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.”