Latest news with #HouseBill25-1312
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The truth about Colorado's new transgender rights law
State Rep. Brandi Bradley speaks on the Colorado House floor during the last day of the 2025 legislative session, May 7, at the Colorado Capitol. Bradley is a vocal opponent of House Bill 25-1312's transgender protections. (Lindsey Toomer/Colorado Newsline) Of all the bills introduced this year at the Colorado Capitol, one came to define the legislative session for much of the right in Colorado. Even now that the session is over and the bill has become law, it is taking on new life as opponents exercise their outrage in schoolyard-bully social media posts, depraved sermons and a legal challenge in federal court. The legislation, House Bill 25-1312, enacted several new protections for transgender people. Though the law was a reasonable response to escalating attacks against a besieged segment of the population, especially since the start of the Trump administration and its extreme anti-trans bias, the backlash it prompted is disproportionate, sinister and full of misinformation. The first thing to understand about the trans rights law is that, while it contains several technical passages and underwent extensive debate and revision, the source of opposition to it has very little to do with the bill's actual provisions. It's about hate. It's about bigotry against transgender people. That's all. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Opponents have become adept at advancing talking points that might sound superficially plausible — rhetoric about threats to women in sports, supposed adverse medical outcomes to minors who transition, parental rights infringements — but these arguments have the inconvenient quality of withering under evidence and counterpoints, and, worse, they're a cover for the ultimate justification bigots use for discrimination against trans people: Christian scripture. Many of the most virulent activists against the law have ties to or are pastors at politically right-wing churches. They justify every other point of opposition by their interpretation of the Bible, which in their reading says trans people are dangerous and beset by evil. Opposition to the law is simply a repugnant form of Christian sanctimony that serves little more than hate of a very recognizably human kind. Many of the most contested provisions of the bill were amended out of the final version, yet some anti-trans activists continue to allude to those passages as part of their denunciations. View with extreme skepticism any criticism that discusses whether anti-trans parents could be disadvantaged in child custody cases or a shield provision against anti-trans laws in other states. Language around those issues were in the bill at one time but later stripped. If they see me get frustrated and angry, they'll just use it against me. I can't let them ... I can't show any kinks in the armor, so to speak, because otherwise they'll try to slay me, and I can't let that happen. – State Rep. Brianna Titone The provision of the governor-signed HB-1312 that has drawn the most negative attention boosts anti-discrimination protections for transgender people in the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Republican state Rep. Brandi Bradley in a social media post and video after passage of the bill told her audience that anti-trans parents could lose custody of their trans children if they discriminate against them, that private schools, churches and other places of public accommodation could be sued for anti-trans discrimination, and that there's no telling when someone deadnames or misgenders a trans person at what threshold discrimination liability kicks in. This is all misleading. CADA has always prohibited discrimination and harassment against certain protected classes, and the protected classes have always included 'gender identity' and 'gender expression.' All HB-1312 does is clarify that gender expression could involve a 'chosen name' and pronouns. 'Their claim that it's now illegal is false,' state Rep. Lorena García, an Adams County Democrat who sponsored the bill, told Newsline this week. 'It's always been illegal.' And it's fearmongering to suggest that someone is liable to a discrimination allegation the moment they misgender or deadname someone. CADA covers particular settings, including employment, housing, and places of public accommodation. Churches and other places used for religious purposes are excluded. Incidental or accidental acts do not qualify as discrimination. 'Within CADA already, it's already like discrimination has to be intentional,' García said. 'So the fact that this is just being wrapped into gender identity, we're not changing the threshold of when something is actually considered discrimination.' But discrimination, it turns out, is exactly what some of the most outspoken 1312 critics intend. Many are Christian leaders and pastors, including Jeff Hunt, conservative radio host and former director of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University; Chris Goble of Ridgeline Community Church in Castle Rock; J. Chase Davis of The Well Church in Boulder; and Aaron Carlson of New City Church in Highlands Ranch. Each one of these bullies has singled out state Rep. Brianna Titone, an Arvada Democrat who is the first transgender woman to serve in the Colorado Legislature, to intentionally deadname and misgender her. The only plaintiff named as an individual in the lawsuit against HB-1312 is Travis Morrell, a Grand Junction dermatologist who online broadcasts faith-based motivations. A social media account called Fight1312 has become a primary source of anti-trans sentiment. Its posts make it clear that behind every variety of opposition to transgender rights is essentially one complaint, that God, as conceived by 1312's opponents, commands them to hate transgender people. 