The 3 - October 1, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian communities, includes a federal court victory for laws in two states that prevent minors from receiving treatments and surgeries that claim to help them change their "gender."  Plus, the transgender agenda is alive and well in California after the governor signed multiple bills.  Also, the federal agency responsible for protecting employees has sued two companies who did not allow religious exemptions for employees who declined to receive COVID shots on the basis of conscience. 

"Medical mutilation" bills allowed to take effect in KY, TN

Some incorrectly call it "gender-affirming care," another example of using vocabulary to misrepresent an agenda.  This type of so-called "care" involves treatments and surgeries that promise a change of gender - a biological answer to a psychological issue.  I have even become aware of the phrase, "medical mutilation."

And, the states of Kentucky and Tennessee have passed laws that would prevent performing these treatments and procedures on minors.  According to the Alliance Defending Freedom website, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a "decision Thursday in L.W. v. Skrmetti to uphold Tennessee and Kentucky state laws that protect children from harmful and unnecessary medical procedures..."

ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch stated in response: "Tennessee and Kentucky are right to protect minors from harmful, irreversible, and experimental medical procedures that can permanently alter children’s bodies without any proven long-term benefit." He added, "...the court concluded, ‘no one disputes that these treatments carry risks or that the evidence supporting their use is far from conclusive.’"

Bursch continued:

“Activist groups and professionals with large financial interests continue to push harmful puberty-blockers, potentially sterilizing cross-sex hormones, and irreversible genital-mutilation surgeries on children too young to understand the long-term implications for their lives. The 6th Circuit rightly agreed that Tennessee and Kentucky are free to implement laws that protect vulnerable children and give them time to flourish..."

This court victory comes just a few weeks after the 11th Circuit allowed Alabama's Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, or VCAP law to take effect while the court action progresses, likely to resume next spring.  ADF is assisting Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall in its defense of the law. 

California parents face onslaught of transgender-supportive bills

Last week, it was announced that California Governor Gavin Newsom had inexplicably vetoed a pro-transgender bill that would, according to an article at The Washington Stand, "require family courts to consider parental stances on 'gender affirmation' in custody disputes."  The article says:

When Newsom vetoed the bill late Friday night, however, he didn’t condemn the legislation as radical. Instead, he applauded “the passion and values” behind the bill, and merely faulted the bill as an “attempt to dictate — in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic — legal standards for the judicial branch to apply.”

But, as the article notes, "in the days after he vetoed AB 957, Newsom signed a raft of other bills advancing transgender ideology at the expense of parental rights."  It states that the governor...

...signed nine other bills aimed at “supporting LGBTQ+ Californians.” The governor said signing those bills into law “will help protect vulnerable youth, promote acceptance, and create more supportive environments in our schools and communities.”

Those bills “promote acceptance” by mandating adherence to the ideology that a child’s “gender identity” overrides his or her biological sex. One measure would train teachers to profile parents, watching out for non-“affirming” guardians who allegedly pose a danger to their own children.

The article says:

These new laws do not directly target parental rights, but they do further entrench the transgender ideology behind Newsom’s worst assaults on the right of moms and dads to make health decisions for their own children.

Under the measures that Newsom signed into law, California teachers will learn to profile non-“affirming” parents, launch an ideological transformation of schools that likely will demonize such parents as instruments of “bullying and harassment,” ban such parents from raising kids in the foster system, and prevent such parents from pressuring their school boards to remove sexually explicit books from school libraries.

EEOC sues private employers for conscience violations on COVID shot

The federal agency known as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in an effort to defend civil rights, has filed a lawsuit against two companies who did not grant religious exemptions for employees who had declined to receive the COVID-19 shot, according to Liberty Counsel's website. 

The website states:

...the agency sued two companies under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act claiming that they violated federal law by refusing to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees and not letting them opt out of their shot mandates.

The lawsuits involve Arkansas-based Hank’s Furniture, a retail home furniture store with locations across four states, and Cleveland-based health care provider United Health Services, Inc., (United). Each company denied one of their employees a religious exemption and later fired them for not complying with the company’s shot mandate.

