Conflicts over parental rights and authority happen when a regime believes it has correct doctrine. People who disagree with that doctrine are then in danger of losing their children. America has historically eschewed state doctrine, with a procedural republic outlined in the Constitution, culturally supported by a variety of Christian traditions with strong doctrines and a morality that was essentially the same. The Culture War attacks those doctrines and that morality with a new doctrine of self-determination, and consequently, parental rights are in danger.
Emily Kao, Senior Counsel & Vice President of Advocacy Strategy for the Alliance Defending Freedom discussed the attack on parental rights, and how it should be understood and addressed with several panelists at the Heritage Foundation on July 27. She highlighted “the Promise to America’s Parents.” This “is a movement of public policy organizations, parents, and we hope lawmakers, to protect parental rights.” She said that while “parents love and know their children the best,” the “administrative state” is expanding to threaten parental authority in directing the education of children. Identity politics in injecting itself into education through the power of the administrative state.
Recognition of Parental Rights as Constitutional Rights
Matt Sharp, Senior Counsel and State Government Relations National Director at ADF said that parental rights need to be firmly recognized as a fundamental freedom. Historically, the Supreme Court has given parental rights strong support. Pierce vs. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (1925), recognizing the right to religiously based education, is surely the most important of these decisions.
Sharp, however, referred to a situation in Wisconsin where a school district had instructed its staff to hide the “gender transitioning” of children from parents. He said that parental rights should include the right to direct the education of children. Parents should also be the ones to decide “what’s best for their child’s mental, physical, emotional health.” Parents should also be the ones to determine their child’s “religious and moral training.” Controversial topics today, such as “Critical Race Theory,” or “Critical Gender Theory,” should be addressed as parents believe is proper. He said that “accountability” in the area of parental rights is” a clear standard of what those parental rights are, describing what they are, and then giving parents a legal remedy, giving them a true ability to hold the government accountable when those rights are violated.”
Sharp observed that in the year 2000, parental rights were put in doubt by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel vs. Granville. While this decision voided a Washington state law giving third party visitation rights over parental objections, and held that parental rights are a fundamental right, it also left parental rights open to protection by intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. Some courts now strongly support parental rights, and others “diminish” parental rights. A real problem in this regard is executive orders from the Biden Administration that “undermine parental rights over mental and physical health care.” Congress, Sharp said, should act to ensure that the federal government recognizes parental rights as fundamental in federal policy, and that legal remedies are available when the administrative state oversteps its boundaries and violates parental rights.
Joseph Kohm, Director of Public Policy of the Family Policy Alliance said that fifteen states now have parental rights laws, but thirty-five do not. Thirty “family policy councils” work within states and state legislatures to “effectuate” good policy with respect to families. These laws may or may not have a private right of action to enforce parental rights. Important in passing these bills has been personal accounts of how parental rights are denied (e.g., denying parent access to their child’s medical records) or subverted (e.g., surveying students about personal issues such as the state of the parents’ marriage).
Sharp remarked that the ability for private legal action is important, because laws without this often are not enforced. The federal “Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment” deals with surveys about personal or religious issues, and requires parental consent for such surveys, but an actual violation will likely result in the filing of a complaint, with no further action taken by the government.
A questioner asked about the “in loco parentis” doctrine, in which the school functions in the role of the parent. Sharp said courts have taken this doctrine “to the extreme.” He observed that the Ninth Circuit Court maintained that the only rights parents have against indoctrination in leftist ideologies is to make another educational choice than the public schools. Kohm added that in a number of school districts there is a specific policy to deceive parents about the “gender transitioning” of their child. Medical records access provisions of parental rights law are thus very important.
Educational Choice for Parents
Kao then raised the issue of educational choice which, she said, includes parental right of choice in the health care of their children as well as education. She observed that until recently, interest by school personnel in a sexually confused child with a view to encouraging the child to dissociate from his or her biological sex would not have been likely (or even conceivable). But it is currently treated in many school district guidelines as “the proper standard of care.” In the “Dutch protocol,” counselors and medical personnel attempt to effect a child’s change to the opposite sex first by treating the child as a member of the opposite sex (change of personal name, pronouns, rest room and locker room use), followed by puberty blocking drugs and opposite sex hormones, followed by surgery to alter sexual anatomy (which results in sterility).