'Our good God does not make mistakes,' Goble said in a video of a recent sermon, facing the camera and addressing Titone directly. He aggressively misgendered her and called on her to 'repent.' Titone herself detects an additional motivation among anti-trans activists, noting there have been other episodes throughout history when transgender people faced persecution. 'The big difference now, because of all the social media and everything else, they're making money off of it,' she said. 'So it's not just finding an enemy and a scapegoat you can pick on, to gang up on and get people to come along with you for the kicking fest, but they're actually making money off of it.' But hate does real harm. 'Kids are scared,' Titone said. 'I've heard from kids. They're like, 'I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm afraid my grandfather's not going to like who I am and they're going to not want to talk to me anymore.'' Her own response to bigots is public poise, legislative fortitude and personal resilience. 'If they see me get frustrated and angry, they'll just use it against me. I can't let them,' she said. 'I can't show any kinks in the armor, so to speak, because otherwise they'll try to slay me, and I can't let that happen.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Parent groups sue Colorado officials over transgender rights expansion of anti-discrimination law
Rep. Lorena Garcia speaks on the Colorado House floor during the last day of the 2025 legislative session, May 7, 2025 at the Colorado Capitol. (Lindsey Toomer/Colorado Newsline) A coalition of groups that reject transgender rights sued Colorado officials Monday over a newly signed law that put protections for transgender people, and how they are addressed, into Colorado's anti-discrimination law. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Colorado, alleges that House Bill 25-1312 violates the First and 14th Amendments . 'The purpose of H.B. 25-1312 is clear. The law punishes those who refuse to speak using chosen names and pronouns, and it does so in order to suppress traditional beliefs about sex and gender. In other words, the law openly discriminates based on viewpoint,' lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The lawsuit was brought by the Virginia-based conservative group Defending Education, the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, Protect Kids Colorado, a health group called Do No Harm, and Grand Junction dermatologist Dr. Travis Morrell. CPAN and PKC are both parental-rights groups that advocate against 'gender ideology' topics in schools, often from a far-right perspective. It names Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, and the members of Colorado's Civil Rights Division as defendants. HB-1312, also known as the Kelly Loving Act after a transgender woman who died in the 2022 Club Q shooting, expands Colorado's anti-discrimination laws to include a person's chosen name and pronouns. Those laws apply to workplaces, schools and other places of public accommodation. The law also includes provisions to make it easier for transgender people to change their name and gender markers on birth certificates, drivers licenses and marriage documents. It was sponsored by Rep. Lorena Garcia of Adams County, Rep. Rebekah Stewart of Lakewood, Sen. Faith Winter of Broomfield and Sen. Chris Kolker of Centennial. It passed with entirely Democratic support, and Gov. Jared Polis signed it on May 16. The bill was amended to remove several controversial provisions during the legislative process and faced stiff opposition from Republicans and conservative groups, including the parties in the new lawsuit. They allege in the filing that the law could impact their ability to hold public advocacy events, publish materials and do other work. CPAN and PKC use 'biologically accurate pronouns and birth names' for transgender people, a practice also known as misgendering and deadnaming. The groups worry that continuing to use those names and pronouns will result in an investigation from the state's civil rights commission and individual lawsuits. They argue that recent legal decisions — including 303 Creative v. Elenis, where a Colorado website designer did not want to create a hypothetical website for a gay couple — support the claim that HB-1312 unconstitutionally compels speech, in this case forcing them to refer to a transgender person by their name. The lawsuit repeatedly misgenders and deadnames state Rep. Brianna Titone, former state legislative candidate Vivian Smotherman and transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney. 'When CPAN and (Executive Director) Ms. Gimelshteyn use birth names and biologically accurate pronouns, they are not doing so to be malicious or hurtful. They do so because this expression reflects their deeply held beliefs that sex is fixed in each person from the moment of conception and cannot be changed,' the lawsuit says. If they cannot use that language, their impact will be 'greatly diminished.' Morrell, the dermatologist, contended in the lawsuit that using someone's 'biological pronouns' is necessary for clear communication, as a person's sex assigned at birth could be important when determining proper treatment. Representatives from the Colorado Civil Rights Division and the attorney general's office were unable to comment on the litigation. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Heavily amended bill adding legal protections for transgender people passes Colorado Senate
