Tag: parental rights

Transparency: Suing Schools That Hide Trans Kids’ Identities From Parents

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns.

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents.

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.”

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so – a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Keep reading

‘The People Showed Up’: South Carolina Lawmakers Side With Parental Choice in Two Vaccine Votes

South Carolina senators clashed Wednesday over childhood vaccination policy, but ultimately sided with parental choice in two key votes, the South Carolina Daily Gazette reported.

A Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee voted 7-1 to advance legislation prohibiting vaccine mandates for children under age 2.

Minutes later, the panel voted 6-2 to reject a separate proposal that would have removed religious exemptions for the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Advocacy groups supporting parental rights called the outcome a major statement on constitutional protections.

“Yesterday was a remarkable day for South Carolinians — and a reminder to the rest of the nation and the world that constitutional rights still matter,” Andrea Lamont Nazarenko, Ph.D., of the South Carolina Health Rights Cooperative said in a joint statement with Ashley Jones and Christi Dixon of South Carolina Family First.

“At a time when inalienable liberties are increasingly restricted in the name of public health, the South Carolina Senate made it clear: not here,” the groups said.

Dawn Richardson, director of advocacy for the National Vaccine Information Center, said the decision to halt the MMR proposal sends a broader message about vaccine mandates.

“It sends a strong message nationally that forced vaccination with the MMR or any vaccine holds no legitimate place in health policy or law in the U.S.,” she said. “Vaccine mandates need to be repealed, not entrenched.”

The debate unfolded amid South Carolina’s largest measles outbreak in decades. State health officials reported 990 measles cases as of March 3.

Linda Bell, the state’s epidemiologist, told lawmakers that about 95% of measles cases involve unvaccinated people. She said infections appear to be slowing after a surge in vaccinations last month, which rose about 70% compared with February 2025.

Federal health officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are expected to arrive next week to help contain the outbreak, according to Reuters.

Keep reading

What’s Next In The Fight To Stop Schools From Transing Kids After SCOTUS Victory

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns. 

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents. 

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.” 

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so — a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Blocks California School Policy Hiding Kids’ ‘Gender Presentation’ From Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win for California parents seeking to protect their children from LGBT ideology in state schools on Monday.

In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated a stay (“pause”) issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a December injunction by a California-based district court judge. That permanent injunction prohibited enforcement of a California policy that permitted or forced school employees to “mislead[] the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school.”

In his order, District Judge Roger Benitez, a Bush 43 appointee, further required California officials to notify school personnel of his ruling and to include in materials for parents and faculty a statement acknowledging parents’ “federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

California parents’ victory was short-lived, however, because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals froze Benitez’s order a few weeks later. In its unanimous ruling, the appellate court’s three-judge panel of Democrat appointees claimed that state officials “have shown that ‘there is a substantial case for relief on the merits,’” and said it was “skeptical of the district court’s decision on the merits.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision prompted plaintiffs to file an application with SCOTUS, in which they requested that the high court vacate the 9th Circuit’s stay and allow Benitez’s injunction to take effect.

In its unsigned opinion, SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs’ request to vacate the 9th Circuit’s injunction “with respect to the parents because this aspect of the stay is not ‘justified under the governing four-factor test.’” The high court noted that the parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they will suffer “irreparable harm” if the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to remain in place.

The court’s order does not apply to the plaintiff teachers suing over the policy, however. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the plaintiffs’ application in full.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Keep reading

Families Receive $1.5 Million After Supreme Court Victory Over LGBT Storytelling

A Maryland school district that lost a recent U.S. Supreme Court case will pay $1.5 million to parents who weren’t allowed to opt their children out of LGBT story time, the families’ attorneys said.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs in the landmark Mahmoud v. Taylor case, announced the settlement on Feb. 20. The defendant, the Montgomery County Board of Education—which oversees Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in the state—was also ordered to comply with court orders mandating advance notice and opt-out provisions.

“Public schools nationwide are on notice: running roughshod over parents’ rights and religious freedom isn’t just illegal—it’s costly,” Eric Baxter, Becket senior counsel and the lead attorney in the case, said in a Feb. 20 statement.

“This settlement enforces the Supreme Court’s ruling and ensures parents, not government bureaucrats, have the final say in how their children are raised.”

The Feb. 19 order from Judge Deborah Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland did not specify the settlement amount but did say the plaintiffs are “entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” outlined in a separate agreement. Three families and “Kids First,” an unincorporated association of parents and teachers, are listed as the awardees.