Kao observed that twenty states have prohibited professional counseling to orient a child to his or her biological sex, while encouraging dissociation from one’s biological sex. She asked Jay Richards, Director of the DeVos Center for Life, Family, and Religion at the Heritage Foundation, what the federal government is doing. Richards said the Biden administration is committed to gender ideology. It’s “National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality” commits the executive branch to implementing gender ideology, as it is doing in new regulations. A proposed regulation in late July would interpret “sex” in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which prohibits sex discrimination in healthcare to mean “gender identity.” This would mandate health insurance for “gender transitioning,” ultimately from private medical insurers. But there are many other examples, Richards said, where by attempting to change rules or promulgate new rules, the administration has tried to “set in concrete gender ideology with respect to health care.”
Kao and Richards also observed that most parents do not want to their child to undergo gender transitioning but are confronted by school personnel and professional counselors who insist that it is the proper treatment for sexual confusion and its denial will lead to suicide. Research support for the suicide risk claim, he said, is based on two papers by the same author and one by an activist organization. None offered randomized control trials, and when controlling for relevant factors “the signal falls apart.” But he said that at least some contrary evidence was supplied by another researcher, Jay Greene. He compared states in which minors can obtain puberty blocking drugs without parental consent with states in which they cannot. States in which minors cannot obtain puberty blockers without parental consent had lower suicidal ideation. It might be added that studies in Sweden showed the suicide was 19 times higher with people who had undergone sexual anatomy altering surgery. But Richards said that for the duration of the Biden Administration, one can expect “a full court press on anything related to gender ideology.”
Kao asked Lindsey Burke, Director of the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation, what parents want with respect to public education. Burke said that parents want to be seen as partners in education, not as “conspirators; they want to act hand in glove with their children’s school.” Parents should have “accountability, choice, and transparency.” This means “parents should know exactly what is being taught.” They shouldn’t “have to FOIA information about what is being taught.”
Burke also said that a Heritage survey found that “66% of parents … and 80% of school board members … believed that schools should refrain from teaching young children in kindergarten and elementary school about sexual activity, including sexual orientation and gender identity.” The impression, caused by controversy between parents and schools, that school boards are overwhelmingly leftist, favoring gender ideology, is thus false. Gender ideology, and leftist ideology in general is driven by teachers’ unions, schools of education which train new teachers, and diversity officers (now employed by 39% of school districts, and 80% of large school districts). She said that even though most families do not accept Critical Theory (gender ideology, Critical Race Theory, etc.), the true purpose of diversity officers is to create and enforce an ideological orthodoxy in schools that faculty and parents and students must adhere to. Teachers in particular receive the brunt of this, but overall, Chief Diversity Officers advance and enforce an unpopular viewpoint.
Burke said, however, that in the encounter with the diversity ideology in public schools, there has been considerable success. She noted the new law in Arizona which gives educational choice in that state. It is “the first truly universal” educational choice act, giving families $7,000 in “an education savings account” per child if they choose an alternative other than the public schools. This, she believes, will result in higher accountability in the public schools for the education they offer, and is a “gold standard” for educational choice. Many states are moving toward something like this model.
A questioner asked what citizens, not necessarily parents, can do to advance educational accountability. Burke said that everyone has an interest in public education, since it forms future Americans. Citizens “should voice support for educational choice” to ensure the accountability of public schools for their education. She said that about 10% of the public are in fact involved with school boards, and this low level of participation has enabled teachers’ unions to “capture” school boards.
Another questioner asked what parents or other concerned citizens can do when school officials appeal to the statements of professional associations and federal agencies to support gender ideology, which claim expert knowledge. Richards responded that it is indeed a problem that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Health and Human Services Department all support “gender affirming care.” Their official positions are not based on what the majority of pediatricians believe, but on what the organizational leadership chooses to promulgate. He said that there are alternative professional associations that oppose gender ideology and gender transitioning. The American College of Pediatricians is such an association. So, experts do disagree, but it should also be pointed out, Richards said, that medical experts in the past have insisted on other orthodoxies that were later discredited. In the early twentieth century, medical experts advanced eugenics to improve human life, persuading even the U.S. Supreme Court to agree that it was objectively the best policy. Pre-frontal lobotomies were once thought to be the solution for psychiatric disorders and are now recognized as destructive of mental capacities.
Kao observed that Dr. Allan Josephson, who spoke against gender transitioning at the Heritage Foundation, was later terminated by his university. She said that any medical professional speaking against gender ideology faces enormous pressure to back down.
A subsequent article will review the comments of other panelists on the ways in which the ideologies of Critical Theory are being mandated in public schools.
It can be viewed here.
Comment by Nathan on August 12, 2022 at 1:11 pm
The characterization of Troxel holding that intermediate scrutiny applies to parental rights is not accurate.
