Parents in Maryland are fighting a Montgomery County school board’s decision to prevent them from having any ability to opt out of exposure to so-called ‘inclusivity books.’
SCOTUS considers unemployment tax exemptions for religious groups
The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether religiously affiliated groups should pay unemployment taxes.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments April 22 in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case that raises vital First Amendment questions about who decides what young children should learn about sensitive matters such as gender identity and sexuality.
A diverse group of Maryland parents is fighting a Montgomery County school board’s decision to prevent them from having any ability to opt out of exposure to so-called inclusivity books that were adopted in the fall of 2022.
Lower courts sided against the parents, so their last hope is for the Supreme Court to stand for their rights to decide what’s best for their children. Luckily, for the families, the court in recent years has ruled consistently in favor of religious liberty and free speech.
Hopefully, it does in this case, too.
The storybooks in question are intended for kids in preschool through eighth grade, and they go far beyond topics related to basic civility. Rather, they introduce children to ideas such as gender transitioning, pronoun preferences and pride parades.
The parents who sued the district aren’t trying to do away with the books entirely. They simply want to be given the choice of whether their children are exposed to the messages. And the school board has remained adamant that parents should not have that right.
Schools don’t ‘own’ kids. Parents should decide what their children learn about gender.
The parents, who are a broad mix of Muslims, Christians and Jews, believe that the books in question are not appropriate for their young children and expose their kids to ideas about gender and sexuality that conflict directly with their faiths.
But the school board doesn’t care, even though the district’s own principals have expressed concerns with the books.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing families in the case, is defending parents’ rights to direct the religious teachings their children receive. Those teachings include subjects like family life and sexuality, which are topics addressed in the “inclusivity” books.
Here are examples that Becket’s lawyers cite from storybooks that the school board insists kids must be exposed to:
- One book asks 3- and 4-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “underwear,” “leather” and the name of an LGBTQ activist and sex worker.
- Another book wants fifth graders to discuss what it means to be “non-binary.”
- One of the books says doctors only “guess” when identifying a baby’s sex.
- Another book relates a story of a same-sex playground romance.
It’s clear why these topics would offend many parents. The school board’s stubbornness also offends the Constitution.
“Here you’re basically putting parents in a position where they have to choose between public schools or their religious beliefs,” Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, told me recently. “And that choice comes at a high cost. You either have to homeschool your kids or put them in private school or face government fines for not schooling them.”
“And so that kind of pressure to abandon your belief and practice of protecting your children from these materials at an early age is a pretty obvious First Amendment violation,” said Baxter, who will argue the case before the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS has strong record of upholding First Amendment. It should here, too.
The main question up for debate by the court is the following: “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?”
It seems like the answer to that should be a resounding “Yes!,” considering recent Supreme Court decisions that strongly upheld both free speech and religious liberty.
Becket argued another case with religious freedom implications at the end of March. Catholic Charities was told by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that it wasn’t religious enough to qualify for an exemption from participation in the state’s unemployment insurance system. That’s despite the fact that the Catholic Charities agencies carry out the Catholic Church’s ministry to those in need.
Decisions in both cases are expected by the end of June, when the court’s current term ends.
Progressive politicians and school boards around the country keep trying to subvert the constitutional rights of those who aren’t on board with their woke perspectives.
The Supreme Court, thankfully, keeps standing guard of our most basic freedoms.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at [email protected] or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
发表回复