Virginia school board takes
transgender bathroom case to Supreme Court, 7/14/16, FoxNews.com
A Virginia school board asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to block a
transgender male from using the boys restroom when he comes back to school in
September until the high court decides whether to review the case.
The Gloucester County School Board filed an emergency appeal with Chief
Justice John Roberts in an attempt to prevent Gavin Grimm from using the
bathroom that aligns with his gender identity when school resumes in fall,
saying it will “put parents’ constitutional rights in jeopardy.”
"Depriving parents of any say over whether their children should be
exposed to members of the opposite biological sex, possibly in a state of full
or complete undress, in intimate settings deprives parents of their right to
direct the education and upbringing of their children," attorneys for the
school board wrote.
They added that it would be "natural to assume" that parents may
decide to pull their children out of school because of it. Josh Block, an ACLU attorney representing Grimm in the case, said his legal
team is prepared to file a response if and when the Supreme Court requests one.
"It is sad that the school board members and their lawyers have so
little regard for the impact their misguided actions are having on a real
teenager's life," Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, executive director of the ACLU
of Virginia, said in a statement. "We will continue to stand with Gavin
and other young people suffering such cruelties and indignities."
Grimm's case is not unique: More than a dozen states have sued the federal government
over its requirement that public schools allow transgender students to use
restrooms conforming to their gender identity.
There are also court cases pending over a North Carolina law that requires
transgender people to use public bathrooms corresponding to the sex on their
birth certificate.
However, this is the first transgender restroom case to reach the Supreme
Court. The ruling would decide whether prohibitions of sex discrimination
extend to gender identity, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Grimm was born a female, but identifies as a male. He was allowed to use
the boys restroom at the school for several weeks in 2014. But after some
parents started to complain, the school board adopted a policy that forced
students to use either the restroom that corresponds to their biological gender
or a private, single-stall restroom. Grimm sued the school board, arguing that it violated federal education
discrimination laws by forbidding him from using the boys bathroom.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Grimm in April, saying the
federal judge who previously rejected Grimm's Title IX discrimination claim
ignored a U.S. Department of Education rule that transgender students in public
schools must be allowed to use restrooms that correspond with their gender
identity. The court reinstated Grimm's Title IX claim and sent it back to the
district court for further consideration.
The school board wants the Supreme Court to put Grimm's district court case
on hold until the justices decide whether to review the appeals court decision.
The board says it plans to file its petition for Supreme Court review by late
August. Chief Justice Roberts can act on the school board's request alone or ask
the full court to consider it. If he chooses the latter, the school board must
convince five justices to be successful.
The Obama administration issued a directive in May on bathroom use by
transgender students, urging educators to allow students to use the bathroom
and locker room that aligns with their gender identity.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
What? Supreme Court rules against open bathrooms? In 5-3 ruling, justices overturn decision mandating girl’s use of boys' room, by Bob Unruh, 8/3/16, WND
The U.S. Supreme
Court Wednesday hinted some justices might not be willing to follow the
transgender-bathroom rabbit trail as far as an appeals court did in a
Virginia case in which a school board was ordered to allow a female
student to use the boys’ restroom and other facilities because she claims she
identifies as a boy.
The court, on a 5-3
vote, suspended that order from the lower court and said it would review the
case.
The dispute is in
Gloucester County where the school board declined to give the student, known as
Gavin Grimm, permission to use the restroom and facilities of her choice.
She contested the
decision, and the most recent ruling in the case, from the 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, was in her favor.
That court, however,
delayed implementation of its ruling so the school board could appeal, and the
Supreme Court maintained the status quo while the case develops.
Justice Stephen Breyer,
who ordinarily aligns with the court’s liberal faction, joined
the conservatives in the decision
“as a courtesy” so that the situation is unchanged until the
court rules.
The battle over the bathroom mandates has erupted into a
national issue as the Obama administration has tried to force all schools
to allow students to pick their gender.
Parents and schools have objected, and multiple states have
sued over the requirement.
They argue that boys should be in boys’ rooms and girls
should be in girls’ rooms for activities that require being unclothed.
See what American education has become, in “Crimes
of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy
America’s Children.” At the same time, a
Florida pastor announced a plan for parents to fight the Obama administration’s
transgender agenda by using the same law that Obama used to promoted
transgenderism.
It is Title IX, which specifies students cannot be
discriminated against.
The pastor, Carl Gallups, has prepared an online
“Notice of Compliance Letter” for parents of non-transgender
students to use to demand from school districts that their students also be
given safe areas in which to shower.
Related column:
He notes Title IX also applies to non-transgendered children.
Therefore, parents can use the letter he has prepared to obtain these safe,
“harassment free” accommodations for their children. This means they can have
individual use accommodations, without having to be exposed in sensitive
situations to people who simply “identify” as something other than their biological
sex.
Gallups told WND of the Virginia case, “I am prayerful that
the Supreme Court might see the legal quagmire that Obama’s potentially
criminal transgender [agenda] has caused. Because, while the [Dear Colleague
letter’s] purpose was to provide protection, safety, and equal rights for
transgender students – the same Title IX regulations, upon which that DCL was
based, also affords these very same rights for all students. Therefore the
order to ‘protect’ the transgender students could effectively put
non-transgender students in danger of sexual predation (or worse) by nefarious
transgender ploys that take advantage of the extremely non-accountable terms of
Obama’s transgender DCL.”
