AS CHURCHES AND EVANGELICAL LEADERS HAVE MOVED STEADILY TOWARD INCLUSION OF “LGBTQ+ CHRISTIANITY” AND AFFIRMING FALSE ASSERTIONS LIKE SEXUAL ORIENTATION GENDER IDENTITY / SOGI -THESE LEADERS PROVIDE LITTLE RESISTANCE TO SWEEPING EFFORTS LIKE CALIFORNIA’S NEW LAW PROMOTING SECRECY FOR TRANS IDENTIFIED CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Rev Thomas Littleton

7-17-24

CALIFORNIA’S NEW “SAFETY ACT” LAW AND WHAT IT MEANS.

NOTE- these are some direct quotes from the legal analysis provided by Law Inc of the implications of AB 1955. The full report is included in the end of this article.

(IMAGE FORM HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH MAY 2024 ARTICLE PROMOTING SECRECY RIGHTS FOR TRANS KIDS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS )

“The lawsuit against California’s AB 1955 could reshape parental rights and religious freedom in schools. Learn about the legal arguments and potential impacts of this high-stakes case.”

“Parents’ Religious Beliefs: Parent plaintiffs are devout Christians who believe God created humans as immutable biological males/females.”

• Unduly Burdening Sincerely Held Beliefs: AB 1955 violates parents’ 1st Amendment right to raise their children consistent with their religious convictions.
• Coercing Families to Violate Faith Tenets: The law forces parents to allow schools to secretly impose a gender ideology that may contradict their doctrinal teachings.

• Not Generally Applicable: The parental notification ban isn’t neutrally applied to all situations, but singles out gender identity for unique confidentiality.
• No Compelling State Justification: CA hasn’t shown it has a paramount interest in keeping parents in the dark that overrides their Free Exercise rights.
• Less Restrictive Means Available: The state could further its goals without trampling religious freedom, e.g. case-by-case confidentiality instead of a blanket ban.

“The parent plaintiffs’ Christian beliefs that God created humans as immutable biological males/females is substantially burdened by AB 1955’s secrecy mandate.”

Could AB 1955 impact faiths besides Christianity? Yes, it arguably burdens any religious parents whose beliefs on gender/identity are violated by secret school transitions.

LEFTIST LGBTQ+ ACTIVIST GROUP HUAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CELEBRATES NEWSOM SIGNING IF THE BILL INTO LAW.

SUMMARY OF SO CALLED “SAFETY ACT” BY CA LEGISLATIVE LGBTQ CAUCUS

(AB) 1955, the Support Academic Futures & Educators for Today’s Youth Act (SAFETY
Act),strengthenS existing California protections against forced outings of LGBTQ+ students in schools; provide critical resources for parents and families of
LGBTQ+ students to support them in working towards family acceptance on their own terms; and provide additional protections to educators who face retaliatory
actions from administrators and school boards for seeking to create an inclusive and safe school environment.”…”Choosing when to come out and to whom is a deeply
personal decision that every LGBTQ+ young individual has the right to make for themselves. Many parents and families understand this and want to
support their children coming out to them on their own terms. Unfortunately, not all young people are welcomed or safe being their authentic selves at home, and in those cases schools can be a critical source of support.”

THE LAWSUIT FIELD IN FEDERAL COURT AGAINST “SAFETY ACT”.

“The federal court battle over AB 1955 will not only decide the fate of California’s first-in-the-nation policy on transgender student confidentiality, but could chart the course for a brewing national debate over parental rights, religious liberty, and LGBTQ+ inclusion.

With novel constitutional arguments and heart-wrenching personal stories on both sides, the litigation poses challenging questions about the proper boundaries between family, school, church, and state when it comes to the most vulnerable and personal issues of identity, sexuality, and belief.

However the district court rules, an appeal is virtually certain. In the meantime, all eyes are on California as a bellwether for this next frontier in the culture wars.”

CALIFORNIA FAMILY COUNCIL REPORTS.

“The California Family Council (CFC) vehemently condemns Governor Gavin Newsom’s decision to sign AB 1955, a bill that creates a government-imposed wall of secrecy between parents and their children. This legislation, passed by the California Legislature and now signed into law, allows schools to withhold critical information from parents about their children’s health and welfare. The bill specifically prohibits school districts from enacting policies requiring parents to be notified if their child has asked everyone at school to use a different name and pronoun.”