Two people fly a rainbow LGBTQ pride flag and a transgender pride flag in front of the Colorado Capitol building during a celebration on Nov. 7, 2020. (Moe Clark/Colorado Newsline) The Colorado Senate gave final approval Tuesday to a heavily amended bill adding legal protections for transgender people in a 20-14 vote after hours of debate and opposition from Republican senators. House Bill 25-1312, dubbed the Kelly Loving Act in honor of a transgender woman killed during the 2022 Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, would make it a discriminatory act to intentionally not refer to a transgender person by their chosen name. It also requires school policies be 'inclusive of all reasons' that a student changes their name, and it says schools must allow students to choose from any variation contained in dress code policies. The bill includes a provision that says someone does not need a court order if they want to change their gender marker on a driver's license or other identification a second or third time. Colorado allows an 'X' gender marker on state IDs, but that has led to some people having trouble with student loans and passport applications, so some people may want to change their gender markers back. It will also allow a county clerk to issue a new marriage license to someone who has legally changed their name. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'This bill's needed because if transgender residents were never harassed, denied services, or mocked in official settings, additional clarification would be unnecessary,' Sen. Chris Kolker, a Littleton Democrat, said Tuesday. 'The lived evidence shows that gaps persist.' Kolker sponsored the bill alongside Sen. Faith Winter, a Broomfield Democrat, Rep. Lorena García, an Adams County Democrat, and Rep. Rebekah Stewart, a Lakewood Democrat. The House voted 39-24 to accept the Senate's many amendments to the measure and 40-24 to approve it again as amended. Democratic Reps. Regina English of Colorado Springs and Naquetta Ricks of Aurora joined Republicans in voting against accepting the amendments to the bill. House Republicans continued echoing parental rights concerns during debate that went into late Tuesday evening, which bill supporters said were unfounded under the latest version of the bill. 'The continued mischaracterization of these policies needs to stop,' Garcia said Tuesday night. 'It is a disservice to Coloradans who are really trying to understand what is in this bill, and we should be honest and truthful about what we are agreeing to or disagreeing with without exaggeration.' The measure will now go to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis' desk to be signed into law. Two Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans in voting against the bill: Sen. Kyle Mullica of Thornton and Sen. Marc Snyder of Manitou Springs. The Senate adopted an amendment Monday that removed a portion of the bill that would have shielded parents who help their child obtain gender-affirming care from laws in other states that outlaw the practice — a part of the bill some supporters had reservations about due to potential legal implications. A Senate committee cut part of the section last week, on top of many other substantial amendments, but bill sponsors offered an amendment deleting the section entirely. Colorado already has a shield law in place that protects people who travel to Colorado for abortion or gender-affirming care from lawsuits and criminal prosecution initiated in other states, and Winter said the original intent of the cut section was to strengthen those protections. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our community in full support of the Kelly Loving Act. Trans liberation is non-negotiable. – Nadine Bridges, One Colorado executive director Another two amendments added Monday made technical and terminology changes, and changed the description of a 'chosen name' to mean a name someone wants to be known by related to 'disability, race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, familial status, national origin, or ancestry, so long as the name does not contain offensive language and the individual is not requesting the name for frivolous purposes.' Winter said that change made the policy inclusive of all reasons someone may want to change their name, not just gender identity. Republican senators acknowledged and thanked bill sponsors for removing provisions that would have affected child custody decisions — the most controversial portion of the original bill — but said many constituents don't realize that was removed and continue to express concern. Republicans still said the bill would affect parental rights related to chosen names and dress codes in schools. Senate Minority Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, said Tuesday on the Senate floor that the measure still interferes with the 'sacred' parent-child relationship even as amended and draws the state into 'personal family matters.' '(House Bill) 1312, despite its protective intent, creates a system where schools and state agencies become the arbiter of deeply personal family decisions,' Lundeen said. 