Under Title VII, the agency contends, according to Liberty Counsel, "in these cases, that the companies could have exempted their employees without suffering any 'undue hardship.'”  The Christian law organization notes that:

The timing of the agency’s lawsuits follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 9-0 decision in Groff v. Dejoy made last June. The High Court overturned a previous precedent that allowed businesses to easily claim “undue hardship” on the business and deny religious accommodations, but employers must now demonstrate the burden of “substantial increased costs” that granting an accommodation would have on their business.

The 3 - September 24, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three recent and relevant stories of interest to Christians, there are more developments out of California, including a school district policy to allow school officials to withhold information about students' gender identity issues from parents being put on hold by a federal judge.  Also, the debate over the availability of inappropriate books being made available to children  continued in a Congressional committee.  And, the United Nations has passed what is called a "declaration" supporting measures to be taken in a pandemic situations that include actions relative to abortion and gender identity. 

Courts deliver conflicting decisions on school board policies on parental notification re: gender, governor vetoes gender-related bill 

California school boards have been making policies regarding the notification of parents regarding their students' gender identity.  Recently, not only was there a court decision putting the implementation of one such policy on hold, but a district which went in the opposite direction was reigned in by another court decision.

Liberty Counsel, on its website, reported on these conflicting decisions:

A federal district judge recently ruled in favor of two Christian teachers by temporarily blocking San Diego County’s Escondido Unified School District’s (USD) policy that required the teachers to lie to parents and hide students’ gender confusion. The ruling comes a week after San Bernardino Superior Court granted a temporary restraining order against Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) in San Bernardino County blocking its blanket policy of being honest with parents about gender identity and their children.

The Escondido ruling, according to the site was by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who "issued a preliminary injunction that protects two Christian middle school teachers who challenged the secrecy policy. The teachers argued that the policy infringed on their First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise of religion rights, and if they were to comply and be dishonest with parents it would violate their 'sincerely held religious beliefs.'"

The Chino ruling was issued by a county Superior Court in response to a challenge by California's Attorney General to the district's parental notification policy. Liberty Counsel reports that the San Bernadino Superior Court, "a state-level court, blocked its new policy of notifying parents if students wish to be known as a different gender or change their pronouns," adding, "The ruling blocks the policy until an October 13 hearing to determine whether to allow or permanently block the policy."

Liberty Counsel notes that, "Despite Attorney General Bonta’s investigation and lawsuit, at least six other California school districts have enacted similar policies, such as Orange, Temecula, Murrieta, Rocklin, and Dry Creek Unified School Districts, and Anderson Union High School District."

Meanwhile, there's another development out of the Golden State regarding a bill passed by the state Legislature. FoxNews.com reports that Governor Gavin Newsom, "...vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges in child custody cases to consider whether a parent has affirmed their child's gender identity." Newsom said: "...I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate -in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic -legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply," adding, "Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities."

Graphic book tension makes its way to Congressional committee

I have been following the concern being expressed by parents regarding objectionable content being offered in libraries.  That topic made its way to Congress recently.

CBN.com reported that:

The fight over allowing sexually explicit books in schools spilled into the halls of Congress Tuesday as a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing spotlighted so-called book "bans..."

But, Sen. Mike Lee said, "This is not a ban. This is about schools deciding what's appropriate for school children, and sexually explicit, obscene, pornographic material isn't appropriate and many parents are legitimately concerned about that..."

The Daily Signal noted that Sen. John Kennedy...

...read from two books—“All Boys Aren’t Blue” and “Gender Queer: A Memoir”—both of which have been removed from bookshelves in school districts across the country over their sexual content.

The article, originally from The Daily Caller, noted that..."Kennedy...questioned...Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias of Illinois, a witness at the hearing, about whether he thought the book should be available to kids, as well as Cameron Samuels, a student who uses 'they/them' pronouns and had a placard with the title 'Mx. Cameron Samuels.'

The article relates:

“It’s pronounced Mix,” Samuels said. “Senator, your definition of ‘sexual’ is synonymous with LGBTQ identity.”

Samuels went on to say that there should be “collaboration between students, parents, and educators” on the availability of books and defended the books from which Kennedy read.