“Assemblyman Bill Essayli, a staunch advocate for parental rights and author of AB 1314, which aimed to ensure parental notification for gender changes on school records, also voiced strong opposition:”

“Today, Governor Gavin Newsom defied parents’ constitutional and God-given right to raise their children by signing AB 1955, which codifies the government’s authority to keep secrets from parents. AB 1955 endangers children by excluding parents from important matters impacting their child’s health and welfare at school. Governor Newsom signing AB 1955 is both immoral and unconstitutional, and we will challenge it in court to stop the government from keeping secrets from parents.”

“Parental rights have been under continuous attack by the California Legislature. Assemblyman Essayli’s efforts to pass AB 1314, which would ensure parents are aware if their child requests to change their gender on official school records, were blocked by legislative Democrats. Additionally, Attorney General Rob Bonta has been actively suing school districts to maintain this secrecy. AB 1955 further solidifies the government’s authority to withhold vital information from parents.”

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM RESPONDS TO ELON MUSK WARNINGS AND AFFIRM SIMILAR ACTIONS ARE TAKING PLACE IN OTHER STATES.

Alliance Defending Freedom

Struggling kids need their parents. Policies like this  prevent that. But it’s not just happening in CA. We represent many clients whose children have been “transitioned” at school, under similar policies, without their parents’ knowledge or consent.”

·ELON MUSK Jul 16

“The governor of California just signed a bill causing massive destruction of parental rights and putting children at risk for permanent damage.”

LAW INC EXPLAINS.

(Full report provided here for parents to understand the implications of AB 1955)

“Classroom Confidential: Inside the Explosive Lawsuit Challenging California’s AB 1955”

“The controversial California Assembly Bill 1955, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 15, 2024, now faces a major legal challenge that could determine the fate of parental rights and religious freedom in the context of gender transitioning students.”

“This guide breaks down all the key aspects of the high-stakes federal lawsuit filed by the Chino Valley Unified School District and concerned parents against state officials, providing an in-depth look at the constitutional issues, legal arguments, and potential impacts of the case.”

“From the bill’s restrictions on parental notification to alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, learn what both sides are arguing and what the outcome could mean for California families and school policies.”

1. Understand the Core Provisions of AB 1955

• • Prohibits Parental Notification Policies: Bans school districts from adopting rules that would require informing parents of their child’s gender identity/expression without the child’s consent.
  • Applies to All Grade Levels: Covers students from preschool through 12th grade, regardless of age.
  • Restricts Staff Disclosures: School employees/contractors can’t be compelled to reveal a student’s gender identity to others without the student’s permission.
  • Invalidates Conflicting Rules: Nullifies any existing school board policies inconsistent with the bill’s provisions.
  • Carves Out Sensitive Situation: Treats gender identity information differently than other scenarios where schools routinely notify parents, like injuries or disciplinary issues.

Examples:

• • The Chino Valley Unified School District’s Board Policy 5010 requiring parental notice of changes to a student’s official records would be invalidated by AB 1955.
  • A kindergarten teacher couldn’t inform parents that their 5-year-old asked to use a different name/pronouns in class without the child’s consent.
  • An administrator who reveals a middle schooler’s request to transition genders to their parents without permission could face disciplinary action.
  • A coach who sees a transgender athlete being bullied in the locker room couldn’t discuss the situation with the student’s family without approval.
  • Schools would still notify parents if their child was in a fight or failed a class, but not if they asked to change their name, pronouns, or gender expression on campus

How AB 1955 Changes the Status Quo:

• • Overrides local policies requiring parental notification and involvement in their child’s gender identity decisions and shifts power to students and the state.
  • Allows schools to facilitate a child’s social transition without informing parents, even for very young students not usually given this level of autonomy.
  • Threatens teachers/staff with consequences for disclosing a student’s gender-related information to parents without the child’s permission.
  • Creates a knowledge gap where parents could be unaware that their child is presenting as a different gender at school vs. at home.
  • Affords gender identity a uniquely protected status compared to other important aspects of a child’s health, education, and upbringing.