Thomas’s concurrence complained that the other 5 in the majority did not articulate a standard, and would have applied strict scrutiny. But the majority held that the state infringed parental rights in this case under any applicable standard. The majority did not reach the issue of which standard to apply. This leaves future cases open to determine what standard does apply.
Comment by Rick Plasterer on August 12, 2022 at 2:54 pm
Nathan,
Matt Sharp said the court did not specify whether the case should be decided by strict or intermediate scrutiny. I have altered the article to say that the court left parental rights open to judgment by intermediate scrutiny.
Thank you for this clarification,
Rick
Comment by Loren J Golden on August 12, 2022 at 8:07 pm
“Burke…noted the new law in Arizona which gives educational choice in that state. It is ‘the first truly universal’ educational choice act, giving families $7,000 in “an education savings account” per child if they choose an alternative other than the public schools.”
That is, if Arizona parents can keep it. There is an effort underway to put a ballot measure before the voters, called “Save Our Schools Arizona” that is seeking to direct all taxpayer dollars collected for education to the public schools. Sending one’s children to private schools remains an option for those who can afford it, but if this initiative were to pass, it would curtail underprivileged parents from the option of sending their children to private schools.
Comment by David on August 14, 2022 at 6:07 pm
Well, there are parents who are against sex education. They feel if sex is explained, their kids will go out and do it. They can also oppose vaccinations for HPV that can prevent infection and cancer. Kids have a right to know how their bodies work if parents object. They also have a right to know about evolution in science classes and slavery in history classes. This is part of what education is all about.
The American College of Pediatrics is a longtime professional organization. However, anyone can establish their own “college” including those who failed the board certification exam. The group cited in the article, the American College of Pediatricians, has been described:
“Founded in 2002, ACP is a deceptively titled organization that actually promotes an anti-LGBTQ agenda. In fact, the organization has been called out by the Southern Poverty Law Center for their discriminatory and harmful rhetoric. Among their many supporters is notable anti-LGBTQ organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which has filed numerous lawsuits against LGBTQ individuals in areas including employment and housing protections.”
Comment by Jeff on August 14, 2022 at 11:26 pm
““Founded in 2002, ACP is a deceptively titled organization that actually promotes an anti-LGBTQ agenda.”
Good for them! Thanks for the tip David; I need to make a donation to them.
Praying GOD’s favor and blessing on ACP and Alliance Defending Freedom, and praying that SPLC experience every obstacle, difficulty and roadblock in their evil efforts, even as the individuals that comprise that principality of darkness come to repentance and salvation through conviction by the Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ Name!
Comment by Rick Plasterer on August 15, 2022 at 12:34 pm
David,
As Heritage found, the majority of parents and even a larger majority of school board members think young children should not be taught about sex in school. Indeed, I expect the great majority of young children would find it troubling. Your comments about the American College of Pediatricians shows the strategy of the cultural left. Gain control of professional associations, and then make authoritative pronouncements that citizens are not supposed to be competent to challenge. But the ACP belies that.
Rick
Comment by Douglas Ehrhardt on August 15, 2022 at 4:01 pm
Certainly grateful that there is no deception in the alphabet groups . And the leader of all things true …….The New York Times.
Comment by David on August 15, 2022 at 7:18 pm
The American College of Pediatricians claims to have 500 members. The American College of Pediatrics has 67,000 members. The second group publishes widely on medical topics. The first concerns itself with anti-abortion, anti-vaccination, anti-gay, and other positions far out of line with mainstream medicine. It is essentially an extremist group masquerading as a medical organization. You should be ashamed at referring to them as “experts.”
Comment by Rick Plasterer on August 15, 2022 at 10:10 pm
David,
I reiterate that the strategy of the Left has been and is to capture the leading institutions of society and have them make pronouncements that implement what the Left wants in professional, clinical language. But what they say is based on their assumptions. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology declares that abortion is “essential health care,” when in fact it is killing unborn children, and the American Academy of Pediatrics declares that sexually confused children and young people are being denied medical care if they don’t have their sexual development interrupted at a crucial stage and put on a path that leads to sexual mutilation, sterility, and likely life-long medicalization of their lives. Layman are indeed competent to condemn the foolishness and evil of that, as are courageous obstetricians and pediatricians.
Rick
Rick
Comment by Rick Plasterer on August 16, 2022 at 2:36 pm
A recent posting from Christian Post says whistleblower accuses American Academy of Pediatrics of stifling debate over puberty blockers:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/american-academy-pediatrics-silencing-doctors-criticism-puberty-blockers.html