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

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. 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

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

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?'

 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?

I posted this answer:

The U.S. Constitution is an individual liberty-protecting document. Individual rights is the practical implementation of liberty. The principle of individual rights defines the scope and limits of the individual’s liberty in a social context. Among the most important of these liberty rights is the right to intellectual freedom. The importance of intellectual freedom is the reason for the First Amendment. Freedom from and of religion (aka separation of church and state), of speech and press, of peaceable assembly (or association), and to petition the government are all subcategories of intellectual freedom.

But there is a huge hole in the First Amendment. Education certainly is integral to rights-oriented intellectual freedom, worthy of being protected from government infringement. The failure to protect individual rights in education is a shocking omission for an amendment dedicated to intellectual freedom. Government funding and control of education should thus be the target of the amendment process. Contrary to dogma, government schools are run by the government, primarily for the government. Not for the children. Not for the parents. Not for the taxpayers. They are meant for government jobs. Even worse, they are means to indoctrination in what the state decides is important. Public control has always meant government control.

Look around. The massive battles over school curriculum are a manifestation of the government's near monopoly over the schools. The current battles over gender issues in the schools is just the latest example of a long-running problem. What else would you expect in a socialized, centrally planned, government imposed scheme? 

We need to protect educational freedom. The individual right to hold and practice educational ideas without government infringement or abridgement, whether in regard to taxing,  funding, administration, or anything else, should be protected as thoroughly as religion. Therefore, we need the separation of education and state in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of religion and state—to preclude any faction from the use of political power to impose its educational ideas on everyone else. 

It’s true that the Constitution, which is theoretically a limitation on government power, should have been enough to guarantee educational freedom. After all, the Constitution does not grant the government the power to fund or administer public schools. But given the reality of the government's overpowering role in the schools, despite being technically unconstitutional, we must establish freedom of education explicitly. For the reasons cited above, the amendment I would add to the U.S. Constitution, either separately or folded into the First Amendment, is as simple as the opening lines of the First Amendment:

Neither Congress nor any other governmental entity shall make any law respecting an establishment of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This simple clause would explicitly separate education and state, and establish freedom of education as thoroughly as freedom of religion.

Of course, that is the ideal. It’s realistic and worth fighting for over the long term. In the meantime, I fight for school choice, through such vehicles as tax credits or education savings accounts (ESAs). Tax credits, such as I advocated in The Objective Standard in Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits?, are superior to things like ESAs or vouchers, because tax credits eliminate the redistribution of wealth and minimize the chance of government infringement on free school choice. 

But I don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So, I support reforms that lead to more parental school choice. ESAs, for example, allow the established education tax dollars to follow the student. I support ESAs because they are the simplest and most politically feasable way to expand educational freedom and rights available today. Vouchers are more problematic, as the experience in Louisiana demonstrates. Charter schools are also a step in the rights direction, albeit a very limited one.

Related Reading:

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

Add Freedom of Education, not Prayer, to the First Amendment

Separation of Church (or Education) and State

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

Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits? My article for The Objective Standard

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

Why We Need the Separation of Education and State