The Supreme Court announced its 6–3 ruling on June 27, 2025, and directed the litigation of remaining issues, including any settlement, to continue in lower courts.

The case dates back to 2022, after a group of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents told the board of education that, for religious reasons, they wanted to remove their elementary school children from book readings about same-sex romances between young children, gender transitions, and pride parades. The parents were denied permission to do so, even though the district and the state have policies and laws allowing opt-outs and requiring advance notice of such materials.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, stated that the government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of instruction that threatens the religious beliefs and practices that parents choose to instill in their children.

Baxter said the court had ongoing jurisdiction over the district to ensure compliance.

“It took tremendous courage for these parents to stand up to the school board and take their case all the way to the Supreme Court,” Baxter said in a statement.

Keep reading

Colorado Bill Would Take Kids Away From Parents Who Refuse To Trans Them

Colorado’s Democrat state legislators want to force transgenderism on parents, requiring them to affirm their child’s “gender identity” or risk losing custody.

Radical lawmakers introduced “Concerning Legal Protections for The Dignity of a Minor” (SB 26-018) on Jan. 14, and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill, referring it to the full Senate on Feb. 18.

In its intended form, the bill requires courts to consider whether parents embrace their child’s “gender identity” when determining custody. Courts must favor parents who support their child’s “preferred name and pronouns” and push their child to receive harmful and damaging “transgender” drugs, hormones, and surgeries.

The bill states courts must “consider whether the parties recognize the child’s identity as it relates to a protected class” when “determining parenting time and the allocation of decision-making responsibility.”

Defining the “protected classes,” the bill references the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which includes individual’s “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Kids Removed from Parents

While the bill seeks to regulate custody disputes, it also opens the door for courts or child protective services to remove transgender-identified kids from the custody of parents who believe in biological reality and don’t want to irreversibly harm their child with drugs and surgeries.

SB 26-018 would establish “de jure” what is already happening in Colorado and in other states around the country —  even in red states like Indiana, Montana, Texas, and Arizona.

When Krista and Todd Kolstad’s 14-year-old daughter landed in a Montana hospital for suicidal thoughts, her parents had no idea she would soon be taken from them. After the Kolstads’ daughter revealed her desire to “change genders,” Montana Child and Family Services removed her from their custody and relocated her to a treatment facility in Wyoming focused on “gender therapy.”

“They have a complete agenda. We have no voice, no voice in court,” Todd said. “They just gag ordered us and threatened jail time.”

Likewise, Mary and Jeremy Cox lost custody of their 16-year-old son for refusing to affirm his sexual identity confusion.

In courtroom proceedings, the Indiana Department of Child Services —  while using biologically incorrect pronouns — argued the Coxes’ son needed to be in a home “where she is accepted for who she is,” not one that will “tell her how she should think and how she should feel.”

Too many courts across the country already feel emboldened to allow the state to kidnap children from “non-affirming” parents — even without any allegations of abuse or neglect. If SB 26-018 in its original form becomes law, this deceptive scheme will only get much worse.

Keep reading

Secretary Rubio ‘Parents, Not Schools, Should Raise Children’ – No Indoctrination, No Government in Education

At a Hannity town hall in Florida, Secretary Marco Rubio shared his views on education and the role of families. “It’s neither the government nor the schools’ job to raise children. They’re there to teach,” he said. “Parents raise children. Strong families raise children.” His message resonates with conservative and religious parents who believe schools should focus on academics and allow families to instill values in their children.

Rubio said he does not want the federal government to threaten schools. He argued that if the government wants to fund programs such as free school lunches, that is fine, but there should not be strings attached. “If you don’t let boys play in girls’ sports, we will take away your school lunch money,” he said, criticizing federal coercion.

“What we are doing at the federal level is ensuring that we are not bullying states into adopting policies that, at the end of the day, turn these places from schools into indoctrination centers,” Rubio added. “That’s actually the way Marxism works. They use the schools to indoctrinate and tell the kids, ‘Don’t listen to your parents. Listen to us.’ We cannot tolerate that. We won’t allow it, and that would destroy our country.”

Secretary Rubio’s education agenda centers on increasing competition through school choice and vocational training while aggressively removing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies and “woke” ideologies from public institutions. Upon becoming Secretary of State in 2025, he reversed DEI policies within the State Department, replacing them with a focus on strict meritocracy and performance, declaring that “DEI is gone, forever.”

He also supported legislation to prevent socially progressive and divisive flags, including the LGBTQ+ pride flag, from being flown at U.S. embassies, insisting that the American flag alone represents the nation’s values abroad.

