Stop H.R.28 - Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025

An activist friend of mine, referring to a proposed Federal law,  posted the following on March 3, 2025:

My political post for the month: some may be aware that this evening the Senate will be voting on the Protection of women in sports act *, which would prevent those with bats & balls, and those who identify with those who don’t have them, from competing against those who were born without them. This is a law that supports women in sports, and clearly those who oppose it really don’t care about women losing athletic opportunities and achieving the success they deserve. How anyone could support a political party that supports this travesty is beyond me! It amazes me that the Republican Senators need just 3 Democratic votes to pass this legislation and that it is uncertain they will get them. It is this sort of outrageous policy stance that is causing Democrats - and will continue to - lose elections. #protection of women in sports act [sic]

My Comments:

I agree with the intent but not the bill. These decisions should be left to the governing bodies of the particular sports organizations, be that be school boards, rule-making bodies of private sports institutions, et al. As a believer in reigning in the size and scope of government, especially the Federal Government, I don’t want to have Congress wading into this issue. As I recall, Trump wants to eliminate the Department of Education and leave education to the states. I agree. As I understand this Act, it applies only to school athletic programs. If Trump means what he says, he will veto this bill if it ever gets to his desk.

My friend responded:

my take is that because of the law Title IX, the regulations propagated by the federal government and the several “dear colleague“ letters that have been issued by the DOE, requiring adherence to DOE policy statements or threatening revocation of funding, this can only be resolved at the federal level. The alternative is that you could have Lea Thomas’s spring up in various states competing against women in other states that prohibit those with bats and balls from competing against those without. It’s handled with federal level legislation. [sic]

• 
  

My reply:

It’s already been resolved—by the courts, which threw out Biden’s twisted LBGTQ policy in its entirety a week and a half before Trump took office. “The alternative” is exactly the point—it’s rightfully and properly an issue for the states and their courts. Title IX is a bad law. It invites twisted interpretations. Congress should focus its energies on repealing, or at least amending, Title IX. H.R.28 is an unnecessary and dangerous escalation in Federal power over education.

For the record, I support the complete separation of education and state—and a Constitutional Amendment to lock in that principle—in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of church and state, and I will support any legislation that advances educational freedom toward that ultimate goal.

* [Note: The bill failed to get the votes in the Senate.]

Related Reading:

Beware of Federal Education Policies—Even If You Like Them by Kerry McDonald for FEE

Transgender vs. Transgender Impersonator [aka gender identity]

Crossing, a Transgender Memoir by Dierdre McCloskey

On the ‘Transgender’ Phenomenon

Why elite women’s sports need to be based on sex, not gender Doriane Lambelet Coleman

Beneath the Title IX Controversy

Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits? by me for TOS

Education in a Free Society—C. Bradley Thompson for The Objective Standard

QUORA: 'What is one constitutional amendment that should be added to the U.S. Constitution that does not exist today? Why does it need to be added?'

The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools—Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard

The Inherent Corruption of Public Sector Unionization

In a NJ Spotlight News op-ed, Tammy Murphy’s candidacy exposes nepotism, business as usual in NJ, Marc Gaswirth writes about the nepotism of New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy’s wife running for NJ senator. Though the main focus of the article is Tammy Murphy’s obvious connection to her governor husband, another item caught my attention:

[The New Jersey Governor is] bestowed with constitutionally enormous power and influence, [so Phil Murphy] will continue to drive the state’s education agenda during his remaining time in office, and that means, if the past is a predictor of future behavior, the NJEA’s [New Jersey Education Association, or teachers union} agenda.  

Gov. Murphy has been the most pro-teachers’ union governor in New Jersey history. Since 2018, he and a compliant legislature have approved several major union legislative initiatives by largely bypassing and usurping the local collective bargaining process.

The very idea of a “pro-teachers’ union governor” points to the fundamental corruption of public sector unions. Since the government is their employer, the power of these unions draws directly from the coercive, law-making powers of the state. By being able to form political organizations, these unions can work to elect friendly politicians that will work for them, rather than the broader public that the duty of elected officials demands. This is unlawful, since federal law forbids government employees from using the gun-power of the government to advance their own interests at the expense of the public these political leaders are supposed to represent. Furthermore, public employees represent the public, so there is a huge conflict of interest when they organize to negotiate against the public. The teachers union gets to “negotiate,” not with a representative of the public, but with its own political crony. In effect, the negotiating table features the teachers union and Gov. Phil Murphy on one side, and nobody on the side of the broader public. That is the very definition of corruption.

Contrast Murphy with our last governor. I sorely miss Governor Chris Christie. He was the rare NJ governor who actually represented the broader tax-paying, student-supplying public in dealing with the teachers unions.

