Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of the families objecting to LGBTQ+ content in Maryland, it must consistently and similarly defend the rights of all parents.
SCOTUS takes up case on LGBTQ+, inclusive books in schools
Demonstrators on both sides protested as the Supreme Court heard a school district’s case on parents’ rights and LGBTQ+ books.
It is finally spring, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has its mind on the birds and the bees.
The court heard arguments in April in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which involves a coalition of parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, who argue that school administrators violated their parental and religious rights because they could not opt their children out of lessons that included LGBTQ+ themes.
The parents argue that schools shouldn’t expose their children to LGBTQ-themed books such as “Love, Violet” or “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” without their consent.
Discussions with kids about sex are often difficult
Like me, you may have a vivid grade school memory of being separated by gender to sit and watch a grainy film explaining what was starting to happen to our pubescent bodies and what our teachers called “the facts of life.”
If you’re a parent, you might also remember an evening like the one when my 4-year-old son asked me where babies come from. We were watching a classic Disney film in which a lovable baby elephant is delivered to his mom via stork − and then violently separated from her after she is deemed “mad” and locked up in solitary confinement.
There was a happy ending to the film, but it wasn’t exactly the cute circus cartoon I expected.
Still, Owen wasn’t misled. He knew birds don’t deliver babies. But at 4 years old, he was already confused, anxious and concerned. As we talked, I learned that he had recently found out his favorite preschool teacher had just lost a pregnancy.
“What happened to that baby in her tummy?” I truly didn’t know. “Where did it go?” That one gets even harder. “How did it get in there in the first place?” Great questions, Owen.
Kids − and maybe all of us − have an innate curiosity about human procreation. Regardless, there seem to be three universal rules for how and when to respond when faced with that curiosity: Make it age-appropriate, medically accurate and scientifically based.
During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked, “What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh commented that he was “not understanding why it’s not feasible” for schools to excuse children from instruction that violates their families’ religious beliefs.
I know there are parents, teachers, legislators and others who see sex education in religious terms. For those who prefer to handle this at home for religious or other reasons (or sometimes not at all), in some states parents can decline sex ed for their kids, and many schools do not even offer it.
Sharing information is often critical to keeping kids safe. That said, sometimes it also can be used to push agendas.
States require students to watch video about abortion
My home state of Indiana soon will join several other states, including Tennessee, North Dakota and Idaho, in refusing to allow parents to decide whether or not they will permit their child to view a “high definition ultrasound video, at least three (3) minutes induration, showing the development of the brain, heart, sex organs, and other vital organs in early fetal development.”
Some of the states have passed language that indicates a particular video, known as “Meet Baby Olivia,” created by Live Action, an organization that objects to abortion for any reason and was founded by prominent anti-abortion activist Lila Rose.
If sex ed is being taught in school, these laws make this video (or one very much like it) compulsory, forcing kids to watch potentially traumatic material that many parents would appreciate exempting their children from, even while they’d prefer to opt into sex ed for those same kids.
In 2024, then-Iowa Rep. Molly Buck, who has taught elementary school for 28 years, summed this issue up well.
“When we talk about indoctrination of kids, we have to be mindful of both sides,” Buck said. “We don’t want the ‘liberal left’ indoctrinating our kids, and we don’t want the right side indoctrinating our kids, either. So our kids need factual health information, not fictional.”
Kids are not Lego sets and certainly don’t come with detailed instructions. The night “Dumbo” came to dinner, I answered Owen’s questions with way too much information. It was medically sound and scientifically based but, I soon discovered, not age appropriate.
I had made things worse. I wanted to make my little guy feel better yet did the opposite. So I took the easy way out − I distracted him with chocolate milk and dropped the conversation for about 10 years.
To this day, I’m grateful my son had access to age-appropriate information delivered by competent educators at his school. It’s important that we give our children factual information they can understand.
Looking back, I certainly would have opted into sex ed that would have provided Owen with age-appropriate, factual information about LGBTQ+ issues. I also know I would have strongly objected to content such as the “Meet Baby Olivia” video − content the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not endorse as it is neither medically correct nor scientifically based.
We must show fairness to all families.
Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of the families objecting to LGBTQ+ content in Montgomery County, it must consistently and similarly defend the rights of all parents − including those who wish to opt out of what many see as content that teaches about the birds and the bees with a strong dose of anti-reproductive justice.
Religious and political propaganda has no place in our schools. Facts and fairness, however, do.
Christina Hale is a former Indiana state legislator and Democratic candidate for the U.S. House. Hale is the author of “Why Not You: A Leadership Guide for the Change-Makers of Tomorrow.”
发表回复