Keep reading

Prosecutor Accused Of Misconduct, Judges Step Aside, Evidence Suppressed And Yet The Government Still Convicted Single Mom Shana Gaviola

One of the most enduring principles of American justice is the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers. It is a safeguard embedded in the Constitution, born from a deep distrust of concentrated government power. The Founders believed ordinary citizens—not government officials—should ultimately decide guilt or innocence.

Yet in courtrooms across the country today, that principle is increasingly hollowed out. Not because juries are failing, but because they are often prevented from hearing the full truth.

The federal prosecution of Shana Gaviola illustrates this troubling reality. The Gateway Pundit has written numerous articles about Shana’s case. A case where Shana has been fighting a liberal California government that was trying to transition her son without her permission. 

Before Shana’s early December 2025 trial, her attorney, George Pallas, fought for her case to be dismissed based on obvious misconduct perpetrated by the prosecution and others. His motion was denied, and her case was shuffled around California courthouses.

When we reached out to Shana’s attorney, George Pallas, he responded,  “This prosecution is an abomination.”

“Shana Gaviola’s child was stolen from her through systematic psychological manipulation, and when she fought to save him, the federal government decided to destroy her life. This isn’t law enforcement, it’s state-sanctioned child abuse.”

He continued, “What we’re seeing here is the criminalization of motherhood. Ms. Gaviola’s only ‘crime’ was refusing to stand by while her child was groomed and manipulated by those who wanted to replace her as his parent.”

Without mincing words, he then went on to say, “Make no mistake, Ms. Gaviola’s son was groomed and brainwashed to hate his own mother. Those responsible should be in the defendant’s chair, not her. Instead, the government has chosen to prosecute the victim while protecting the perpetrators of parental alienation.”

Keep reading

Virginia House Passes Bill To Protect Rights Of Parents Who Use Marijuana

The Virginia House of Delegates has approved a bill to protect the rights of parents who use marijuana in compliance with state law.

The legislation from Del. Nadarius Clark (D) is consistent with a measure he sponsored last session that advanced through the legislature, only to be vetoed by then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R). The latest version passed the House in a 62-37 vote on Tuesday.

Under the proposal, possession of use of cannabis by a parent or guardian on its own “shall not serve as a basis to deem a child abused or neglected unless other facts establish that such possession or consumption causes or creates a risk of physical or mental injury to the child.”

“A person’s legal possession or consumption of substances authorized under [the state’s marijuana law] alone shall not serve as a basis to restrict custody or visitation unless other facts establish that such possession or consumption is not in the best interest of the child,” the text of the bill, HB 942, states.

When the bill was on the floor for second reading on Monday, Clark said that the measure “fully preserves judicial discretion requiring a court to act when a child is in danger, but grounding those decisions in individualized evidence-based findings instead of presumptions tied to lawful conduct.”

Youngkin claimed in his veto message last year that the prior measure introduced “unnecessary complications and risks exposing children to harm.”

“The bill disregards clear evidence linking substance use to child endangerment, particularly in the wake of increased incidents of children ingesting cannabis-infused substances following the legalization of marijuana,” he argued. “By broadly prohibiting courts from considering parental marijuana use in custody and visitation determinations, [the bill] risks prioritizing drug use over the health and well being of children.”

The then-governor also vetoed an even earlier version of the bill in 2024.

Keep reading

Ed Department: California Violated Family Rights Law By Secretly ‘Transitioning’ Students

The U.S. Department of Education found the California Department of Education (CDE) in violation of federal family rights law on Wednesday for facilitating the gender “transition” of children and hiding it from their parents.

California pressured school districts across the state to violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a student privacy and parental rights law, by forcing them to conceal student records from parents about their child’s so-called “gender transition,” according to a senior department official detailing the results of an investigation Wednesday.

“FERPA requires that schools provide access to all education records upon a parent’s request. Schools do not get to choose which records they feel like providing to parents and which ones they don’t,” the official said. “As Secretary McMahon stated last year, this is not only patently unlawful, but morally reprehensible. Children do not belong to the state. They belong to their parents. Parents must know about the most sensitive information pertaining to their child’s health and well-being.”

A Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) investigation found that at least 300 students in California were put on “‘gender support plans,’ many without parental consent or knowledge.” At CDE’s direction, school officials placed the “support plans” in “separate filing systems” to keep parents in the dark about the plans.

As The Federalist reported, school personnel are often some of the first and most influential people a student interacts with regarding confusion about sex and “gender,” and many push children toward “social transition” like name and pronoun changes, which often leads to destructive medical interventions.

Keep reading