I speak as a union member myself, the plumbers union, a private-sector trade union. But my union, being private, is completely different in kind from the public unions. It’s not that the teachers union, and all public sector unions, engage in some corrupt activity that can be weeded out. The truth is, they are inherently, systemically, irredeemably corrupt. At the very least, public sector unions should immediately be legally banned from all political activity, be it fundraising, political donations, campaigning, candidate or issue endorsements and promotions, running PACs, or whatever. Ultimately, public sector unions are unconstitutional and should be outlawed. 

Related Reading:

School Choice is About Freedom, not "Union-Busting"

Is Governor Christie Winning NJ's Public School War?

Abusive Teachers Union Power Results from Government School Monopoly

Not Accountable: Rethinking the Constitutionality of Public Employee Unions by Philip K. Howard

Why Government Unions—Unlike Trade Unions—Corrupt Democracy by Phillip K. Howard for Time

The Liberal Case Against Public Unions by Phillip K. Howard for The Daily Beast

Several specific provisions of the Constitution safeguard against the delegation of sovereign powers. Article II grants “executive power” to the president, and numerous cases have held that Congress lacks authority to remove the president’s ability to hold inferior officers accountable. Article IV provides that “the United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The purpose of this “Guarantee Clause,” Madison explained, was to require a linkage between voters and the people making governing decisions, thus preventing the ceding of powers to nobles or other “favored class.”

‘Banned Books Week’ vs. Real Book Banning

Did you know we just had “Banned Books Week?” Yes, there is such a thing. In America, of all places—as absurd as that sounds. It ran from October 1 - 7.

This silliness is a reaction, of course, to the controversies surrounding the appropriateness of certain books being carried in school libraries. A Washington Post article by Alyssa Rosenberg and Greg Sargent, It’s Banned Books Week. Here’s how to fight for libraries, covered the issue from the perspective of the side opposing the so-called book banners—i.e., the parents who object to their children being exposed to certain material they believe is inappropriate for their children. 

I will not wade into the controversy here. I’ve already done that here and here. My aim here is to push back against what I consider to be a gross misuse of wording and thus a gross misrepresentation of the issue. I posted this comment:

Can anyone cite one single instance of someone being fined, jailed, hung, burned at the stake, or forced into exile for owning any book in America? I ask because those outrages have been what has been inflicted throughout history on those who dared to violate ACTUAL book bans—books banned by government edict or laws. If you’ve ever read Jacob Mchangama’s excellent “Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media,” you’ll see what ACTUAL book banning looks like. 

Today, no books are banned in America. The powerful First Amendment won’t allow it. In classic Orwellian style, the Left has mischaracterized the controversy over what books are appropriate for school libraries as a battle over book banning. In fact, the issue is educational and involves age appropriateness of material available to children. There are no books that can’t be legally published and purchased by adults in America. Unfortunately, a tiny cabal of activists has managed to highlack the debate for it’s own narrow political ends, abetted by an uncritically compliant media. So-called “Banned Books Week'' is a fraud, and only serves to white-wash the legitimate competing issues and concerns surrounding school libraries and education, and demonize one side of the debate.

Related Reading:

NJ Proposed ‘Book Ban’ Law Seeks to Silence Parents, Debate and Dissent.

Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media by Jacob Mchangama 

Book-Banning vs. Age-Appropriate Educational Material

Real vs. Pseudo-Censorship

What the Parents’ Rights Movement is Really Really About

Parental Notification and the Rights of Children

By now everybody knows about the “culture war” being fought over gender issues relating to minor children in America’s government schools. This battle pits so-called LBGTQ activists against parents.* The activists claim they are defending the “rights” of children to their privacy by banning school officials from notifying parents if their child is claiming a gender change. They claim that parental notification would amount to “outing” the child.**

The people pushing back against the activists are standing on parental rights. 

But I think the issue of rights is confused, on both sides.

Children have rights, like everyone else. But, unlike everyone else, children are not capable of exercising their rights. They have neither the knowledge, rational maturity, judgment, or life experience to make informed choices. That is why parents have ultimate authority to make choices for them. As the child matures, the parent may (and should) allow more choice. But the parent retains ultimate authority. Child rearing is about a gradual process of preparing the child for adulthood, when they gain the full exercise authority over their rights.

In effect, the child’s rights are held “in trust” by the parents. This trust requires parents to have the fullest and most complete knowledge of their children, so they can make fully informed choices for their children, in the child’s best interest.*** LBGTQ activists, who want to bar school officials from notifying the parents of a child on gender issues, claim they are defending children’s rights. But by keeping relevant knowledge from the people responsible for the child’s rights, the parents, they are in actuality violating the child’s rights.

