The court protected religious parents' rights in a case over LGBTQ-related books in classrooms. Days later, the court turned away requests from parents of trans kids.
I've seen this play out in the Iowa legislature, where Republicans enacted a harmful school voucher scheme and various anti-LGBTQ policies under the guise of "parental rights." They have also banned all DEI initiatives in public institutions including K-12 schools. The rights of LGBTQ parents, or parents of LGBTQ kids, or parents who just want their kids exposed to a diverse curriculum, count for nothing.
Absurdly, when Iowa Republicans were drafting a so-called "parental empowerment" section of a wide-ranging education bill in 2023, they wrote an exception to cover the gender-affirming care ban for minors. Except for that particular code section, they wrote that parents have a "fundamental, constitutionally protected right, to make decisions affecting the parent's or guardian's minor child, including decisions related to the minor child's medical care, moral upbringing, religious upbringing, residence, education, and extracurricular activities." Everyone except parents of trans kids!
So, here we go … erasing all the civil rights achievements of the Sixties - civil, gay, women’s rights; any tiny attempt at equality - save, of course, for Loving v. Virginia. White, right and elite—thou must be saved; the rest of y’all, go die!
Why shouldn't all parents be allowed to opt out of public school for whatever reason, and be allowed to opt-out of paying the property tax (or whatever) funding it?
These justices are egregious political hacks in bed with MAGA and Christian Nationalists. We should ignore these disgusting and dangerous criminals who are destroying the Constitution. Detest. Resist. Protest. Condemn.
To people on either side, why should any parent be forced to pay for an education that contradicts their values? If you want your child exposed to LGBTQ material, and believe it is harmful to deny your kid that enrichment, why should you be forced to pay for a school that prohibits it? If you don't want your child exposed to LGBTQ material, and believe it is harmful to your kid to be exposed to it, why should you be forced to pay for a school that includes it?
What about parents who pacifists and don't want their children exposed to historical discussions or war? Or Catholic parents who don't want their children exposed to historical discussions about the inquisition in the 1400s because the think it unfairly represents the Catholic Church?
The examples are endless. I don't think public eduction is managable as "ala carte", nor would it be good for society to avoid exposing students to a broad array of topics.
Pacifists should not be forced to have their children exposed to history, and they damn sure should not be forced to pay for it. Of COURSE public education is not manageable as "a la carte." Nothing in ANY government service can be "a la carte." Democracy is an endless, violent fight for whose values get forced (at gunpoint) upon everyone. I favor freedom, meaning no rulers. You evidently favor "public education" and all the other horrors of the state. Aren't you sick of the mass murder you endorse by voting and and force me to pay for?
I think the opinion drafters would say one difference is they (the schools) force children to celebrate LGBTQ ideas. They do not force children to celebrate wars. Exposing kids to a topic and forcing kids to celebrate a topic are very different. Alito addresses that in his opinion, as referenced by Chris. It is how the information is presented. The issues here is that children are put in a coercive position to celebrate LGBTQ ideas even if that is in violation of their religious conviction.
Sure, that's what they argue but using the inqusition example, children are forced, by nature of the material on the tests, to condem the actions, as they are described in the history books, of the Catholic Church.
I know Catholics who don't like it. Not because they think tortue is okay, but because they think history has distorted the what happened, and they think the way the history is taught unfairly holds the Catholic Church out as being catagorically a bad actor.
But they don't get an exception. Yet.
If the future rulings are made using the logic of the current ruling then I don't see how public education cirriculum doesn't become swiss cheese. If this logic is only used for LGBTQIA related content, then don't see how it's possible to conclude that it's not discriminatory.
Interestinly, in Skremetti, the majority held that the Tennesee law didn't discriminate against transgender people despite the fact that only transgender people need gender affrming care, the diagnosis code being banned. The only justice voting in the majority who thought it likely did disriminate against transgender people was Allitto, and he made it quite clear that he didn't care. He was just the only one willing to call it what it was.
This will result in swiss cheese. This is going to be extremely difficult for local school districts to interpret/implement. This will probably make those roles more political.
Brilliant title, by the way.
I've seen this play out in the Iowa legislature, where Republicans enacted a harmful school voucher scheme and various anti-LGBTQ policies under the guise of "parental rights." They have also banned all DEI initiatives in public institutions including K-12 schools. The rights of LGBTQ parents, or parents of LGBTQ kids, or parents who just want their kids exposed to a diverse curriculum, count for nothing.
