This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Asking Supreme Court to cancel mandatory lessons for 3-year-olds about sex worker

There likely are few issues on which Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents – and a wide range of others interested in constitutional issues – are in alignment. But there is at least one.

That would be to fight a school's scheme to force mandatory LGBT indoctrination lessons on children as young as three years old without even letting parents know.

The fight is over demands by officials in the Montgomery County, Maryland, Board of Education who adopted their mandatory secret indoctrination program for children, drawing opposition from Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents represented by Becket.

And now dozens of members of Congress, officials from 26 states and a wide array of legal scholars have joined the multi-faith coalition of parents.

Becket explains the school officials not only adopted a program to push a "one-sided ideology on gender and sexuality" on children as young as three, the board then "took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks that celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences."

That means the district will force children to sit through such indoctrinations, and it won't even allow the parents to know about it.

According to Becket, "The new 'inclusivity' books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes 'intersex flag,' 'drag queen,' 'underwear,' 'leather,' and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn't have to 'make sense.' Teachers are instructed to say doctors only 'guess' when identifying a newborn's sex anyway."

Then the board summarily canceled all plans that would allow parents to have notice, and opt children out, a move Becket described as a violation of Maryland law, the board's own policies, and the advice of its own principals.

Joining the parents now is the solicitor general of the United States, whose brief explains the "obvious" violation of parental religious rights by the board.

Then a coalition of 26 states filed a brief in support of the parents, citing the longstanding national standard of protecting parental direction for their children on such issues.

The 66 members of Congress who joined the parents explained the requirements of federal law regarding the issue, and nearly three dozens members of the Maryland legislature said state law "requires affording religious families notice and opt-outs from this instruction."

A group of 10 different religious organizations warned about infringing on the Constitution's provisions for free exercise with the school move, and a dozen state family institutes warn about the role "authority" figures in schools have in influencing family religious traditions.

"Legal historians Eric DeGroff and Ernie Walton show the long historical tradition of protecting parental religious authority over their child's education, including in the public school context," Becket said. And, "Prominent legal groups including America First Legal Foundation and Americans for Prosperity explain the lack of historical pedigree for the controversial and one-sided instruction here, and how it goes beyond the delegated authority of parents to their public schools."

"As this outpouring of support makes clear, parents don't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids," said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. "Montgomery County's decision to run roughshod over parental rights betrays our nation's traditions and common sense. The justices should restore the opt-out and allow parents to raise their children according to their beliefs."

The case is scheduled to be argued April 22.