J. MARC WHEAT: Another Hope For Parental Rights

In June, the Supreme Court took an important step restoring parental rights in Mahmoud v. Taylor, but conservatives must not be complacent until the right to direct the education of one’s child is secured for all parents. With Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, the Supreme Court has another opportunity to restore parental rights—regardless of religious practice.

Through Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925, the Supreme Court upheld parents’ right to send their children to private schools denying “any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” Further, since the Supreme Court has ruled that schooling is compulsory, teachers ought not impose harmful ideologies on the students.

As seen increasingly across the country, school districts proactively conceal their efforts to socially transition children. In Ludlow, the school district’s “Guidance for Massachusetts Public Schools Creating a Safe and Supportive School Environment” directs school personnel to speak with students before discussing the latter’s “gender nonconformity or transgender status” with parents and to discuss “appropriate pronoun use” for communicating with their parents.

As seen in Ludlow and in similar cases, school districts have used alternate names and pronouns when in earshot of parents, while announcing over the intercom to avoid notifying siblings, and have even excluded certain teachers from communications whom the school deemed threats to inform parents (see our amicus briefs in Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District and Heaps v. Delaware Valley Regional High School Board of Education).

Throughout all these cases, the school administrators operate with the not-so-hidden assumption that the school district knows better than the parents. Despite their implicit assumption that parents are not fit to make decisions about their children’s gender identity, schools typically require parental consent before giving a child as much as an aspirin. If parents have a right to be involved in such a minor decision about their child’s wellbeing, as recognized by school policies, then they also have a right to protect their children from the fad of gender ideology, especially if accepting the same ideologue’s claims that suppressing gender identity increases suicidal ideation. School administrators cannot simultaneously believe that the safety of the child requires parents be notified when administering something as mundane as over-the-counter painkillers but that parents have no role in decision-making about their child’s “gender identity.” (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: School Choice Produces Better Outcomes With Less Taxpayer Money In Wisconsin, Report Finds)

In Ludlow, the parents informed the school that they would seek professional help upon learning of their daughter’s depression and anxiety and requested the school refrain from further psychological discussions with their daughter. The school ignored their request and instead continued to use a masculine name and pronouns for the child.

To avoid pervasive, gender ideologies imposed by public-school districts, parents must have enough money to send their children to private school, must possess the means to homeschool their children, or must claim and be willing to exercise a religious exemption. Even parents who could remove their children may not be aware that ideologues or coerced gender ideology harm their children’s mental health until the damage has been done.

Parents’ ability to protect their children from gender ideology should not depend on their ability to remove their children from public school or their willingness to make a religious exemption. In Foote v. Ludlow, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to ensure that the rights of all parents are protected. It should do so.

Marc Wheat is the General Counsel of Advancing American Freedom Vice President Mike Pence, Founder.  Follow us on X @AAFLegal.

 The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.