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

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?

How to Resolve the Government School-created Conflict Between the “Establishment” and “Free Exercise” of Religion.

Kate Cohen, writing in The Washington post, argues that Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for religious schools. On the face of it, she’s absolutely right. 

But, not so fast. Cohen writes:

The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board’s recent decision to allow a Catholic archdiocese to operate a public school is both illegal and unconstitutional.

I’m not exaggerating — I’m just reading.

A charter school “shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations,” Oklahoma law states.

Public schools “shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control,” the Oklahoma constitution declares.

On Charter schools, this is arguable  But Cohen expands upon her point by citing several other cases that involve parental choice and privately run, but publicly funded schools:

In education, that effort began at least 40 years ago, with Mueller v. Allen, which ruled that the deduction Minnesota gave taxpayers for private-school expenses had to apply to parochial-school expenses as well. In 2002, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (Cleveland’s voucher program); in 2020, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (Montana’s tax credit program); and in 2022, Carson v. Makin (Maine’s tuition reimbursement program) found that states cannot exclude religious schools from programs that subsidize private education. [I covered this last case here.]

The hollowness of the Left’s Equity crusade is vividly on display here. If funding for parental school choice is generally available to the public at large, then how do you justify denying that benefit to a parent who chooses a religious school? Federal law bans government “discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

Granted, in any of these programs, taxpayer money is finding its way to religion. The First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” I’m uncompromisingly supportive of that principle. But public funding of education creates a conflict with the second part of the First Amendment, which bans the government from “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof.” I’m uncompromisingly supportive of that principle, as well. In a fully free society, with a fully consistent First Amendment—one that encompasses a complete separation of education and state in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of religion and state—there would be no such conflict.   

Unfortunately, we don’t live under a fully consistent First Amendment. So, how does one resolve this unnecessary conflict between Establishment and Free Exercise?

The only fair way to resolve it is to consider who is running the school, and who is choosing the school. Clearly, government-run schools should exclude religious teaching in any form. Also clearly, the state should not directly fund, of its own initiative, any religious school. But if the religious school is privately run, and if the school is privately chosen by parents spending tax money funded through a school choice program generally available as a public benefit, then it must not be considered in violation of the First Amendment. This would seem to include charter schools, as well.

Related Reading:

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?'

Linda Stamato’s Confused Understanding of Church/State Separation

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

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

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

The Delusional Quest for Better Schools Through Democracy

Shennell McCloud is CEO of Project Ready, a Newark-based nonprofit that works to increase voting in the city. She’s also the author of a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column, Our Kids Can’t Read But Voters Can Change That Tomorrow. Her pitch to parents whose kids’ school is grossly failing them is, vote.

The headline, of course, is highly misleading (to put it mildly). Written on April 24, 2023—the day before the election—McCloud implies that the long-running problem of disastrously bad reading skills can be fixed overnight. This, of course, is nonsense. 

It is a moral crime to tell parents that the solution to the crappy schools their kids are forced into is to vote in new school board members—and then tell them to send their kids back to the same crappy schools and, don’t worry, things will be better—some day. 

Parents have waited in vain for decades. Parents don’t need another election. They need the freedom to pull their kids, and their kids’ education dollars, and “vote” with their choice. “Your kids can’t read, so vote” is a cruel joke. The charter school option—which, interestingly, isn’t mentioned by McCloud despite its stunning success—is a good start, but it’s too narrow. Every parent should have the freedom to redirect education tax dollars to the educational option of their choice, including homeschooling. They already have the moral right. They should have the legal right. 

We need a new Civil Rights Movement. The first got rid of slavery. The second got rid of Jim Crow. We need a third—to get rid of the government school monopoly and give every parent, in every district, the right of school choice—real school choice, where education tax dollars fund  the child, not the government-assigned school district. 

How many decades of failure will we have to endure before we realize that no election and no school board will be able to fix anything. The problem runs too deep. It involves education philosophy, curriculum control, teacher training, teacher union political power, compulsory school attendance laws, taxes. The local public school that the child steps into is the last step. It’s merely the symptom.

I don’t mean to demonize the electoral process. Certainly, it’s necessary in the current government school system, and critically important to a free society. But voting is a derivative right that should never supersede parents’ inalienable rights. And parents shouldn’t escape responsibility, either. They can minimize the damage by circumventing the public schools. In his book Why Johnny Still Can't Read or Write or Understand Math: And What We Can Do About It, Philosopher and educator Andrew Bernstein describes the many ways parents can improve their child’s education, especially in basic areas like reading. But parents can only do so much, and should have much more control.

But the fact is, the public school system cannot be reformed. It is an “impregnable fortress” run by an “interlocking directorate” empowered by government force, just like slavery and forced segregation was. The fortress needs to be disempowered, and the parents empowered. 

The public school system has been around for a century and a half. It must be said. It must be acknowledged. The government run and financed public school system has had its chance and  it has failed. It’s time for a fully competitive, entrepreneur driven school system that does what every market-oriented economic sector does—puts consumers in charge. The parents are the consumers of education. It’s time we gave them the respect and power to exercise that role.

Related Reading:

Parents’ School Choice Rights Shouldn't Depend on Winning Elections

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

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

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

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

Real School Choice Depends on Free Exercise of Individual Rights

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

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