'By mandating inclusive name policies, enforcing gender neutral dress codes, enlisting the (Colorado Civil Rights Division) to police speech, this bill risks transforming schools and courts into areas where the state overrides parental authority. We must not allow government to intrude into and fracture the trust between parents and children.' Rod Pelton, a Cheyenne Wells Republican, said he received more communications related to House Bill 1312 than any other bill this session. Other senators from both sides of the aisle have said the same. One Colorado, one of the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy groups in Colorado, and Rocky Mountain Equality both support the bill in its current form after various amendments were adopted. The organizations initially supported the bill, but changed to an 'amend' position with unspecified legal concerns after it passed the House. 'We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our community in full support of the Kelly Loving Act. Trans liberation is non-negotiable,' One Colorado Executive Director Nadine Bridges said in a statement the organization posted to Facebook. 'Pro-equality legislation is not just about creating hope, but creating a better reality. It is a fight that we all need to be in together to protect our community, our family.' Democrats control strong majorities in both chambers of the Legislature. The 2025 legislative session ends Wednesday. Editor's note: This story and headline were updated at 9:17 a.m., May 7, 2025, to include the House vote on Senate amendments and previously to correct that the amended version of the bill says intentionally not referring to a transgender person is a discriminatory act. The terms 'deadnaming' and 'misgendering' were removed from the bill. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Colorado bill on transgender protections advances with stripped down provisions
Sen. Faith Winter, a Broomfield Democrat, speaks at the Colorado Capitol last week. She sponsored a bill that would add protections for transgender people in Colorado. (Sara Wilson/Colorado Newsline) An amended version of a bill that intends to add legal protections for transgender people in Colorado passed its first vote in the Colorado Senate after eight hours of testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday evening into early Thursday. House Bill 25-1312, dubbed the Kelly Loving Act in honor of a transgender woman killed during the 2022 Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, initially proposed various new legal protections for transgender people in education, family legal matters and public accommodation. Sponsors amended out a provision that concerned child custody decisions — which drew intense opposition from parental advocates — and a stripped down version of the bill passed the committee. The bill defines deadnaming — when someone calls a transgender person by their previous name — and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. It would also shield parents who help their child obtain gender-affirming care from laws in other states that outlaw the practice. The amended version removed references to 'chosen' names in a section requiring school policies be 'inclusive of all reasons' that a student changes their name, and it removed language around gender in the section that says schools must allow students to choose from any variation contained in dress code policies. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The committee removed a section of the bill that would have made judges in child custody cases consider deadnaming, misgendering or threatening to publish information related to an individual or child's gender-affirming care as a form of 'coercive control' in custody proceedings. Much of the testimony against the bill focused on that section, with many witnesses sharing concerns about the government involving itself in family matters. Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Frisco Democrat on the committee, said 95% to 99% of the concerns he heard related to the cut section. 'If Section 2 were still in the bill, I would have been opposed. I think it was an intrusion into the parent-child relationship that would have had some negative consequences,' Roberts said. 'And while I understand the intent maybe of the original inclusion, I think the policy implications were challenging at best.' The committee voted 5-2 to move the bill forward along party lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans against it. Some committee members who voted in support of the bill said they still want to see more changes to reflect concerns from certain LGBTQ+ groups and around the shield law provision of the bill, but they said the amended version was better than how the bill started. 'I think they're bringing up some valid legal concerns, not questioning their support for trans Coloradans,' Roberts said. ' I think they're bringing up valid legal concerns about the firmness of what's on the paper here if it were to get challenged all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.' One Colorado, one of the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy groups in Colorado, initially supported the legislation but has changed course and has since taken an 'amend' position on the bill with concerns that it could jeopardize current protections. After it passed the House with Democratic support, it stalled in the Senate as stakeholder conversations continued. One Colorado has not shared any details on what it wants to see change in the bill, and nobody with the organization testified at the bill hearing. 