“All Boys Aren’t Blue, the scene you mentioned, is about sexual abuse. It’s not erotic … Students who do not read books like ‘All Boys Aren’t Blue’ cannot learn what is appropriate,” Samuels said.

“All I’ve heard is the librarians [get to decide], and parents have nothing to do with it. If that’s your response, what planet did you just parachute in from? Or what country, more appropriately? This is not China,” Kennedy said.

The CBN article quoted from Max Eden, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who said, "To put it bluntly, books aren't being banned...," adding, "The media keeps using the word 'banned,' but that word doesn't mean what you think it means. In common usage, 'banned' means 'made unavailable.' Yet the most banned Gender Queer is still available on Amazon. The same can't be said for Ryan Anderson's When Harry Became Sally. Only books on one side of that issue it seems, actually get banned..."

Eden challenged the definition of "banned," according to the organization, Pen America. He said, "If a book has been taken off of shelves, reviewed, and then placed back on the shelves, it has, according to Pen, been banned. If a school places parental permission requirement on a book, it has, according to Pen, been banned. If a school moves a book to a guidance counselor's office, it has, according to Pen, been banned..."  The article says that Eden...

...told the committee that he and a few of his colleagues from The Heritage Foundation decided to see how many of the 2,532 books in Pen's 2022 report that were labeled as banned, were actually removed from school libraries.

"We did this with one simple trick. We checked the card catalog," he told the senators. "As it turns out, nearly three-quarters of the books that Pen labeled as banned were still in school libraries."

WHO's there?  UN-doing rights

During the COVID pandemic, we saw numerous instances of public officials - elected and unelected - using the threat of the COVID to strip citizens of their freedoms, including the freedom of assembly in church services and overriding of conscience decisions regarding the COVID vaccines. 

The Washington Stand reported on a non-binding resolution passed at the U.N. General Assembly last week.  The article notes:

On Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly passed a non-binding declaration that purported to “strengthen” collaboration and coordination between nations in order to “better prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics.” But experts say that buried in the declaration are references that have nothing to do with preventing pandemics, including language to expand abortion, gender ideology, and speech censorship.

The article quotes Chris Gacek, senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council, who said that the declaration "...is a roadmap of what the U.N. and the agencies are supporting,” referring to it as "a wish list of socialism and all of their social policies.” He added, "...where the rubber’s going to hit the road is in these things like the WHO’s [World Health Organization] international health regulations and the pandemic treaty that’s in the works.”

In fact, as The Washington Stand notes:

On the same day the declaration was released, the WHO “welcomed” it, stating that it lays out “numerous requirements” that member states need to abide by. As previously reported by TWS, the WHO has already indicated that it intends to establish “a platform for global governance through health care,” as described by former congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

The article also relates:

Arielle Del Turco, director of FRC’s Center for Religious Liberty, was blunt in her assessment of what the U.N. and the WHO appear to be doing through the declaration.

“Progressive forces that love abortion will use every avenue to advance their deadly cause,” she told TWS. “Activists are using a declaration about pandemic preparedness to advance ‘universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services’ which we know means universal abortion expansionism. It is dangerous and abusive to pressure countries to expand abortion under the guise of responding to future pandemics.”

The 3 - September 17, 2023

This week's edition of The 3 includes news out of the United Kingdom, where a major officials has decided to announce that praying in front of an abortion clinic is not illegal.  Also, a former clerk in Kentucky who would not issue same-sex marriage licenses has received two verdicts - one in her favor, another not.  Plus, a federal appeals court has decided that government officials acted illegally when it conspired with social media companies to manipulate content.

British officials says prayer at abortion clinics is not illegal

Over the last year, three people have been arrested in the United Kingdom for engaging in silent prayer outside of abortion clinics, according to an article at the Life Institute website. 

Now, the British Home Secretary has said that this type of expression is not against the law.  The website article says...

Britain’s Home Secretary Suella Braverman has announced that silent prayer near abortion providers is not a crime.

The article goes on to say: "Ms Braverman has written to every police force in the UK to say that 'silent prayer, within itself, is not unlawful.'"  It adds:

The Home Secretary also reminded police that “holding lawful opinions, even if those opinions may offend others, is not a criminal offence”.

