close
close
States force abortion videos to children. Which parental rights?

States force abortion videos to children. Which parental rights?

by

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the families who protest against LGBTQ+ content in Maryland, it must consistently defend the rights of all parents and in a similar way.

Christina Hale
| Opinion representative

play

It is finally spring, and even the Supreme Court of the United States has its spirit over the birds and the bees.

In April, the court heard arguments in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, who encompasses a coalition of parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, argued that school administrators violated their parent and religious rights because they did not decide their children from lessons that contained LGBTQ+ muhe.

The parents argue that schools should not expose their children without their consent to their children LGBTQ themes such as “Love, violet” or “Uncle Bobby's wedding”.

Discussions with children about sex are often difficult

Like me, you may have a lively school memory to be separated by gender to see a granular film in which it is explained what was done with our shear houses and as our teachers called “the facts of life”.

If you are a parent, you may also remember an evening like the one when my 4-year-old son asked me where babies come from. We watched a classic Disney film in which a lovable baby elephant delivered to his mother via stork and then violently separated from her after she was classified as “crazy” and locked up in solo.

The film had a happy ending, but it wasn't exactly the sweet circus cartoon that I expected.

Nevertheless, Owen was not misled. He knew that birds did not deliver babies. But at the age of 4 he was already confused, fearful and worried. As we spoke, I learned that he had recently found that his favorite preschool age had just lost pregnancy.

“What happened to this baby in your stomach?” I really didn't know. “Where did it work?” This becomes even more difficult. “How did it come in there?” Great questions, Owen.

Children – and maybe all of us – have a innate curiosity for human generation. Regardless of this, three universal rules seem to be how and when you can react if you are confronted with this curiosity: make it based on age, medically correct and scientifically based.

During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked: “What is the big deal if you allow you to turn away from it?”

Judge Brett Kavanaugh noticed that he “did not understand why it is not feasible” that schools excuse children of lessons who violate the religious beliefs of their families.

I know that there are parents, teachers, legislators and others who see sex education religiously. For those who prefer to cope with this at home for religious or other reasons (or sometimes not at all) at home, parents in some countries can reject the sexual ED for their children, and many schools do not even offer it.

The exchange of information is often of crucial importance to bring children to safety. That means, sometimes it can also be used to push agendas.

Another view: Schools drive LGBTQ books about children. The Supreme Court should stand next to the parents. | Opinion

States require the students to watch a video about abortion

My home state of Indiana will soon connect several other states, including Tennessee, North Dakota and Idaho, to decide whether they enable their child a “high definition -ultrasound video, at least three (3) minute hardening, the development of the brain, the heart, the sex organs and the other vital organs in early barrel development.”

Some of the states have passed a language that a certain video called “Meet Baby Olivia” and created by Live Action, indicates an organization that weighs against abortion for some reason and was founded by the prominent anti-abbreviation activist Lila Rose.

Opinion: Prohibition of abortion, fetal anomaly and a ticking watch – 'an impossible decision'

If sex ed is taught at school, these laws make this video (or a very similar) mandatory and force children to see potentially traumatic material from which many parents would appreciate their children, even if they prefer to choose sex ed for the same children.

In 2024, the then Iowa MP Molly Buck, who has been teaching primary school for 28 years, summarized this problem well.

“When we talk about the indoctrination of children, we have to be aware of both sides,” said Buck. “We don't want the 'liberal left' to indoctrinating our children, and we don't want the right side to indoctrinating our children. So our children need factual health information, not fictional.”

Children are not Lego sets and certainly have no detailed instructions. The night “Dumbo” came for dinner, I answered Owen's questions with far too much information. It was medically healthy and scientifically based, but soon I did not discover according to age.

I had made things worse. I wanted to make my little guy feel better and do the opposite. So I took out the simple way out – I distracted it with chocolate milk and dropped the conversation for about 10 years.

To date, I am grateful that my son had access to age -appropriate information that was delivered by competent educators at his school. It is important that we give our children factual information that they can understand.

In retrospect, I would have chosen sex ed, who would have provided Owen with age -appropriate, factual information about LGBTQ+ problems. I also know that I am very obvious to content such as the video “Meet Baby Olivia” – Contents of the American College of Obdoller and Gynecologist, which is neither medically correct nor scientifically based.

We have to show all families fairness.

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the families who protest against LGBTQ+ content in Montgomery County, it must defend the rights of consistent and in a similar way all In one of the parents who want to unsubscribe from what many see from the birds and the bees with strong dose of anti-reproductive justice.

Religious and political propaganda has no place in our schools. However, facts and fairness do this.

Christina Hale is a former legislator and democratic candidate of the US state of Indiana for the US house. Hale is the author of “Why not you: a leader for the interchangeable makers of tomorrow.”

Leave a Comment