Of course, the activists don’t actually care about the child’s rights, or anyone’s rights. They don’t give a damn about the child. This is evident by their claim that informing the parents amounts to “outing,” even though the child is already outed by the very fact that the teacher, and presumably other students, and school officials, already know the child is claiming some manifestation of LBGTQ identity. Apparently, outing only occurs when the parents know, not when everyone else knows. This is a gross and disgusting disrespect of the parents. 

In fact, The LBGTQ activists’ only concern is with their own political and social agendas. There’s nothing wrong with issue activism. But these LGBTQ activists are ideological bullies who are using the gun power of the government school monopoly to impose their ideas on everyone.

As to the parents, they should realize that, strictly speaking, it is not their parental rights that entitle them to know about their children’s school activities. It is the rights of their own children that they are actually fighting for. The rights of parents to make critical decisions for their children are synonymous with children’s rights. 

This battle is currently raging in New Jersey, where local public school boards’ attempts to impose mandatory parental notification on school officials when they believe that “facts or circumstances that could impact a student’s health or well-being, including sexual orientation and gender identity” are the focal point. The state, siding with the ideological bullies, is attempting—and so far succeeding—to bar such local school board policies.

Personally, I think that neither the state or school board should force or ban teachers from notifying parents on these gender issues. Notification should be a matter between the parent and the teacher. If a parent pointedly asks the teacher to inform her if her child “decides” to change genders, the teacher has a moral obligation to inform the parent. If not specifically addressed, the teacher should use her judgment on whether the issue is important enough to involve the parents. If the teacher has information she thinks the parent should have, she should give it to her. (Likewise, if the teacher suspects child abuse, she should inform the authorities.)

Of course, the ultimate solution to this culture war over school policy is universal school choice, through the privatization of all education and the constitutional imposition of the complete separation of education and state. But that is a long term fight. The bottom line relevant here is that the child has rights, and it is the LBQTQ activists, and their far Left political allies, who are by far most guilty of violating the rights of the child.

* [LGBTQ stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer]

** [“Outing” in this context means the practice of revealing the sexual or gender identity of a person.”]

*** [Of course, parents can abuse that authority. Thart’s why we have child neglect and child abuse laws.]

Related Reading:

On the ‘Transgender’ Phenomenon

Are Parents Capable of Properly Educating Their Children in a Free Market?

Answering Readers’ Rebuttals to ‘What the Parents’ Rights Movement is Really Really About’ - 2

 In my comment on Jamelle Bouie’s New York Times op-ed What the Republican Push for ‘Parents’ Rights’ Is Really About, I got numerous replies, all of them critical. In my comment, I advocated for universal school finance choice, based on the idea that education tax dollars should follow the child, rather than go directly to the district school of the child’s residence. 

Well, the reactionary defenders of the monopolistic status quo came out in force. This is great, because they gave me the chance to address many of the opposition arguments. I’ll address these critics in turn in a series of posts. I’ll expose their disingenuousness, double standards, evasions, and confusions. To avoid using the “[sic]” notation for every erroneous or misspelled word or phrase, Let me simply state that respondents’ comments are reposted exactly as written. In some instances, the rebuttal begins with an excerpt from my comment.

You can read my entire comment here, and the article here. None of my replies were posted because the comments section was closed. I’m taking them in turn. Here is another in the series.

Mathew Reynolds wrote:

“Publicly financed education is the standard of all nations.” 

Yes, and I'm not challenging the public financing element in U.S. education. I am challenging the monopolistic administration and control of the schools by the government and its proxies, like the teachers union. District financing is framed as “per pupil” cost. If the per-pupil tax allotment follows the student, and all schooling, including private, would still have publicly financed education. Charter schools are parent chosen, yet are publicly funded. That is a start. To be fair and impartial—that is, equitable—would be open to the parents’ choices. Publicly financed education, we must never forget, is taxpayer funded education, and all parents are taxpayers. 

Public—that is, tax-funded—funding is not morally ideal, because it involves forced redistribution of wealth. But it would be a huge practical and moral improvement over the monopolistic governmental system we have now.

“The overuse of hyperbole, such as "vicious, slanderous . . .” 

If parents challenging school books, curricula, and “information” based on educational value and/or age appropriateness at school board meetings labeled “book banners,” “censors,” “bigots,”  or even terrorists for their concern is not “overuse of hyperbole,” then what is? And then you have the nerve to call me out for words like vicious and slanderous? In my usage, these terms factually fit.

There is an elected civilian oversight of every school district, known as a school board.  These "parental rights" policies are intended to allow bigots and blowhards to bypass elected officials. 