Pro-life advocate Isabel Vaughn-Spruce, who had been arrested for such prayer, hailed the Home Secretary's action.  The article also noted:

The Home Secretary’s intervention was welcomed by Megan Ní Scealláin of the Life Institute who said that it was a “real victory for free speech, and pro-life prayer, and for those who showed courage and resilience in standing up for both mothers and babies”.

“Isabel, and Fr Seán Gough and others who have been arrested for their silent witness are a real inspiration to the hundreds of thousands of people who are horrified by the spiralling abortion rates and who want to offer a better answer for mothers and babies,” she said.

Gough "had charges dismissed after he was arrested for silent prayer and for having a pro-life bumper sticker on his car within the zone," according to Life Institute.

Former KY clerk wins one court case, loses another

After the Obergefell decision allowed same-sex marriage in the U.S., a Kentucky clerk named Kim Davis made a decision to not issue licenses to same-sex couples in her county.  Davis was sued for damages by two same-sex couples.  Verdicts were handed down last week.

Liberty Counsel represented Davis, and its website stated:

The Yates v. Davis and Ermold v. Davis cases each involve a same-sex couple who sued Davis in 2015 following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision regarding “same-sex marriage.” During the trial, two juries heard the same evidence and the same arguments in both cases. In Yates v. Davis, the jury awarded zero damages because that is what the evidence required. The plaintiffs in that case originally asked for $300,000 in damages.

The Ermold verdict was a different story, however.  Liberty Counsel reports:

...without any evidentiary support, the Ermold jury reached a verdict of $50,000 for each plaintiff. The evidence presented at trial simply does not support that verdict. The plaintiffs asked for $50,000 each in damages, alleging that David Ermold was terminated from the University of Pikeville because of the Kim Davis case. During the trial, the Human Resource Director testified that was not true and that Ermold’s position was downsized along with other positions. Losing their basis to allege damages, the Ermold plaintiffs then changed gears during the trial to allege they should receive damages for hurt feelings.

So, the Ermond decision will be appealed, according to the Christian legal organization.  Liberty Counsel contends that Kim Davis was not only "entitled" to a religious accommodation, but received one from then-Governor Matt Bevin, as well as from the Kentucky Legislature.  Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel is quoted as saying:

“We look forward to appealing this decision for Kim Davis. We will argue religious accommodation under the First Amendment, and other state and federal laws. We will also argue that Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Yesterday’s jury verdict has paved the way for this case to go the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Appeals court upholds decision on unlawful coordination between federal agencies and social media companies

It was on Independence Day this year when a federal judge ruled that federal government agencies improperly coordinated with social media companies to communicate its narrative on a variety of issues, in violation of the First Amendment. 

The Daily Citizen from Focus on the Family reports that:

On September 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that “numerous federal officials coerced social-media platforms into censoring certain social-media content, in violation of the First Amendment.”

The court said the White House, the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) flouted the First Amendment by coercing or encouraging social-media platforms to censor content. The involvement of government officials in the content decisions of social media companies “render[ed] those decisions state actions,” thereby triggering the U.S. Constitution’s Free Speech Clause.

The article states:

The Daily Citizen has previously reported on numerous instances in which federal government officials coordinated with social media companies to block content they didn’t like.

In effect, such censorship grants government nearly unlimited powers over speech on social media that it doesn’t like – something the court has now found to be unconstitutional.

The states of Missouri and Louisiana are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, along with several individuals. The article states:

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said after the ruling,

Our team will continue to construct this wall of separation between tech and state. Yesterday’s ruling was one more brick laid in that foundation. Your First Amendment rights are not up for debate.

The 3 - September 10, 2023

On this week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, there is abundant news out of California as more school districts pass parental notification policies and state officials continue to oppose parents' rights.  Also, the Texas Supreme Court has allowed a law passed by the Legislature banning "gender change" surgeries and treatments to continue to be enforce while the case proceeds.  And, a member of the Parliament in Finland is facing another trial regarding instances of speech consistent with the Bible. 

Gender policy explodes across Golden State

There are numerous headlines this week across California regarding the concept of parental rights and the connect to issues of gender.  First of all, there is good news out of Orange County, where, according to the Los Angeles Times:

The Orange Unified school board Thursday night became the sixth California school system to require notifying parents when their child identifies as transgender — a decision made after state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against Chino schools over a similar policy.

