Throughout Joe Biden's term as president, parents were attacked and vilified as 'domestic terrorists' and 'white supremacists' for having the audacity to object to some of the inappropriate things public schools were forcing on their children.
'LGBTQ' and 'queer' literature -- some books for kids as young as five or six -- was one of the biggest points of contention. Schools that removed such books from shelves were guilty of 'banning' those books. This was, and remains, a lie: none of those books are banned. Parents who wish to expose their children to such literary classics as 'In My Daddy's Belly' or 'Being You', which teaches kids ages two to five that there are many genders and they, too, might have been 'assigned' the wrong gender at birth. Older kids can peruse 'Gender Queer', which has illustrations so graphic media had to censor them when Gov. Ron DeSantis shared enlargements of them at a press conference, or 'Flamer', which is so explicit the parent who tried reading it at a school board meeting was removed by police.
Now the Supreme Court is hearing arguments that could give parents the right to opt-out of lessons based on such materials.
The Lost Angeles Times seems to think the Supreme Court will side with parents, and they find this troubling:
Supreme Court appears to favor parents' right to opt out of LGBTQ+ stories for their children https://t.co/YxlBKDYzHS
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) April 22, 2025
Recommended
When the new storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when “unsustainably high numbers” of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule.
They explained this state rule applied to older students and sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary children.
In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children be removed from class during the reading lessons.
They said the books conflicted with the religious and moral views they taught their children.
...
Alan Shoenfeld, an attorney for the school board, said its goal for the new storybooks was “to foster mutual respect. The lesson is that they should treat their peers with respect.”
He cautioned the court against adding a broad new right for parents and students to object to ideas or messages that offend them.
Here's a summary of the books used in these lessons:
One of them, “Pride Puppy,” is a picture book directed at 3- and 4-year-olds. It “describes a Pride parade and what a child might find there,” they said. “The book invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of ‘underwear,’ ‘leather,’ ‘lip ring,’ [drag] king’ and [drag] queen.’”
Another — “Love, Violet” — is about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.
“Born Ready” tells the story of a biological girl named Penelope who identifies as a boy.
“Intersection Allies” is a picture book also intended for early elementary school classes.
“It invites children to ponder what it means to be ‘transgender’ or ‘non-binary’ and asks ‘what pronouns fit you?’” they said. Teachers were told “to instruct students that, at birth, doctors ‘guess about our gender,’ but ‘[w]e know ourselves best.’”
They said teachers were instructed to “disrupt the either/or thinking” of elementary students about biological sex.
The aforementioned religions -- Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim -- all teach that sex is binary. Just as science has taught since time immemorial. If teachers were instructed to 'disrupt the either/or thinking' of biological sex, they are fundamentally asking these children and their parents to change their religious beliefs.
That's a big no-no under the First Amendment.
If this was about fostering 'mutual respect', the schools have a plethora of books to choose from, if you're to believe the argument of the school board attorney, including 'The Invisible Boy' by Trudy Ludwig, 'The Name Jar' by Yangsook Choi, 'Each Kindness' by Jacqueline Woodson, 'The Sandwich Swap' by Queen Rania of Jordan Al Abdullah and Kelly DiPucchio, or 'Chrysanthemum' by Kevin Henkes.
Perhaps someone should write a book about school boards treating parents with respect.
Attorney Shoenfeld also 'cautioned the court against adding a broad new right for parents and students to object to ideas or messages that offend them.'
That's rich.
Leftists who populate public schools have no problem letting certain students (and teachers) object to ideas and messages that offend them. Two weeks ago, I told you about a school in California that suspended a first-grade girl for having the temerity to say 'all lives matter' on an MLK Jr. art project. New Hampshire schools were able to expel fathers from sporting events for wearing XX armbands in support of their daughters, with the judge saying such apparel is a 'demeaning and harassing assertion' (of biological reality?). A middle school boy was sent home for wearing a shirt that said -- accurately -- there are only two genders.
In New Hampshire, a teacher union head said parents who want more of a say in their children's education should opt for private school, which is the most honest statement by a teacher union member in, well, forever.
The Left thinks they own -- lock, stock, and barrel -- our children, and our 'parental rights' are contingent on their benevolence.
It's time for the Supreme Court to disabuse them of this notion.
Our children do not belong to them.
And, if The LA TImes is to be believed, they might be poised to do so.