And what happens when those bigots and blowhards win control of the school board? That’s precisely the problem. Any form of socialism, including democratic socialism, is bound to create conflict, because in any such system—and public schooling is just such a system—the most politically powerful faction that gains control gets to impose its agenda on everyone even if they don’t consent. “To bypass elected officials” is precisely what a free republic is all about. Freedom is not defined by the right to vote. It is not the “right” to seek permission from some dictatorial board, and then wait and hope for months or years to get what you want. Freedom is fundamentally the right to act on one’s own judgment—within the context of objective rule of law—regardless of the outcome of any election or anyone else’s vote. This most definitely includes choosing one’s child’s educational course, regardless of any election or elected board. I stand with the parents’ right to bypass the elected school board, pull their child and their child’s education tax allotment out of that school, and choose what they judge to be a better educational opportunity. 

Educational freedom is the civil rights movement of our time. Redirecting public funding to the direct funding of the child is a huge civil rights reform.

Education Funding: Let Taxpayers Direct Their Own Education Dollars

Educational Freedom, Not Just Education, ‘Has to Be the Top Priority for Candidates'

DeVos Could Advance the ‘Civil Right’ of School Choice Across America

A Newark, NJ Mother Demonstrates the Educational Power of Parental School Choice

Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits?

Charter Schools – Good, but Not the Long-Term Answer

Newark's Successful Charter Schools Under Attack—for Being Successful

Contra Congressman Donald M. Payne, a ‘For-Profit Model’ is Just What Education Needs

Pacific Legal Foundation on Education: We Need Choice, not More Money

The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools by Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard

Answering Readers’ Rebuttals to ‘What the Parents’ Rights Movement is Really Really About’ -- 2

 In my comment on Jamelle Bouie’s New York Times op-ed What the Republican Push for ‘Parents’ Rights’ Is Really About, I got numerous replies, all of them critical. In my comment, I advocated for universal school finance choice, based on the idea that education tax dollars should follow the child, rather than go directly to the district school of the child’s residence. 

Well, the reactionary defenders of the monopolistic status quo came out in force. This is great, because they gave me the chance to address many of the opposition arguments. I’ll address these critics in turn in a series of posts. To avoid using the “[sic]” notation for every erroneous or misspelled word or phrase, Let me simply state that respondents’ comments are reposted exactly as written. In some instances, the rebuttal begins with an excerpt from my comment.

You can read my entire comment here, and the article here. None of my replies were posted because the comments section was closed. Let me emphasize that I am a proponent of the complete separation of education and state

Earthling wrote:

Parents directing the course of education? What about your opinion differ from another parent’s? What if one parent wants to ban a book but another parent wants a book to be mandatory reading? Let the teachers decide, they are the professionals. If the parents don’t like it, then they have the freedom to take their kids out and go to a religious or private school.

The teacher is an expert, worthy of consulting, assuming they’re any good.  But she’s not a dictator. Educational freedom and choice is about more than a particular book. It’s about overall curricula, philosophy, and methods. Being a professional doesn’t make you right or good. Parents are perfectly capable of consulting experts to determine the course of their child’s education, and choosing accordingly, just as they do regarding a child’s nutritional needs, or in choosing a doctor, auto mechanic, or bathroom remodeler. Every field has experts. Your argument implies that parents are not qualified to make any decisions about any aspect of their child’s upbringing, and that only the state’s designated experts should dictate. This is the school world of the Soviet Union, or of Anthem.

The “freedom” you speak of is disingenuousness in the extreme. Freedom means the right to “vote” with your feet AND your money. When the parent chooses an alternate school, and the government-assigned school keeps your child’s allotted funding, the parent has to pay twice, which few families can afford. That’s a hollow “right.” It is not justice. If a private business attempted such a scheme, it would be prosecuted for fraud and theft. Give me one reason why the child’s education tax dollars shouldn’t be at the disposal  of the child’s actual education, rather than the district. 

Related Reading:

Education Funding: Let Taxpayers Direct Their Own Education Dollars

Educational Freedom, Not Just Education, ‘Has to Be the Top Priority for Candidates'

DeVos Could Advance the ‘Civil Right’ of School Choice Across America

A Newark, NJ Mother Demonstrates the Educational Power of Parental School Choice

Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits?

Charter Schools – Good, but Not the Long-Term Answer

Newark's Successful Charter Schools Under Attack—for Being Successful

Contra Congressman Donald M. Payne, a ‘For-Profit Model’ is Just What Education Needs

Pacific Legal Foundation on Education: We Need Choice, not More Money

The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools by Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard