Parents' Rights Now!

PART 9: Transgender Ideology and Your Public Schools, PRIE BATHROOM LAWSUIT- SCOTUS, NEXT!

July 14, 2020 Suzanne Gallagher Season 1 Episode 13
Parents' Rights Now!
PART 9: Transgender Ideology and Your Public Schools, PRIE BATHROOM LAWSUIT- SCOTUS, NEXT!
Chapters
Parents' Rights Now!
PART 9: Transgender Ideology and Your Public Schools, PRIE BATHROOM LAWSUIT- SCOTUS, NEXT!
Jul 14, 2020 Season 1 Episode 13
Suzanne Gallagher

Only nine months after the Obama policy reversal, on November 13,  Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on behalf of 6 Plaintiffs, including Parents’ Rights In Education, against DALLAS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2; OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GOVERNOR KATE BROWN, in her official capacity as the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; BETSY DEVOS, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of Education as successor to JOHN B. KING, JR.; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JEFF SESSIONS, in his official capacity as United States Attorney General, as successor to LORETTA F. LYNCH…

This lawsuit defends the rights of individual students to privacy in respective locker/bath facilities while on the school campus.

With no option for appeal, U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez threw out the lawsuit. Case law cited by Judge Hernandez involved adults, not MINOR children. 

Oregon law, ORS659A.403 says “school districts may provide for minor children, safety and privacy, by maintaining sex segregated restrooms and locker rooms by biological sex, and provide single stall facilities for anyone requesting alternative accommodation, without breaking any laws.”

The court adopts an overly narrow view of privacy that actually affords prisoners greater bodily privacy rights than public school students! The court places the interests of one student above the privacy, dignity and safety of all students; ignoring the reality that most people do not want to be in private facilities with members of the opposite sex.  

The court acknowledges students’ anxiety at exposing their bodies to members of the opposite sex, and admits the alternatives made available to all other students appear “inferior and less convenient”, but imposes those accommodations unequally on the majority anyway.

Tyler Smith & Associates, Rural Business Attorneys, Canby Oregon, volunteered to take the case to the next step, with Attorney Ryan Adams arguing for our side, on July 11, 2019. As a result of Anderson’s convincing words, we were successful in gaining an opportunity for appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

On February 12, 2020 the Ninth Circuit panel issued its decision affirming the trial court in all respects.

The day we sent out a News Alert reporting on the Ninth Circuits’ decision, an email arrived from CPR-C requesting the opportunity to represent us in the event our current attorneys were not interested in taking the cast to the Supreme Court.

What PRIE considered to be a disappointment, we are confident will prove to be a golden opportunity. We are privileged to work with CPR-C, because….

"We offer representation to parents whose constitutionally protected fundamental right to direct the upbringing, care, and education of their children has been violated." CPR-C

According to CPR-C, “Seeking review from the Supreme Court is always a long shot. However, the importance of the issues raised by this case, the egregious nature of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and the prominence of these issues throughout the country, makes this a strong candidate for the Court.”

We believe our case is National Parents' Rights issue, and CPR-C shares our conviction.

Support the show (https://www.parentsrightsined.com/support-the-cause.html)

Show Notes

Only nine months after the Obama policy reversal, on November 13,  Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on behalf of 6 Plaintiffs, including Parents’ Rights In Education, against DALLAS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2; OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GOVERNOR KATE BROWN, in her official capacity as the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; BETSY DEVOS, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of Education as successor to JOHN B. KING, JR.; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JEFF SESSIONS, in his official capacity as United States Attorney General, as successor to LORETTA F. LYNCH…

This lawsuit defends the rights of individual students to privacy in respective locker/bath facilities while on the school campus.

With no option for appeal, U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez threw out the lawsuit. Case law cited by Judge Hernandez involved adults, not MINOR children. 

Oregon law, ORS659A.403 says “school districts may provide for minor children, safety and privacy, by maintaining sex segregated restrooms and locker rooms by biological sex, and provide single stall facilities for anyone requesting alternative accommodation, without breaking any laws.”

The court adopts an overly narrow view of privacy that actually affords prisoners greater bodily privacy rights than public school students! The court places the interests of one student above the privacy, dignity and safety of all students; ignoring the reality that most people do not want to be in private facilities with members of the opposite sex.  

The court acknowledges students’ anxiety at exposing their bodies to members of the opposite sex, and admits the alternatives made available to all other students appear “inferior and less convenient”, but imposes those accommodations unequally on the majority anyway.

Tyler Smith & Associates, Rural Business Attorneys, Canby Oregon, volunteered to take the case to the next step, with Attorney Ryan Adams arguing for our side, on July 11, 2019. As a result of Anderson’s convincing words, we were successful in gaining an opportunity for appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

On February 12, 2020 the Ninth Circuit panel issued its decision affirming the trial court in all respects.

The day we sent out a News Alert reporting on the Ninth Circuits’ decision, an email arrived from CPR-C requesting the opportunity to represent us in the event our current attorneys were not interested in taking the cast to the Supreme Court.

What PRIE considered to be a disappointment, we are confident will prove to be a golden opportunity. We are privileged to work with CPR-C, because….

"We offer representation to parents whose constitutionally protected fundamental right to direct the upbringing, care, and education of their children has been violated." CPR-C

According to CPR-C, “Seeking review from the Supreme Court is always a long shot. However, the importance of the issues raised by this case, the egregious nature of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and the prominence of these issues throughout the country, makes this a strong candidate for the Court.”

We believe our case is National Parents' Rights issue, and CPR-C shares our conviction.

Support the show (https://www.parentsrightsined.com/support-the-cause.html)