Mature Minor and Protecting Youth from Irreparable Damage
Defending Parental Rights
"PK-12 minor students, most of whom are too young to drive, vote, or provide medical consent for themselves, are also too young to make life-altering decisions about their expressed gender identity without their parents’ knowledge. But that is precisely what AB 1955 enables—with potentially devastating consequences for children too young to fully comprehend them," Emily Rae, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center (LJC), said in a statement.
Hello SMF Family! As we are sure you have heard, Governor Gavin Newsom passed AB-1955 into law in California. The law, set to take effect in January of 2025, is titled “Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act” which sounds very positive. But, the title hides the true intent of the law which is centered around promoting transgender ideology and “LGBTQ+ support resources” based on lack of transparency and consent from the parents. For example, the Bill has two critical elements that demonstrate it’s true intent:
In Section II, the Legislative Findings and Declarations, where the Legislature tells us why it has determined that the law is necessary (don’t forget, it’s these legislative “findings” that the Washington Supreme Court has relied on to continue the stay in our WA v. Gator’s Custom Guns case), the California legislature declared:
(g)Pupils have a constitutional right to privacy when it comes to sensitive information about them, and courts have affirmed that young people have a right to keep personal information private.
And even more concerning:
(k)(1)Teachers and school staff can provide crucial support to LGBTQ+ young people and can play an important role in encouraging them to seek out appropriate resources and support.
Our question, our concern, is how long until Washington state attempts a similar bill? With this in mind, today we’re writing about our Parental Bill of Rights case (Initiative 2081, for those following along), as well as covering a few topics that were addressed in the podcast above in order to help everyone put the pieces together on the ACLU’s attempted to by-pass the will of the voters and to fundamentally destroy parental rights.
Attorney Austin Hatcher, lead counsel on this case, recently shed light on the challenges we face from radical organizations that aim to undermine Parental Rights. He had the opportunity to discuss this matter on the Informed Life Radio broadcast alongside our esteemed partners at Children's Health Defense, Bernadette Pajer and Bob Runnells. Simply click the graphic above to easily access the recording.
First, what does the Parents’ Bill of Rights say?
Initiative 2081 really seeks to put the parents back in the “driver’s seat” when it comes to the education and health and welfare of their children. Parents have every right to know what is being taught and what services are being provided - period.
Below are the rights enshrined in the Parents Bill of Rights:
To examine the textbooks, curriculum, and supplemental material used in their child’s classroom.
To inspect their child’s public school records and to receive a copy within 10 business days of a written request.
To receive prior notification when medical services are being offered to their child except where emergency medical treatment is required.
To receive notification when any medical service or medication have been provided to their child that could result in any financial impact to health insurance or copayments.
To receive notification when the school has arranged directly or indirectly for medical treatment that results in follow up care beyond normal school hours.
To receive immediate notification if a criminal action is deemed to have been committed against their child or by their child.
To receive immediate notification if law enforcement personnel question their child except in cases where the parent has been accused of abusing or neglecting the child.
To receive immediate notification if their child is taken or removed from the public school campus without parental permission, including a stay at a youth shelter or a private host home for youth in need of temporary placement.
To receive assurance that their child’s public school will not discriminate against their child based upon the family’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
To receive written notice and to have the option to opt their child out of student engagements that include questions about the child’s sexual experiences or attractions, the family’s beliefs, morality, religion, or political affiliations, mental health or psychological problems of the child or family member, and surveys, analyses, and evaluations subject to areas covered by the Federal Protection of Pupil Rights amendments.
To receive written notice and to have the option to opt their child out of instruction on topics associated with sexual activity in accordance with comprehensive sexual health education requirements.
To receive a school calendar and any revisions to the calendar, which must be posted on the school’s website.
To receive a list of any required fee and its purpose and use and how economic hardships may be addressed either in writing or on the school’s website.
To receive a description of the school’s dress code or uniform, either in writing or on the school’s website.