'One Colorado is not testifying today because we want to continue our work with the proponents of this bill and community to make it stronger,' One Colorado spokesperson Cal Solverson said in a statement. Legislative staff said 726 people signed up to testify on the measure. Committee leadership limited debate to eight hours, four in favor of the bill and four against the bill, and asked those still in the room after witness testimony ended to stand to show if they were for, against, or seeking amendments on the bill. Does this bill do enough? No, and honestly legislation never will, but it does something ... It gives trans folks harmed across the state more access to legal protections than we have today. – Anaya Robinson, senior policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado Those in support of the bill said it will save transgender peoples' lives and make them safer. Anaya Robinson, senior policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said his organization has had concerns with how the bill could be challenged at the federal level, but continued engagement with bill sponsors and stakeholders have led to changes addressing concerns as they come up. As a trans man, Robinson said his community needs 'robust and clear protections that do not rely on federal law,' and the bill is a step in the right direction. 'Does this bill do enough? No, and honestly legislation never will, but it does something,' Robinson said. 'It gives trans folks harmed across the state more access to legal protections than we have today, and in a time where our literal existence is being questioned, our history being erased, the legality of our bodies and our autonomy is being decided by people who do not believe we have a right to live, we need our elected officials and our community organizations to step up and do something.' Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued orders to recognize only two unchangeable genders, stop offering non-binary passport gender markers, and attempted to stop funding care for transgender people under age 19. Sybil Vane, a transgender woman from Brighton, described herself as an ordinary person who has led 'a typical American life,' and she said 'none of that has changed since I transitioned.' She said despite this, transgender people are not afforded the same respect as others. 'I hope that the members of the committee and all those in opposition to the Kelly Loving Act can see me not as transgender, but as a fellow American, deserving the same dignity we afford to all,' Vane said. 'Until such a day comes when we can see each other as humans first and transgender second, we need the Kelly Loving Act.' The bill is sponsored by Rep. Lorena García, an Adams County Democrat, Rep. Rebekah Stewart, a Lakewood Democrat, Sen. Faith Winter, a Westminster Democrat, and Sen. Chris Kolker, a Littleton Democrat. The committee voted to strike a portion of the bill that said Colorado courts 'shall not give any force or effect' to laws in other states connected to taking children away from parents or caregivers who allowed the child access to gender-affirming care. Winter said that change reflects concerns around the Constitution's full faith and credit clause and respecting laws of other states. But the shield provision retains other language that protects people in Colorado from other states' gender-affirming care restrictions. The amendment also clarified how a court should consider intentional, persistent deadnaming or misgendering as evidence of someone discriminating based on gender identity or expression, and it removed a provision around deadnaming and misgendering in a place of public accommodation. 'The language around this is not if you call someone the wrong name by accident,' Winter said. 'This isn't if someone shows up at your workplace and you call them the wrong name or misgender them. There has to be intentionality to cause harm, and so this is about the action to the individual and not just speech.' New additions to the bill include a provision that says someone does not need a court order if they want to change their gender marker on the driver's license or identification a second or third time. Winter said Colorado allows an 'X' gender marker on state IDs, but that has led to some people having trouble with student loans and passport applications, so some people may want to change their gender markers back. The bill now makes it so that a county clerk can issue a new marriage license to someone who has legally changed their name. Many who testified against the bill showed skepticism of gender-affirming care and denied that people can be transgender. Others questioned whether provisions of the bill would constitute compelled speech and violate the First Amendment. Wayne Williams, a former Republican secretary of state and attorney in Colorado Springs, expressed concerns with the shield law provisions of the bill and said it can create a 'coercive' situation if states 'do not give authority to the laws of others.' 'There are a number of issues remaining in the bill that need to be fixed before it could be passed, and it should therefore be killed,' Williams said. Sen. John Carson, a Highlands Ranch Republican on the committee, said 'it's pretty clear' that Colorado already has the laws it needs to prohibit discrimination. 'Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, extending protections beyond federal law, protects individuals from discrimination based on disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, religion, age, national origin and ancestry,' Carson said. 'My belief is when we have adequate laws, we should focus on enforcing those.' The bill will go through the Senate Appropriations Committee before it will be up for debate on the Senate floor. The House will have to approve Senate amendments to the bill before it could be signed into law. Democrats control strong majorities in both chambers of the Legislature. The 2025 legislative session ends on May 7. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Fox News
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Democrats still haven't learned one important lesson from the 2024 election