And, the Attorney General received support from a local judge - FoxNews.com reported:

A California judge has temporarily blocked a school district from enforcing a policy requiring schools to inform parents if their child changes their gender identification or pronouns.

The decision Wednesday by San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Thomas S. Garza came after California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office filed a lawsuit against the Chino Valley Unified School District over the notification measure.

While the tension between local school districts and state officials continues, the California Legislature weighed in on a bill that deals a blow to parental rights. The Daily Signal stated:

The California State Assembly passed a bill Friday that would require judges in child custody cases to consider whether a parent has affirmed a child’s “gender transition” by making “gender affirmation” an equal part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare” under state law.

Unfortunately, in the Assembly on Friday, the vote wasn't even close: 57-16. The Senate had approved the bill on Wednesday by a 30-9 margin. The article said that according to the bill...

...parents who refuse to participate in transgenderism by pretending that their child is a different gender could be guilty of failing to provide for the “health, safety, and welfare” of their child—therefore losing custody to another parent or the state.

The article notes:

Threatening the standard of “health, safety, and welfare” of a child under the California Family Code can carry penalties under the California Penal Code—prompting parents, activists, and lawmakers to speculate that AB 957 could result in parents being charged with child abuse or neglect for not participating in a child’s transgenderism.

Highest court in Texas issues ruling to protect children

Meanwhile, in Texas recently, the state's Supreme Court ruled in favor of a new law in the state that is designed to protect minors from harmful surgeries and treatments that promise to help them change their gender. 

On Friday, September 1, Liberty Counsel reported on its website:

The law, known as SB 14, was set to take effect today after it was enacted June 2, 2023, but a district court judge temporarily blocked it last month granting opponents of the law an emergency stay citing potential violations of the state constitution. However, state officials appealed the decision prompting the state’s High Court to deny the emergency stay and let the law take effect while the Court fully considers the appeal.

The website described the law as "banning harmful puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and mutilating surgeries for children..." It points out that, "At least 22 states have enacted legislation protecting children from harmful and often irreversible medical mutilation."

Member of Parliament in Finland on trial before appeals court

Päivi Räsänen is a Member of Parliament in Finland.  According to the Evangelical Focus website:

The case against Räsänen started in 2019 after a tweet in which she quoted Romans 1:24-27. She later was investigated by the police for a booklet titled “Male and Female He Created Them” published 15 years earlier, and remarks on a radio show.

She was acquitted in the Helsinki District Court in March 2022, with an unanimous verdict that ruled she acted within the limits of the law in her expression of her religious convictions about homosexuality. Päivi Räsänen was using her freedom of expression and religion when she referred to her biblical beliefs regarding LGBT issues, the judges said.

But, she and another dependent were placed on trial again recently before the Helsinki Court of Appeal.  The Evangelical Focus article stated:

Right after leaving the court, Räsänen said she was “hopeful that all these charges will be acquitted. It’s a very important verdict for freedom of speech and of religion and Finland, and also has consequences across Europe, I’m hopeful for a good result”.

The court said that a verdict will be issued by November 30.

The 3 - September 3, 2023

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes news of the conviction of five pro-life protestors at a clinic in the nation's capital.  Also, a city in Iowa has reversed course on a ban against counseling people who wish to overcome same-sex attraction. And, parents in California are facing opposition from a state government official after a local school board approved a new parental notification policy require parents to be informed by school officials regarding gender identity information. 

Pro-life activists convicted for actions outside DC clinic

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE, Act, was used to convict five pro-life activists from an organization called the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU), which had staged a protest at an abortion clinic in Washington, DC - the Washington Surgi-Clinic, which, according to an article at The Federalist website, is "operated by the late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo." The article says that, "They were also charged and found guilty of one count of conspiracy to block the entrance..."

 

The article quotes from the Thomas More Society, which represents one of the defendants, Lauren Handy, with its account of what occurred that day in the fall of 2020:

“Some simply kneeled and prayed at Santangelo’s facility, some passed out pro-life literature and counseled abortion-minded women, and others roped and chained themselves together inside the facility.”

