California AG reaffirms controversial gender identity policy
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has defied a federal court order by instructing school districts to continue enabling secret gender transitions, according to the Thomas More Society, a non-profit group specializing in civil liberties cases and constitutional law.Mr. Bonta issued the Sept. 26 memo, “Guidance Regarding Forced Disclosure Policies Concerning Gender Identity,” to school district superintendents and Boards of Education members in the wake of several court battles against secret gender transitions at schools.On Sept. 14, Judge Roger Benitez granted a preliminary injunction against the state and the Escondido Union School District (EUSD), blocking the school district from punishing two teachers who refused to comply with guidance issued by the California Department of Education that encourages educators to conceal social gender transitions of students from their parents.
Related Stories
The teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, are suing the district, claiming it has violated their constitutional rights by forcing them to lie to parents about their child’s gender identity.
In his memo, Mr. Bonta cites both the Escondido case and a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of Chino Valley Unified School District’s parental notification policy, which requires school staff to inform parents if their child changes gender identity at school remains in “full force and effect,” and that the Escondido case has no bearing on it. The state’s request for a preliminary junction in the Chino Valley case is set for a court hearing on Oct. 13.
Mr. Bonta also claims that disclosing information to parents puts student safety at risk.
“Data underscore the threat posed by forced disclosure policies: only 37 percent of LGBTQ+ youth identified their home as supportive of their identity; one in ten transgender individuals have experienced violence at the hands of an immediate family member; 15 percent ran away or were kicked out of their home because they were transgender; and coming out to adverse parents has been shown to increase the risks of major depressive symptoms, suicide, homelessness, and drug use,” he stated in the memo.
Counter Claim
Paul Jonna, a Thomas More Society lawyer and lead attorney in the Escondido case, countered the memo in an open letter to Mr. Bonta on Sept. 27, saying it’s “deeply concerning, but unfortunately unsurprising” that the state attorney general issued the so-called ‘guidance’ in defiance of a federal court order even though the judge determined the state policy encouraging secret gender transitions at schools likely violates the U.S. Constitution.
“Californians should be deeply troubled … that this issue—hiding young children’s gender identity and social transition at school—is such a high priority for the State,” Mr. Jonna wrote. “There is no justification for Attorney General Bonta burning millions of taxpayer dollars in litigation and other resources enforcing ‘guidance’ that he now knows, and should have always known, is both unconstitutional and harmful to children.”
Mr. Jonna said that “instead of doubling down on this dangerous course of conduct,’ the state should follow the guidance of seasoned experts such as Dr. Erica Anderson, whose testimony in the Escondido case was unrebutted.
He pointed out the judge noted in the court order that Dr. Anderson explained there is not “any professional body that would endorse … policies which envision adult personnel socially transitioning a child or adolescent without evaluation of mental health professionals and without the consent of parents or over their objection.”
Dr. Anderson also testified, “there are many dangers associated with allowing young children to ‘socially transition’ without the knowledge or involvement of their parents.”
‘Trifecta of Harm’
Judge Benitez states in his 36-page ruling that EUSD’s policy of elevating a child’s gender-related choices “to that of paramount importance while excluding a parent from knowing … is as foreign to federal constitutional and statutory law as it is medically unwise.”
Additionally, the judge stated: “The school’s policy is a trifecta of harm: it harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. It harms the parents by depriving them of the long recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children. And finally, it harms plaintiffs who are compelled to violate the parent’s rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students—violating plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”
Mr. Jonna told the Epoch Times in a recent interview that Judge Benitez described the state guidance issued as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page to school districts as very misleading because it implies parental exclusion is required in the state constitution under privacy rights for children.
“They said it was non-binding guidance, but they used words like ‘required’ and ‘must’ and basically every school district interpreted it as binding,” Mr. Jonna said. “The [district] was convinced it was binding and said so at the hearing … but in fact, this was not mandatory, it was just guidance.”
According to the 233-page court transcript, the judge asked state attorneys, “Is the FAQ binding on the school district or not?” to which they reluctantly replied it isn’t and doesn’t compel school districts to enact the rule.
Parental Rights Movement
Harmeet Dhillon, the CEO, and founder of the Center for American Liberty, another civil liberties law group, told The Epoch Times her organization will continue fighting in the courts against secret gender transitions in schools and the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender transition surgeries on minors.
“They all support strong parental rights,” she said.
“Our attorney general and our governor have responded with demagoguery and threats—the governor threatening to fine school districts that try to keep pornographic books out of the hands of children … and the attorney general is suing school districts for protecting parental rights to information … with respect to gender pronouns and transgender identification of their children in the schools,” she said.
The initiatives call for parental notification policies, oppose biological boys playing in girls’ sports, and seek to ban so-called “gender-affirming” medical interventions on minors.
What is the Thomas More Society accusing Mr. Bonta of in their open letter?
Et=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>open letter, accusing Mr. Bonta of defying the federal court order and undermining parental rights.
“Your guidance is an end-run around the federal court’s order,” Jonna wrote. “It violates the court’s mandate to honor the parents’ right to control their children’s upbringing. It also infringes the constitutional rights of teachers to speak truthfully to parents on matters of significance concerning their children.”
Jonna also criticized Mr. Bonta for using unreliable data to support his position. “This is not the first time you have taken actions based on suspect sources. You issued a self-serving memo justifying the teaching of critical race theory in schools, largely based on an unpublished book chapter by someone who, from all appearances, misrepresents the facts,” he said in the letter.
The Thomas More Society is demanding that Mr. Bonta rescind the memo and instruct all school districts to comply with the court orders, and they have threatened legal action if these demands are not met.
Protecting Parental Rights
The case in Escondido and other similar cases across the country have raised concerns about parental rights and the role of schools in the gender transition of minors without parental knowledge or consent.
Supporters argue that children have a right to privacy and autonomy in making decisions about their gender identity and that disclosing this information to parents can put them at risk of harm or rejection. They believe that schools should serve as a safe space for students, providing support and resources for gender transition without necessarily involving parents.
On the other hand, critics argue that parents have a fundamental right to be informed and involved in their child’s education and well-being. They assert that schools should not make decisions of such a sensitive nature without parental consent and that it is the parents’ responsibility and right to guide their child’s development and make healthcare decisions on their behalf.
The ongoing legal battles concerning secret gender transitions in schools highlight the need for a balance between protecting minors’ rights and safeguarding parental rights.
Conclusion
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s memo advising school districts to continue enabling secret gender transitions has received backlash from the Thomas More Society and other advocates for parental rights. The ongoing legal battles surrounding secret gender transitions highlight the complex issue of balancing minors’ rights with parental rights. As the debate continues, the courts will play a crucial role in determining the outcome of these cases and shaping the future of parental involvement in their child’s gender identity exploration.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...