The 2024 election was a wake-up call for Democrats, but five months later, they're still asleep. Donald Trump's win over Kamala Harris—fueled by a 9-point lead among parents—made the GOP the Parents' Party. Trump campaigned hard on school choice, ousting transgender ideology from classrooms, and banning Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) nonsense. Harris barely mentioned education. Two polls from AtlasIntel, a top-tier pollster, showed Trump beating her on this issue. Yet, Democrats aren't learning—they're doubling down on policies that repel families and defy reason. In Colorado, House Democrats passed House Bill 25-1312 on Sunday, by a vote of 36 to 20, which could strip custody from parents who don't affirm their child's "chosen gender," and House Bill 25-1309, mandating health benefit plans cover "gender-affirming care"—including surgeries and hormones—while rejecting a Republican amendment to exclude kids. Ironically, they rammed these transgender insanity bills through during a special Sunday session, a move dripping with symbolism as they trampled parental rights on a day many families reserve for faith and rest. Colorado Democrats even voted to invoke Rule 16 to shut down debate on these bills, bulldozing opposition to rush their agenda. Colorado Democrat Rep. Yara Zokaie compared parent groups opposing House Bill 25-1312 to the KKK, smearing them as hate groups during an April 2025 committee hearing, showing how far Democrats will go to demonize dissent. Colorado Republican Rep. Jarvis Caldwell blasted this bill, saying, "If they confuse your children and you don't affirm that confusion, they will take your child from you." In Illinois, Democrats are pushing to regulate homeschooling in 2025, with House Bill 2827 passing committee last month on an 8-to-4 party-line vote. Over 42,000 people signed witness slips opposing it—a deafening roar—but every Democrat ignored them, defying the public's will. If it passes, homeschool parents could face fines and up to 30 days in jail for noncompliance, a draconian attack on families fleeing failing schools. In Washington State, House Democrats in January, voted down an amendment to House Bill 1296 requiring immediate parental notification if a student is a victim of sexual misconduct by a school employee. Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle) doubled down in a Fox News interview in February, saying: "Kids over 13 have the complete right to make their own decisions about their mental health care. Parents don't have the right to have notice. They don't have the right to have consent about that." Meanwhile, in West Virginia, every House Democrat voted against a Parents' Bill of Rights in March, rejecting basic transparency and control for families. Nationally, every Senate Democrat blocked the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, ensuring it couldn't overcome a filibuster. Even Rahm Emanuel, Obama's ex-chief of staff, sees the mess. In an April interview with Chris Cillizza, he urged Democrats to apologize for school closures during COVID, admitting they cratered kids academically and mentally. A 2023 American Economic Review study showed closures slashed math and reading scores, with low-income kids hit hardest, while a 2022 JAMA Pediatrics study linked them to soaring anxiety and depression. Teachers' unions, like the NEA and AFT, pushed these closures, and they give 99% of their campaign cash to Democrats. Rahm's call is ironic—he's famous for saying, "Never let a crisis go to waste"—yet his party keeps wasting this one, fighting school choice at every turn. Trump read the room. Parents are fed up with unions and bureaucrats turning schools into woke labs. His school choice pitch empowers families. His pledge to end transgender policies—like boys in girls' sports—matches public sentiment. His CRT-DEI ban taps disgust with divisive curricula. AtlasIntel's polls didn't just show Trump winning education; they signaled a realignment. Democrats once dominated this turf. Now, they're losing parents fast. A January New York Times/Ipsos poll found 79% oppose men in women's sports—67% of Democrats, 94% of Republicans. A 2024 Center Square poll showed 59% support a federal ban on procedures such as puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgeries for minors. A 2023 Washington Post/KFF poll found 68% of adults oppose puberty blockers for kids ages 10 to 14. On school choice, a 2023 RealClear Opinion Research poll found 71% support nationwide—66% of Democrats, 80% of Republicans—crossing party lines. Trump hammered these; Harris dodged. Post-November, Democrats aren't reflecting—they're plowing ahead. Illinois's House Bill 2827 targets parents fleeing public schools. Colorado's bills prioritize ideology over evidence: no studies justify blockers or surgeries for kids. Washington's secrecy and Pedersen's stance clash with their base's views, as does West Virginia's rejection of parental rights. Democrats keep strangling school choice, ignoring 71% public backing. A glimmer of hope exists. Illinois Rep. La Shawn Ford (D) slammed House Bill 2827 as overreach, hinting dissent. But party leaders stay tied to unions, blind to voters screaming for change. Trump's 9-point parent-vote win was a mandate: families want choice, not coercion; math, not Marxism; safety, not secrecy. Democrats could pivot—apologize, embrace options, respect biology. Instead, they're betting parents won't care. They're wrong. November 2024 was a warning. The Parents' Party is rising, and unless Democrats wake up, they'll keep losing the people they claim to fight for.