Video: SCOTUS Allows
School to Block Transgender Student From Choosing Bathroom
He continued, “Interestingly, Title IX was originally
intended to protect the rights of women who are affiliated with institutions
that receive federal funding. The original Title IX says absolutely nothing
about transgenders, or the ‘right’ for one DNA attested gender to openly share
bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers with members of the opposite DNA attested
gender. Common sense dictates that if that kind of loose standard is actually
applied, it could negate the ‘safety’ that Title IX was originally intended to
protect.”
He said, “This is evidence of why these compliance letters I
have devised are now extremely important for parents to flood their school
boards with! This could give the SCOTUS even more impetus to do the right thing
and come up with a more sensible and ‘legal’ solution. If millions of parents
all over this land will insist that school boards follow the Title IX
regulations in order to protect their non-transgender children as well – how
can state and federal authorities not take notice? Perhaps it’s time for ‘We
the People’ to come forth with one voice. We have been raised up for ‘such a
time as this!'”
The Family Research Council said the Supreme Court’s
preliminary step is a good thing. Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies, said, “We
are grateful that the Supreme Court put a hold on a disturbing ruling that
treads on parental rights and the responsibility of local school districts to
provide a safe learning environment for children.
“Parents should continue to speak up about their privacy and
safety concerns. If the Obama edict is allowed to stand, there’s no limit to
what President Obama’s administration, or future presidents, will be emboldened
to do.”
A spokesman, Jeremy Tedesco, for the Alliance Defending Freedom,
also noted the move was a good one. “Schools have a duty to protect the privacy and safety of all
students. That’s a principle that numerous other courts – including the 4th
Circuit itself – have upheld. Federal law specifically authorizes schools to have
single-sex restrooms and locker rooms, as the judge who dissented from the 4th
Circuit’s decision rightly noted. The Supreme Court did the right thing in
placing the 4th Circuit panel’s mandate and the preliminary injunction entered
by the district court on hold until the high court itself has a chance to
decide if it will take up this case.”
The organization’s lawyers in May filed a friend-of-the-court
brief with the full 4th Circuit on behalf of 50 concerned parents, students,
grandparents, and community members urging the court to reverse the 4th Circuit
panel’s 2-1 ruling against the Gloucester County.
Penny Nance, chief of Concerned Women for America, also
commented.
“This case is a result of yet another Obama administration
overreach. To require schools to allow students into any bathroom of their
choice is an overstep on legal boundaries by redefining the scope and reach of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and slapping the heavy hand of government on local
schools,” she said.
“This would also impact the use of showers, locker rooms,
school travel and more. This unwise and rash policy would favor the desires of
a small group over young women with religious, cultural, and modesty concerns.
The court should not shove this unwise policy on the states.”
And Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver added, “This is very good
news that the Supreme Court blocked this silly ruling that says a girl can use
the boy’s restroom and vice versa. The federal law never intended to allow
people to change their general by fanaticizing they are something other than
reality. This is the stuff of make believe and fantasy and should not be
engaged in by learned judges. I am pleased the Supreme Court blocked this
ruling before children return to school.”
The LA
Times reported that the firestorm was ignited last year “when a U.S.
Department of Education lawyer advised school districts nationwide that a
federal anti-discrimination law known as Title IX, which forbids sex
discrimination in education, also protects the rights of transgender students
to use restrooms and changing facilities that are ‘consistent with their gender
identity.'”
That interpretation requires people to believe that when
Congress wrote and adopted the law decades ago, the intent was for girls to be
allowed in boys’ facilities and vice versa.
Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, two
of whom owe their lifetime appointments to Obama, adopted his administration’s
position and said they would have ignored the privacy rights of students who
are not transgendered by ordering the lower court ruling to stand.
WND
reported in July that the family policy experts at the Ruth Institute
warned the Obama administration agenda to push transgenderism on public
schools, including demanding that boys be allowed in girls showers and vice
versa, forces children to adopt the “ideological agenda” of homosexuality.
The organization issued a report on the recent
government “Guidance to Help Schools Ensure the Civil Rights of Transgender
Students” released by the departments of Justice and Education.
The guidance requires that public schools and universities
allow students to choose their “gender identity” and grant them access to
gender-specific facilities.
The guidance, however, ignores the right of students not to
be exposed to nude members of the opposite sex.
Texas, joined by eight other states, has filed a lawsuit
against the Obama administration policy, charging it has “conspired to turn
workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a
massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running
roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy
rights.”
The government defends its policy by citing Title IX
regulations, arguing “sex” is a protected class. The lawsuit counters that the
government is presuming that when Congress adopted the law decades ago, it had
open restrooms and shower rooms in view. The suit argues that Congress’
understanding of “‘sex,’ as a protected class, refers only to one’s biological
sex, as male or female, and not the radical re-authoring of the term now being
foisted upon Americans.”
“The transgender movement is controversial, even among the
wider gay rights movement,” the institute report said. “Lesbian feminist
professor Sheila Jeffreys describes male-bodied transgenders as invading
women-only spaces and exercising a form of male privilege. The federal government
should not be imposing an ideological agenda, much less taking sides in an
internal quarrel within the larger gay rights movement.”
The report continued: “The public schools have no business
enlisting small children in an ideological crusade of any kind. Creating a day to day living environment that implements the
most controversial plank of the transgender political regime does exactly that:
enlists the children in an ideological crusade. Certainly, the federal
government should not be conscripting every public school in America in an
ideological movement, and drafting every public school child in America as its
foot soldiers.”
The report said school boards are within their rights to
refuse to participate “in the federal government’s war against nature.” The report was prepared by Jennifer Roback Morse, institute
founder, who said the dictates from Washington are not helping people.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/supremes-halt-virginias-open-bathrooms-mandate/
No comments:
Post a Comment