Absurdly, when Iowa Republicans were drafting a so-called "parental empowerment" section of a wide-ranging education bill in 2023, they wrote an exception to cover the gender-affirming care ban for minors. Except for that particular code section, they wrote that parents have a "fundamental, constitutionally protected right, to make decisions affecting the parent's or guardian's minor child, including decisions related to the minor child's medical care, moral upbringing, religious upbringing, residence, education, and extracurricular activities." Everyone except parents of trans kids!
https://laurabelin.substack.com/p/iowa-republicans-bolster-case-against
So, here we go … erasing all the civil rights achievements of the Sixties - civil, gay, women’s rights; any tiny attempt at equality - save, of course, for Loving v. Virginia. White, right and elite—thou must be saved; the rest of y’all, go die!
A lot like Protect unborn children, ignore children who are born. Especially if they’re not white or wealthy.
Thanks for this update. I suspected the Mahmoud case was trash. I even wrote about it. This confirms I was not overreaching in my take.
Why shouldn't all parents be allowed to opt out of public school for whatever reason, and be allowed to opt-out of paying the property tax (or whatever) funding it?
These justices are egregious political hacks in bed with MAGA and Christian Nationalists. We should ignore these disgusting and dangerous criminals who are destroying the Constitution. Detest. Resist. Protest. Condemn.
I guess Roberts had to wait for the Full Donny to show his contempt for his lessers … which turns out to be everybody else.
This nation is steadily slouching towards Bethlehem to become a born-again nation under the "law."
To people on either side, why should any parent be forced to pay for an education that contradicts their values? If you want your child exposed to LGBTQ material, and believe it is harmful to deny your kid that enrichment, why should you be forced to pay for a school that prohibits it? If you don't want your child exposed to LGBTQ material, and believe it is harmful to your kid to be exposed to it, why should you be forced to pay for a school that includes it?
What about parents who pacifists and don't want their children exposed to historical discussions or war? Or Catholic parents who don't want their children exposed to historical discussions about the inquisition in the 1400s because the think it unfairly represents the Catholic Church?
The examples are endless. I don't think public eduction is managable as "ala carte", nor would it be good for society to avoid exposing students to a broad array of topics.
Pacifists should not be forced to have their children exposed to history, and they damn sure should not be forced to pay for it. Of COURSE public education is not manageable as "a la carte." Nothing in ANY government service can be "a la carte." Democracy is an endless, violent fight for whose values get forced (at gunpoint) upon everyone. I favor freedom, meaning no rulers. You evidently favor "public education" and all the other horrors of the state. Aren't you sick of the mass murder you endorse by voting and and force me to pay for?
I think the opinion drafters would say one difference is they (the schools) force children to celebrate LGBTQ ideas. They do not force children to celebrate wars. Exposing kids to a topic and forcing kids to celebrate a topic are very different. Alito addresses that in his opinion, as referenced by Chris. It is how the information is presented. The issues here is that children are put in a coercive position to celebrate LGBTQ ideas even if that is in violation of their religious conviction.
Sure, that's what they argue but using the inqusition example, children are forced, by nature of the material on the tests, to condem the actions, as they are described in the history books, of the Catholic Church.
I know Catholics who don't like it. Not because they think tortue is okay, but because they think history has distorted the what happened, and they think the way the history is taught unfairly holds the Catholic Church out as being catagorically a bad actor.
But they don't get an exception. Yet.
If the future rulings are made using the logic of the current ruling then I don't see how public education cirriculum doesn't become swiss cheese. If this logic is only used for LGBTQIA related content, then don't see how it's possible to conclude that it's not discriminatory.
Interestinly, in Skremetti, the majority held that the Tennesee law didn't discriminate against transgender people despite the fact that only transgender people need gender affrming care, the diagnosis code being banned. The only justice voting in the majority who thought it likely did disriminate against transgender people was Allitto, and he made it quite clear that he didn't care. He was just the only one willing to call it what it was.
This will result in swiss cheese. This is going to be extremely difficult for local school districts to interpret/implement. This will probably make those roles more political.
I agree, it would / will be Swiss cheese, which is why I think no-opt outs, the previous status quo was the better model.