“If parental rights were the only concern--consistently--y’know, whatever parents believe, whether it’s--regardless of issue, you would say that the same applies if--if your child--you’re one religion and your child is giving hints that he might be converting from Catholicism to being a Protestant--or reverse!--or you’re a Republican family and this kid--this kid is talking about maybe being the “D word”--a Democrat, or vice-versa--I mean these all would run afoul of some notion of a family construct that these parents have created--are there surveillance agents in schools now that are supposed to sense anything that’s a deviation in that age group from the parental wish list and report immediately? I mean..this is an issue that we’ve identified, but...why not religion? Why not politics? Why not anything else, y’know--you wanted to raise a kid who’s involved in sports, and this kid...he say’s he’d rather read a book--a novel--you should do something. I mean, where does it stop?”
Jon Schwantes speaking on the possibly unlimited consequences of laws that purport to reinforce parental rights.
One of Indiana’s new bills proffers a law that would prohibit teachers from discussing sex or sexuality up to the 3rd grade, and would require families be informed by the school if a student requests to be referred to by a different name or by a gender that differs from the one assigned at birth. An amendment would allow teachers to respond about such topics if asked by a student.
Teachers decry the uncertain or indeed hostile environment this, and other proposed laws, would create in schools--both for the students who would be unsure of how to act and the teachers who would be afraid of running afoul of some vaguely, or broadly, or contradictory, or what-ever-ly worded legislation.
Mr. Schwantes was speaking on WFYI’s Indiana Week In Review, a round table discussion concerning various topics--such as what’s happened lately in the state house--from perspectives left, right, and news correspondent.
The broadcast of February 24th was especially lively and worth a listen. The panel discussed the bill noted above, a bill to make gender affirming care illegal (such as banning surgeries that aren’t happening anyway), and a bill for a law that would prevent courts from removing children from their homes if the parent is denying gender affirming physical or mental health care from a trans gender child, even if denying that care effectively puts the child’s life in jeopardy at the hands of the parents.
Indiana Week In Review episode for Feb 24.
Concerning the law on trans kids and courts via WBAA, by Brandon Smith for IPB News (February 22 and flagrantly lifted in its entirety):
“House Republicans voted for a bill Wednesday that would stop Indiana courts from intervening when a transgender child is at risk of suicide. Under current law, if a child is a serious risk to themselves or others and won’t get the care they need from their parent or guardian, a court can remove the child from their home.
Under Rep. Dale DeVon’s (R-Granger) bill, HB1407, the court could no longer do that if the parent or guardian is denying gender-affirming physical or mental health care for their transgender child.
‘The biggest issue is protecting the parents,’ DeVon said.
Rep. Wendy McNamara (R-Evansville) is one of a few Republicans who voted against the bill. She said she’s fine with protecting parents' rights when there’s disagreement over their child being transgender. But she said the measure goes far beyond that.
‘It might put jeopardy hundreds of other kids in our system,’ McNamara said.
The bill's origin is a [single] court case currently being considered by the Indiana Supreme Court. The court record shows that the Department of Child Services [DCS] responded to multiple reports that a mother was emotionally and mentally abusing her child because the child is transgender. [emphasis added]
The mother had taken the child out of school and discontinued therapy for them. The child did not feel safe in the home and DCS found that the risk of suicide or self-harm was more likely if the child were returned to the mother's care. The court also took the child out of their parents' custody because they had developed an eating disorder that DCS believed would continue if sent back home.
DCS reported that the mother called her child ‘the bitch that killed my son.’ DeVon described her as a ‘strong Catholic woman’ and ‘loving mother’ whose child was, in his view, unjustly taken from her.
The House approved the bill 58 to 33, sending it to the Senate.”