FAQs:

• • What kind of gender identity policies does AB 1955 prohibit? Any school rule requiring parental notification if a child asks to change their name, pronouns, or gender expression at school without the student’s consent.
  • Does the law apply to charter and private schools? The text specifically mentions school districts, county education offices, and state special schools, but not charters or private schools.
  • Are there any exceptions to the parental notification ban? Only if otherwise required by state/federal law, which the plaintiffs argue includes FERPA’s guarantee of parental access to educational records.
  • When did AB 1955 take effect? The law was signed July 15, 2024 but doesn’t take effect until January 1, 2025, giving the plaintiffs a window to challenge it before implementation.
  • What type of gender transition does AB 1955 cover? The bill focuses on “social transition” like name/pronoun changes, not medical procedures such as hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery.

2. Examine the Lawsuit’s Factual Allegations

• • Parties Involved: Chino Valley USD, parents of current CA public school students, and state officials including the Governor, Attorney General, and Superintendent of Public Instruction.
  • Parents’ Religious Beliefs: Parent plaintiffs are devout Christians who believe God created humans as immutable biological males/females.
  • Unintended Consequences: Without parental involvement, socially transitioning a child at school could reinforce a temporary phase and lead to higher risk of suicide.
  • School Policy Conflicts: AB 1955 invalidates CVUSD’s policy requiring parental notice within 3 days of staff learning a student wants to change their official records.
  • Statewide Impacts: Multiple districts have parental notification rules that will be overridden, impacting families across California.

Examples:

• • Plaintiff Oscar Avila is the parent of an 11th grader in the Chino Valley district and believes his right to raise his child according to his faith is violated by AB 1955.
  • Studies show gender dysphoric youth who socially transition are more likely to persist in their transgender identity, even if they may have grown out of it otherwise.
  • Without policies like CVUSD’s in place, a depressed 14-year-old could start secretly living as the opposite sex at school without their parents’ awareness or support.
  • Districts in Temecula Valley, Orange County, Rocklin, and other areas have similar parental notification rules on the books that will become void.
  • CVUSD argues AB 1955 forces districts to choose between complying with the state law or respecting parents’ constitutional rights, putting them in legal jeopardy either way.

Central Factual Disputes:

• • Do policies requiring schools to inform parents of their child’s social transition put vulnerable LGBTQ youth at greater risk of harm from unsupportive families?
  • Is keeping a child’s gender identity hidden from parents at school truly protecting the student’s best interests and constitutional privacy rights?
  • Should schools or parents get the final say in life-altering decisions for minor children too young to fully understand the long-term ramifications of transitioning?
  • Did the legislature adequately consider AB 1955’s potential to deprive parents of critical information about their child’s mental health?
  • Can schools legally enable a student to maintain separate home and school gender identities without violating parents’ rights to guide their child’s upbringing?

FAQs:

Is keeping transition info secret from parents legal in other states? Some states have similar policies, but many are facing legal challenges on grounds of violating parental rights.
3. Analyze the Parental Rights Argument

Why is Chino Valley USD a plaintiff in this case? The district has an existing policy requiring parental notification of student record changes that will be invalidated by AB 1955, forcing it to choose which law to violate.

Are all the parent plaintiffs from the same school district? No, the parent plaintiffs have children attending public schools in several different districts across the state.

How young are the children of the parent plaintiffs? They range from preschool to 12th grade, showing how AB 1955 impacts families with kids of all ages.

Have other districts joined CVUSD in suing over AB 1955 so far? Not at this stage, but the outcome will affect policies in districts throughout CA that mandate parental involvement in social transition decisions.

• • Fundamental Liberty Interest: Parents have a substantive due process right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their children.
  • Broad Parental Authority: Moms and dads, not the state, should direct their child’s education, healthcare, and emotional needs barring abuse/neglect.
  • Age/Maturity Considerations: Minors lack the experience and judgment to make major life choices, so parents must guide profound decisions.
  • Justified Limits to Child Autonomy: Just because a youth wants something doesn’t mean it’s in their best interest, e.g. cosmetic surgery.
  • Compelling State Interest Required: CA must have a legitimate reason to override fit parents’ choices, not just a policy preference for secrecy.

Examples:

• • The Supreme Court has long recognized parental rights as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” protected by the Constitution.
  • A first-grader wanting teachers to call them by opposite sex pronouns doesn’t override their parents’ authority to learn of and weigh in on that decision.
  • We don’t let 10-year-olds get tattoos or 15-year-olds buy cars on their own, so socially transitioning at school shouldn’t be a solo choice either.
  • If a teen girl asked for breast implants but didn’t want to tell her parents, we wouldn’t expect a doctor to secretly do the surgery anyway.

Key Parental Rights Issues:

• • Does secretly facilitating a child’s social transition at school without parental notice or consent violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of parental authority over profound decisions?
  • Will AB 1955 disrupt the crucial role of parents in making informed choices about whether and when a gender transition is truly in their child’s long-term best interests?
  • Should teachers/staff with limited knowledge of a child’s background be empowered to hide and even enable life-altering identity changes from that student’s family?
  • Does the state have any compelling justification for depriving all parents of this information, even those who would be loving and supportive of their child’s transition?
  • Can courts uphold AB 1955’s parental notification ban without setting a dangerous precedent for eroding parental rights in other areas of a child’s life?

FAQs:

• • Is AB 1955’s ban on parental notification limited to gender transitions? Yes, the bill only restricts schools from telling parents about issues related to their child’s gender identity and expression.
  • Does AB 1955 require active parental consent for social transition? No, just that schools can’t adopt policies that proactively inform parents without the student’s permission.
  • What does current CA law say about parental consent for transition? Minors under 18 need parental approval for legal name/gender changes and medical transition treatments.
  • How does FERPA factor into the parental rights debate? The plaintiffs argue FERPA, which mandates parental access to educational records, preempts AB 1955’s secrecy provisions.
  • Can schools keep other sensitive info from parents under AB 1955? No, the bill only covers disclosures related specifically to gender identity issues, not academic, disciplinary, or other records.

4. Examine the Free Exercise of Religion Claim

• • Unduly Burdening Sincerely Held Beliefs: AB 1955 violates parents’ 1st Amendment right to raise their children consistent with their religious convictions.
  • Coercing Families to Violate Faith Tenets: The law forces parents to allow schools to secretly impose a gender ideology that may contradict their doctrinal teachings.
  • Not Generally Applicable: The parental notification ban isn’t neutrally applied to all situations, but singles out gender identity for unique confidentiality.
  • No Compelling State Justification: CA hasn’t shown it has a paramount interest in keeping parents in the dark that overrides their Free Exercise rights.
  • Less Restrictive Means Available: The state could further its goals without trampling religious freedom, e.g. case-by-case confidentiality instead of a blanket ban.

Examples:

• • The parent plaintiffs’ Christian beliefs that God created humans as immutable biological males/females is substantially burdened by AB 1955’s secrecy mandate.
  • An observant Catholic family could be kept in the dark while their child is affirmed as “transgender” at school, coercing them to live in a way that violates their faith.
  • Schools don’t withhold info from parents in other sensitive situations like teen pregnancy or drug use, so the law isn’t neutrally applied.
  • Asserting a general interest in student privacy isn’t enough to justify forcing families to surrender their 1st Amendment rights under AB 1955.
  • If a student has unsupportive parents, address that specific situation rather than gag all schools from ever notifying any parents about gender transitions.

Key Religious Liberty Questions:

• • Can the government compel parents to defer to their child’s desires in an area that implicates fundamental religious convictions about human identity and biology?
  • Is a “social transition” truly a purely secular matter, or do schools facilitating it without parental involvement raise significant Free Exercise problems?
  • Does AB 1955’s narrow focus on gender identity mean it flunks the general applicability test and must withstand strict scrutiny to be constitutional?
  • Will courts find the state’s asserted pupil privacy concerns compelling enough to trump parents’ religious right to guide their child’s identity development?
  • Are there alternative policies CA could pursue to protect vulnerable trans students without resorting to a total ban on parental notification?

FAQs:

• • What makes a religious belief “sincerely held”? Courts look at factors like whether it’s a longstanding tenet, consistently followed, and central to the person’s faith, not just a pretext.
  • Do all major religions view gender as binary and immutable? Many do teach that sex/gender is a fixed, God-given trait, but some faiths are evolving on transgender inclusion.
  • Could AB 1955 impact faiths besides Christianity? Yes, it arguably burdens any religious parents whose beliefs on gender/identity are violated by secret school transitions.
  • Have other courts ruled on similar notification laws? Some have upheld and others have struck down such policies, so the issue is still hotly contested.
  • What would strict scrutiny of AB 1955 require? The state must prove the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest, using the least restrictive means possible.

5. Analyze Potential Federal Preemption Issues

• • FERPA’s Guarantee of Parental Access: Federal law mandates schools give parents the right to inspect their children’s education records.
  • Broad Definition of Education Records: Any information directly related to a student that is maintained by a school is covered.
  • Federal Law Trumps State Policy: Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws conflicting with federal statutes like FERPA are preempted and unenforceable.
  • No Clear Carve-Outs in FERPA: The law doesn’t expressly exempt gender identity info from the records parents have a right to access.
  • Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine: Courts should interpret AB 1955 to avoid conflict with FERPA if at all possible to prevent nullifying it entirely.

Examples:

• • If a student legally changes their name/gender, schools must make that update to “directory information” accessible to parents under FERPA.
  • Teacher notes, counselor records, or internal memos about a child’s stated gender identity likely qualify as protected education records under federal law.
  • Schools can’t refuse a parent’s valid FERPA request for their child’s information just because a conflicting state law like AB 1955 tells them to withhold it.
  • Absent specific language in FERPA itself allowing gender transition details to be kept confidential, the default presumption is that parents have a right to that material.
  • If AB 1955 is ambiguous on whether gender-related records are exempt from disclosure, courts should read it as complying with FERPA to avoid a clash of laws.

Preemption Pitfalls to Ponder:

• • Would enforcing AB 1955’s parental notification ban put schools in an impossible position of having to violate FERPA’s parental access requirements?
  • Can California courts find a way to uphold AB 1955 without putting it on a collision course with federal law that would potentially invalidate it?
  • Does FERPA’s text or implementing regulations offer any basis for reading a “gender identity privacy exception” into the parental access mandate?
  • Should pupil privacy concerns about revealing a child’s transgender status trump the general rule that parents are entitled to review their education records?
  • Might FERPA itself be unconstitutional if courts interpret it as allowing schools to keep life-altering information about a child’s mental health secret from parents?

FAQs:

• • What other laws besides FERPA cover school records? Medical info in education files may also be protected by HIPAA but FERPA is the main statute on point.
  • Are there any limits on parental access under FERPA? Schools can withhold records like staff personal notes that aren’t widely shared or do not directly relate to the student.
  • How do FERPA violations get investigated and enforced? The U.S. Department of Education handles complaints and can pull a school’s federal funding for uncorrected infractions.
  • Has FERPA been challenged on constitutional grounds before? Yes, but courts have upheld it as a valid exercise of Congress’ spending power to impose conditions on schools getting federal aid.
  • What if the student is 18 or older? FERPA and many state laws transfer privacy rights from the parents to the student once they turn 18 or enter college.

6. Consider the Broader Legal and Social Implications

• • Potential for Nationwide Impact: As the first state law of its kind, AB 1955 could become a model for other Democratic states or be promptly repealed if struck down.
  • Partisan Polarization on Transgender Rights: With GOP states banning youth transition and Democrats pushing the opposite, the issue is a political lightning rod sure to spark more legislation and lawsuits.
  • Evolving Medical and Social Views: As research on best practices for gender-questioning youth grows, policies may shift to follow the latest evidence-based recommendations.
  • Competing Rights and Interests at Stake: Courts must balance pupil privacy, parental rights, religious liberty, and the well-being of a vulnerable population.
  • Potential for Supreme Court Intervention: With circuit splits on key issues likely, the nation’s highest court may need to weigh in for a definitive ruling.

Examples:

• • Conservative states may cite a ruling against AB 1955 to justify their own laws mandating parental notice and consent for any gender transition actions.
  • If the law is upheld, expect blue states to copy this policy and GOP-led states to seek congressional legislation or a constitutional amendment overturning it.
  • Mainstream medical orgs could revise their position statements on social transition based on emerging research, prompting a wave of amended school policies.
  • The 9th Circuit is likely to be more deferential to pupil confidentiality concerns while conservative circuits will probably prioritize parental rights.
  • Like with same-sex marriage, SCOTUS may leave gender identity policies to the states at first but eventually take a case to set a national standard.

Big Picture Questions to Consider:

• • In our federalist system, how much leeway should states have to set their own policies on sensitive issues like parental rights and gender identity?
  • As cultural attitudes on transgenderism rapidly evolve, can courts keep up to ensure pupils, parents and educators all have clear legal guidance?
  • With passions running high on all sides, how can we foster more nuanced, productive dialogue to develop policies that respect everyone’s rights?
  • Do schools have the training and resources to competently navigate the complex medical, legal and ethical issues around childhood gender transition?
  • How can policymakers, families and professionals work together to ensure questioning youth get the support they need without being prematurely pushed in any one direction?

