved to a lower security facility in Santa Ana, El Salvador, according to Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D–Md.), who visited him last week and has publicly exerted pressure on the Trump administration to ensure Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. is facilitated, in compliance with the Supreme Court's order. "The U.S. State Department said in an update to the federal district court in Maryland that Abrego Garcia was moved to the facility eight days before Van Hollen met with him in El Salvador last week," per a CBS News report. Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia's wife and kids have moved to a safe house, after the Department of Homeland Security posted a domestic violence protection order from 2021 that featured her address to X. "I don't feel safe when the government posts my address, the house where my family lives, for everyone to see, especially when this case has gone viral and people have all sorts of opinions," Jennifer Vasquez Sura told The Washington Post. "So, this is definitely a bit terrifying. I'm scared for my kids." "I just want my husband back, my best friend back, my kids' father back. I want our life back," she added. Cornell University dropped a popular R&B singer from its annual campus concert over what the school's president said were antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiments she had espoused," reports The New York Times. "The singer, Kehlani, has been an outspoken opponent of Israel's war in Gaza, speaking out at concerts and on social media. In a 2024 music video for the song 'Next 2 U,' Kehlani danced in a jacket adorned with kaffiyehs as dancers waved Palestinian flags in the background. During the video's introduction, the phrase 'Long Live the Intifada' appeared against a dark background." This cowardly capitulation seems likely to be related to the Trump administration's investigations of antisemitism on university campuses, as well as the freezing, earlier this month of $1 billion worth of federal funds meant for Cornell (endowment: $10.7 billion). On Tuesday, President Donald Trump began to walk back some of his comments about imposing a 145 percent tariff on Chinese goods, reports Bloomberg, mentioning he'd be willing to "substantially" reduce his tariffs on China. "We're going to have a fair deal with China," Trump told reporters yesterday. After those comments, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News that "there will be no unilateral reduction in tariffs against China. The president has made it clear China needs to make a deal with United States of America, and we are optimistic that will happen." In other words, the administration itself doesn't seem to know which policy it's sticking with. First-term approval of Trump's handling of immigration policy vs. second-term approval so far: Crucial distinctions between the normal deportation process and deportations under the Alien Enemies Act from today's Just Asking Questions guest: I think this is not aspirational, actually, and would be a sign we're further creeping toward authoritarianism: How do Chinese propagandists capitalize on domestic turmoil? This and more are covered in the latest Just Asking Questions with Michael Beckley: "Of course you know I think it's good for the administration to consider pro-natalist ideas," writes Ross Douthat on X, linking to a New York Times piece about new family policies being considered, "but right now nothing would be more pro-natalist than avoiding an unnecessary recession." (We'll ask Douthat about this and more when he comes on the show next week.) The post Parental Opt-Outs for Controversial Books appeared first on
