51 Families Sue Over School’s Bathroom Policy

Transgender,

Fifty-one public school families in Illinois filed a lawsuit this week over a school policy that lets biological males who claim to be female use the girl’s restrooms and locker rooms, according to attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom.

The suit was prompted by actions by the federal Department of Education and the school district. The federal Department of Education has begun claiming Title IX’s provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in education actually apply to gender-identity.

As a result, the federal government is trying to force public schools to let students use the restroom or locker room of their choice rather than the restroom or locker room of their biological sex.

ADF writes,

Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit today, Students and Parents for Privacy v. United States Department of Education, on behalf of 51 Palatine-area families against the US Department of Education and Township High School District 211. The lawsuit targets U.S. Department of Education rules that unlawfully redefine terms of Title IX and illegitimately force schools to open public school restrooms and locker rooms to members of the opposite sex in violation of student privacy and safety.

“No government agency can unilaterally redefine the meaning of a federal law to serve its own political ends,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Sharp. “The Department of Education is exceeding what it is legally and constitutionally allowed to do. In fact, at least five other federal and state courts have rejected the DOE’s interpretation of Title IX.”

The message all of this sends is clear: Public schools who go along with the federal government’s misguided, radical agenda could face a very serious lawsuit.

You can read more about this case here.

READ MORE

Understanding North Carolina’s “Bathroom Bill”

Current Events, Transgender, , , ,

North_Carolina_Locator_Map_with_USOver the past several weeks we have seen a lot of questions–and misinformation–about North Carolina’s so-called “bathroom bill”. What is this bill, and does Arkansas need one like it?

In a nutshell, North Carolina’s proposed H.B. 2 primarily does five things:

  1. It requires restrooms, locker rooms, showers, changing rooms, and similar facilities at public schools to be sex-specific, and requires each person to use the facility that corresponds to his or her biological sex.
  2. It requires restrooms, locker rooms, showers, changing rooms, and similar facilities at government buildings–like those at highway rest stops, public colleges, and so on–to be sex-specific, and requires each person to use the facility that corresponds to his or her biological sex.
  3. It allows these institutions to designate single-occupancy restrooms as available to any person, regardless of sex. That means a restroom with only one stall in it, for example, could be used by anyone regardless of his or her sex or gender-identity.
  4. It prevents cities and counties from enacting ordinances creating additional, protected classes–much like Arkansas’ Intrastate Commerce law passed in 2015 does.
  5. It allows businesses and other organizations to designate their restrooms as they see fit. That means if Target wants to let biological males use the women’s restrooms, Target may do so; if Walmart, for instance, wants to make sure a man or woman uses the restroom that corresponds to his or her biological sex, Walmart may do so.

It is entirely reasonable for the State of North Carolina to pass a law governing how government-owned and operated restrooms and similar facilities are utilized.

It is entirely reasonable for the North Carolina Legislature to reserve the power to recognize protected classes of citizens.

And it is entirely reasonable for businesses to decide biological males must use the men’s room and biological females must use the women’s room.

As to whether or not Arkansas needs a law like North Carolina’s, Arkansas passed a law in 2015 that prevents local governments from creating or recognizing any protected classes not found in state law; this should effectively prevent cities and counties from giving special rights or protections to people based on sexual orientation or gender identity–just as North Carolina’s bill does.

As far as the “bathroom” aspect of North Carolina’s bill is concerned, Arkansas’ lawmakers may want to look into legislation that would prevent some of the madness we have seen in states whose legislatures have not addressed public restrooms.

For example, last February a Seattle man entered the women’s locker at a pool twice–once while a girls’ swim team was present. When confronted, he told staff, “the law has changed, and I have a right to be here.” The police were not called, and no one was arrested. Our friends at the Family Policy Institute of Washington also recently wrote about a convicted sex offender trying to gain access to women’s restrooms and locker rooms.

Given the situations other communities are facing, it’s easy to understand why a state legislature would want to clarify the laws surrounding sex-specific facilities.

READ MORE