FAQs:

• • When is the lawsuit likely to be resolved? With multiple stages of litigation expected, it will probably be a year or more before a definitive outcome, possibly longer.
  • What happens if the law is struck down? The pre-AB 1955 status quo allowing districts to set their own parental notification policies would be restored unless/until new legislation passes.
  • Who is representing the parties in this case? Experienced constitutional litigators from advocacy groups will argue for both sides, reflecting the high stakes and public interest.
  • Are any other states considering similar legislation? While some have introduced similar bills, none have yet enacted a law exactly like AB 1955 being challenged here.
  • Could this case affect LGBTQ+ rights beyond the school context? A broad ruling for either side could have ripple effects on other laws and policies around privacy, parental authority and transgender inclusion.

THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT ALREADY FILED AGAINS THE INSANITY.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHINO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a local educational agency; OSCAR
AVILA, an individual; MONICA BOTTS, an
individual; JASON CRAIG, an individual; KRISTI
HAYS, an individual; COLE MANN, an
individual; VICTOR ROMERO, an individual;
GHEORGHE ROSCA, JR., an individual; and
LESLIE SAWYER, an individual;
Plaintiffs,
v.
GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of California; ROBERT
BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the State of California; and TONY
THURMOND, in his official capacity as California
State Superintendent of Public Instruction;
Defendants.

1. Numerous studies assert that transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and abuse, and that transgender youth experience an abnormally high number of suicidal thoughts and make an abnormally high number of suicide attempts.
2. Faced with these concerns, various California school districts have adopted policies under which the school respects the wishes of students who ask to be treated as a gender different from their natal sex, while also making parents aware that the school is participating in the social transition of their child.

These policies ensure that school districts do not betray the extraordinary trust placed in them by parents, who otherwise would be misled about a monumental change to the development of their child and to that child’s official and unofficial school records.

3. These parental notification policies often address not only gender transition but also myriad other issues that parents would want or need to know about their child’s education and development.
4. For example, if a student is injured, bullied, or exhibits suicidal behavior at school, but does not want their parents to know, a school will notify the parents. If a student breaks their arm, hits their head, or develops a fever, the school will immediately tell the student’s parents. If a student is bullied or involved in a verbal or physical fight, the school will tell the parents. If a student expresses a desire to hurt
   or kill themself, the school will tell the parents. So, too, must a school tell parents if a student has asked the school to participate in that student’s gender transition.
5. But through Assembly Bill 1955 (“AB 1955”) California now seeks to bar schools from
   adopting policies that would require notifying parents when their children may be at increased risk of psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and abuse, and extremely high rates of suicide and suicide attempts. Specifically, AB 1955 states that a “school district . . . shall not enact or enforce any
   policy, rule, or administrative regulation that would require an employee or a contractor to disclose any information related to a pupil’s . . . gender identity[] or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent . . .” (emphasis added). This means that, no matter how young a child is, a school cannot
   tell the child’s parents the school is socially transitioning their child without the minor’s “consent.”
6. This action is brought on behalf of Chino Valley Unified School District and certain
   California parents of children in the public school system who seek to bar California from implementing.
   AB 1955 in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”)

District Plaintiff

10. Plaintiff Chino Valley Unified School District (“CVUSD”) is a public entity established
    and organized under California law and subject to the restrictions of the United States Constitution.
    CVUSD is a public school district and local educational agency as defined by California Education Code section 56026.3. CVUSD’s responsibilities include crafting and implementing policies for the district’s employees and students within its jurisdiction.
    Parent Plaintiffs”

NOTE- Nine families have signed on to the lawsuit.

• SAMPLE OF THE PARENTAL CHRISTIAN FAITH OBJECTIONS TO AB1955

Plaintiff Monica Botts is and at all relevant times has been a resident of the State of
California. She is and at all relevant times has been a devout Christian who believes God created man and woman as distinct, immutable genders and the parent of A.B., a rising tenth-grade student attending public school in the Temecula Valley Unified School District”

“Socially Transitioning Children Without Parental Involvement Negatively Impacts Children”