The article goes on to say:

Handy told the jury: “My belief that was formed after watching the video was … if the fetus survived the abortion attempt, they were left to die” at Santangelo’s facility. It was outside this same D.C. facility that the bodies of 115 preborn babies were recovered in March of 2022. At least five of the babies were significantly larger — between 20 to 40 weeks gestational age, with one boy appearing nearly full term.

The Federalist also reported that, "The defendants could face up to 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and fines of up to $350,000."

FoxNews.com reported:

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said in a statement to Fox News Digital Tuesday’s verdict is "a shameful day for a nation founded on unalienable rights, first and foremost including life."

"Pro-life advocates like Lauren Handy have put their freedom on the line – peacefully and bravely – to protect babies and women from the brutality of abortion. They have done a vital public service in exposing the horrors of late-term abortion taking place in D.C., where there are no limits on abortion up to birth, and across the country," the statement read.

City in Iowa rescinds counseling ban

In May of last year, the City Council in Waterloo, Iowa voted on a ban on counseling designed to help a minor child overcome same-sex attraction.  The Daily Citizen reports, "Under the guise of banning so-called 'conversion therapy,' the City Council prohibited any medical or mental health professional from helping minors struggling with unwanted homosexuality or transgenderism."  The article notes:

As the Daily Citizen has previously stated, “conversion therapy” is a term invented by activists who oppose the truth that some people with same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion don’t want to embrace those thoughts, feelings, identities or behaviors. It is a non-existent practice – but these bans have the effect of prohibiting legitimate professional therapy for those with unwanted sexual identity confusion or homosexual identity, attractions and behaviors.

Under the threat of legal action, expressed by a letter to the Council in Waterloo from Liberty Counsel, the City Council repealed that ordinance.  Liberty Counsel said that its...

...June 30 demand letter showed that local governments in Iowa do not have the authority to regulate licensed counseling because the Iowa Legislature has given that power solely to Iowa’s Board of Behavior Science.

In addition, the letter explained that Waterloo’s ban on counseling therapy (erroneously called “conversion therapy”) was “offensive to the First Amendment” because it banned counseling “based on the viewpoint of that counseling.”

Liberty Counsel reported the original vote in favor of the ordinance was 6-1 - it was repealed by a 4-3 vote.

Parents square off against state pols in CA

In California, several school districts have adopted parental notification policies that would require school officials to notify parents if their children express a desire to identify as another gender outside of their biological sex.  The Chino Valley Unified School District passed such a policy and is facing heat from the state's Attorney General.

The Washington Stand reports that AG Rob Bonta has sued the district, "alleging the school district’s policy requiring faculty and staff to notify parents of students’ attempted gender transitions is a civil rights violation." The article quotes Greg Burt, director of capitol engagement for the California Family Council, who said in an interview that “Passing this lawsuit actually helps get the message out, exposing what [the] California Department of Ed. and our school districts are actually doing and what they really think of parents. They think they’re dangerous.” He added, “It’s undeniable now that, yes, it is true that the state of California thinks they’re better parents than the average parent.”

WORLD Magazine reports: "Chino Valley School Board President Sonja Shaw said the lawsuit was an attempt to 'shut parents out of their children’s lives.'” It noted that California School Districts Temecula Valley and Murrieta Valley have also implemented parental notification policies.  Last week on The Meeting House, I discussed how Sonja Shaw's Christian faith has driven her actions as president of the school board.  I quoted from a Christian Post article, which said:

“People from all over the nation have called, emailed and continue to write letters of support and saying this gave them hope,” she explained. “A few years ago, when I joined this journey, God kept showing me hope [in] Jeremiah 29:11.

“I have drawn closer and closer to God during this time and look to Him for direction and protection.”

And, just days ago, The Daily Signal reported that: "Protect Kids California, a coalition of parental rights advocates and others who oppose gender ideology, filed three ballot initiatives...for the November 2024 ballot, aiming to circumvent the Golden State’s Legislature." The article says:

The ballot measures require schools to notify parents if their children claim to identify as transgender, prevent biological males from entering women’s spaces and sports, and forbid medical professionals from putting kids on experimental drugs or performing surgery on them to “affirm” a gender identity opposite their biological sex.