To be informed of their child’s academic performance, if it could threaten their ability to be promoted to the next grade level and to be offered an in-person meeting with the teacher and the principal to discuss resources or strategies for academic improvement.
A Practical Defense: The Mature Minor Doctrine. Why is it Being Overlooked?
The mature minor doctrine refers to the legal concept that allows minors who demonstrate sufficient maturity and understanding to make decisions about their own medical treatment. This means that in some cases, minors may have the right to consent to or refuse medical treatment without the need for parental permission.
One key aspect of the mature minor law is the consideration of the minor's ability to understand the risks and benefits of the treatment in question. This is often determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the minor's age, maturity level, and ability to comprehend the consequences of their decisions. If children need assistance from their parents to cross the street safely or make some Top Ramen, shouldn’t it be clear that they are not able to make an informed decision about changing their gender? These procedures are causing irreparable damage and massive long-term implications that children cannot, and do not understand. That is a fact. This isn’t a hard concept to understand for most of the population but this doctrine should be at the forefront of protecting children who lack the ability to consent from making drastic and permanent changes to their physical body and mental wellness. THIS is why we fight.
Our Battle Doesn't Stop Here.
Urgency is paramount in this battle for parental rights as we see a lack of transparency across the nation. Headlines like those below are just the tip of the iceberg.
Kansas School Districts Socially Transitioning Students Without Parental Consent
Foote v Ludlow School Committee
Idaho Investigation into Special Education Violations
Michigan Parents Sue School District
Washington ACLU Claims Bill of Rights Harms Children
Silent Majority Foundation stands with the parent-voters of Washington who demanded more transparency regarding their children’s education. No entity, not the State, no political party, and no special interest group has the right to stand in the place of the parents, and SMF is here to ensure it stays that way.
Recently, we filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to Thurston County as required by RCW 4.12.020(2). We will share more about this on our social media channels so stay tuned! We have attached the Motion to Transfer below.
But We Need Your Help!
Parents, not the State, are and should be the primary stakeholder in every aspect of their children's lives. A rampant erosion of transparency places kids in the cross-hairs of radical ideologies to separate parents from children when it comes to decision-making, medical services and educational materials provided by schools.
Your generous gift today will make an immediate impact on the legal work to restore power and informed decision-making into the hands of parents. Your support will fuel our fight, allowing us to continue litigating and advocating for transparency, accountability, and the best interests of our children! Thank you and God bless you!
Findings—Intent—2023 c 162: "The legislature finds and declares that gun violence is a threat to the public health and safety of Washingtonians. Assault weapons are civilian versions of weapons created for the military and are designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently. For this reason the legislature finds that assault weapons are "like" "M-16 rifles" and thus are "weapons most useful in military service." Assault weapons have been used in the deadliest mass shootings in the last decade. An assailant with an assault weapon can hurt and kill twice the number of people than an assailant with a handgun or nonassault rifle. This is because the additional features of an assault weapon are not "merely cosmetic"; rather, these are features that allow shooters to fire large numbers of rounds quickly. An analysis of mass shootings that result in four or more deaths found that 85 percent of those fatalities were caused by an assault weapon. The legislature also finds that this regulation is likely to have an impact on the number of mass shootings committed in Washington. Studies have shown that during the period the federal assault weapon ban was in effect, mass shooting fatalities were 70 percent less likely to occur. Moreover, the legislature finds that assault weapons are not suitable for self-defense and that studies show that assault weapons are statistically not used in self-defense. The legislature finds that assault weapons are not commonly used in self-defense and that any proliferation is not the result of the assault weapon being well-suited for self-defense, hunting, or sporting purposes. Rather, increased sales are the result of the gun industry's concerted efforts to sell more guns to a civilian market. The legislature finds that the gun industry has specifically marketed these weapons as "tactical," "hyper masculine," and "military style" in manner that overtly appeals to troubled young men intent on becoming the next mass shooter...."