AB 1955

23. On July 15, 2024, Defendant Governor Newsom signed AB 1955 into law. Absent judicial
    intervention, AB 1955 will take effect January 1, 2025.
24. AB 1955 makes several changes to the California Education Code regarding the treatment of children who request to “socially transition” their gender at school, which refers primarily to adopting a new name and/or pronouns that differ from one’s natal sex.
25. AB 1955 provides in relevant part that “[a]n employee or a contractor of a school district . . . shall not be required to disclose any information related to a pupil’s . . . gender identity[] or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent.” Cal. Ed. Code § 220.3.
26. AB 1955 also prohibits all California school districts from “enact[ing] or enforc[ing] any
    policy, rule, or administrative regulation that would require an employee or a contractor to disclose any information related to a pupil’s . . . gender identity[] or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.” Cal. Ed. Code § 220.5(a).
27. AB 1955 further provides that “[a]ny policy, regulation, guidance, directive, or other action of a school district . . . that is inconsistent with” the previous section “is invalid and shall not have any force or effect.” Id. § 220.5(c).
28. Taken together, these provisions upend the traditional relationship between students, their parents, and their teachers.
29. Notably, AB 1955 includes within its scope all students in California school districts—
    including students in preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, and high school. Thismeans that if a four-year-old student requested to change their gender at school, their parents might not be
30. notified without that four-year-old’s consent.
31. Notifying parents of significant events that impact their children at school—such as when they are injured, bullied, or express a desire to self-harm—is, of course, the norm. But AB 1955 carves out special exceptions for school policies that have the effect of notifying parents if their child asks their school to facilitate the child’s social transition due to changes in their gender identity.

WHAT TRANS-ACTIVIST SUPPORTERS SAY ABOUT THE BATTLE-FROM “HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH ”

NOTE THAT NEWSOM AND CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT HAVE CAST THEIR LOT WITH THE FRINGE ACTIVIST IN AN EFFORT TO LAUNCH THE MOVEMENT NATION WIDE.

“School Officials Should Protect Trans Youth, Not “Out” Them”

“While homes may not always provide a safe haven for trans youth, schools should. For trans youth, especially those encountering difficulties at home, school often serves as a vital outlet for self-expression. Studies indicate that trans youth thrive when they can openly and safely express their gender identity. Yet, with a surge in anti-LGBT legislation and ongoing incidents of bullying and harassment, schools are increasingly becoming hostile territory for LGBT youth.”

 “These efforts subvert the child’s autonomy, denying their basic rights to non-discrimination and harassment, access to education and health care, and freedom of expression.”

“These groups exclude parents who support their LGBT children or value historically accurate and inclusive educational material. This uneven application of “parental rights,” catering to certain parents while dismissing others, underscores the overtly political nature of such laws.”

“Such distorted interpretations of “parental rights” divert attention from the genuine challenges faced by parents, particularly those from marginalized communities, who strive to nurture and empower their children. “

THE CDC HAS BEEN PROMOTING THE “SAFE SCHOOLS” TRANSGENDER INSANE POLICY FOR SOME TIME -LIKE THIS 2019 ARTICLE AND RESOURCE

NOTE- ENSHRINING TRANS IDENTIFIED YOUTH “RIGHTS TO AUTONOMY” ABOVE PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ENDAGERMENT OF CHILDREN CONFUSED BY A FALSE AGENDA DRIVEN ACTIVISM OF THE GLOBAL MALTHUSIAN CABAL.

CONCLUSION

While churches, denominations, Seminaries and organizations like Lausanne Movement and The Gospel Coalition led by evangelical leaders like Tim Keller , Albert Mohler, Ed Stetzer and J D Greear have spent the last decade subcribing to and promoting SOGI/ Critical Gender and Queer Theory, Pronoun use in the churches and so called “Same Sex Attracted Gay Christinaity” -the sweeping LGBTQ+ agenda has advanced almost unapposed by the church. ( NOTE TGC did cover this new law in a recent article BUT it and its leaders have invested over a decade in promoting the VERY ideologies that have brought the Christian parents involved in this lawsuit to the struggle they now are forced to enage against the state of CA)

NOW finally -with little or no help from compromised leaders and organizations promoting the unbiblical sexual ideologies of the global cabal- California has now begun to awaken the sleeping giant …Christian Parents who have had enough. Pray for this and other wicked legislative efforts to fail and be overturned swiftly and pray for BETTER godly and faithful leaders in the church and for the remianing influence of these compromised leaders of recent decades to fade quickly into the trash heap of history.

ROMANS 1:18-32

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, …