‘Gender secrecy regime’: Parents battle trans brainwashing in schools
A lawsuit over whether parents are allowed to know about what their schools are telling their children is going to continue.
Officials with the Thomas More Society say that U.S.. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez in California has denied in a court order all Motions to Dismiss in Mirabelli v. Olson.
That lawsuit challenges “Parental Exclusion Policies” adopted by schools that specifically prevent parents form knowing about some of their own children’s activities in school.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and members of the California Department of Education and the Escondido Union School District had demanded the case be thrown out.
They had claimed that their rules limiting what parents are allowed to know was “just a suggestion” so there was nobody really harmed by their agenda.
However, Benitez found that the parents “enjoy standing and have stated plausible claims upon which relief can be granted.”
“The Supreme Court has long recognized that parents hold a federal constitutional Due Process right to direct the heath care and education of their children,” the judge said.
“The Defendants stand on unprecedented and more recently created state law child rights to privacy and to be free from gender discrimination.”
Paul Jonna, special counsel with the society, explained, “We are incredibly pleased that the Court has denied all attempts to throw out our landmark challenge to California’s parental exclusion and gender secrecy regime. Judge Benitez’s order rightly highlights the sacrosanct importance of parents’ rights in our constitutional order, and the First Amendment protections afforded to parents and teachers.”
The judge said, “By concealing a child’s gender health issues from the parents, parents are precluded from exercising their religious obligations to raise and care for their child at a time when it may be highly significant. [T]he teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.”
The judge added, “This Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.