A school district in Pennsylvania has introduced new rules that ban gender identity books from its libraries.
According to a report from WHYY, employees within the Pennridge school district were notified about the rules by an email from the Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education, Anthony Rybarczyk.
“The district is requesting that library book with content regarding gender identity be removed from the current elementary circulations,” the email stated.
The email went on to say that the removed books will be reviewed for “sensitive topics involving foul language, intense violence, gender identity, and graphic sexual content.”
After this process, the selected titles are then “placed in an area” by counsellors and only available to parents or guardians upon request.
“Developmentally, these topics should always involve conversations between the student and trusted adults, both at home and at school,” the email continued. “Creating this resource library will ensure that our students are fully supported.”
On top of removing these informative books, the district also unveiled another set of strict guidelines regarding students pronouns and names.
In an additional email, the school district’s Director for Pupil Services – Dr Cheri Derr – said the terms “related to LGBTQ+” should not be discussed with elementary students.
The new regulations also said middle and high school students who request a change to their name or pronouns must supply “parental permission.”
Parents and students within the school district have since come out and condemned the new rules.
Witold Walczak, who is the legal director for ACLU Pennsylvania, said the policy “raises very serious concerns” regarding a student’s privacy and safety.
“From a policy perspective, you’re setting these students up for a situation where there is no adult that they can talk to,” Walczak told WHYY.
“Very often in these kinds of situations, parents are not an option. Sometimes parents are the problem.
“If you impose this disclosure requirement, you’re shutting the door to students being able to talk to school professionals. Some of these kids could really get hurt.”
LGBTQ+ youth therapist Erin Eagles, who is gay and has a two-year-old child, echoed similar sentiments and said she’s scared to send her child to school in the district.
“I’m terrified of her feeling shamed or like she can’t just talk about the most normal things, like her immediate family,” she explained.
“We’re trying to have another child, and I worry that I’m doing the wrong thing. But if we leave this community, that’s one less [family] here to normalize LGBTQ and other minority individuals.”
In terms of future legal action, Walczak said that a potential case could head to court in the new year.
“My guess is we’ll be litigating at least one of these cases in 2022 somewhere,” he said.
Because everyone knows that if we pretend that LGBTQ+ people don’t exist they will disappear, right? It is not like grade school kids know that gay people exist. It is not that some grade school kids might be LGBTQ+ themselves. All parents are understanding and helpful on subjects dealing with sex and gender, especially in places where the politicians want to ban even the reading about LGBTQ+. These kids have parents who will take time off work go to the school library and check out a book from the special banned section for their child, right? No one will spread the news about that around town, gossiping about the parents and family, will they? Everyone knows that kids are turned gay by reading about it. It well known that there are no LGBTQ+ unless the kids see it on TV in a 30 second commercial or read it in a book written for kids. It is like catching a virus we won’t wear masks or get a vaccine for to protect the kids from getting really sick or dying because that is not important as making sure all the LGBTQ+ books are out of reach of those who might need or simply want to read them. Why teach kids to be understanding, accepting, and tolerant of other kids wanting to use a name or pronoun they prefer because in these areas the adults sure are not accepting, understanding, and tolerant of other adults asking the same thing.
Scottie
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/a3855050fc6c5bd8f1d7f3efbd632bb3/Early%20Voting%20Day%201%20Dallas%20MM%20TT%2017.jpg)
The filibuster is not in the Constitution. But each house is allowed to make their own procedural rules. The Senate rules, unlike the House, trying to be a more “deliberative” body (and with fewer members in the early days) allowed unlimited debate on the floor and unlimited “yields” (handoffs to allies). During such speechifying, no other business could be conducted.
It took a 2/3 vote to stop a debate.
The filibuster arose when Southern conservative senators wanted to block bills, especially in the area of civil rights. Not having the votes, they simply stood and spoke under the rules allowing “unlimited debate” and kept on speaking, handing off (yielding) to accomplices as needed for breaks, and thus preventing any other business from going forward.
Finally, they made a compromise in the Senate rules: they would lower the cloture vote from 2/3 to 3/5 (60 votes in a 100-member senate) and not require senators to actually speak; just invoke filibuster by motion, and allow other business to still proceed on a “two track” basis.
Taking out the hard work of hours and hours of speaking made it easier to invoke and, once Obama became president and McConnell embarked on an unprecedented racist obstruction of the first African-American president, he made a 60-vote supermajority the de facto standard for passing any legislation, with more filibusters during the Obama years than the entire history of all prior administrations COMBINED and then, when he regained the majority, essentially did away with the filibuster for all confirmations and for budget bills (budget reconciliation).
McConnell’s unprecedented ABUSE of filibuster, coupled with the built-in (Constitutional) disproportionate allocation of senate representation, transformed it from a tool for the minority to have a voice in developing legislation, to utter tyranny of the majority, in which senators representing 16% of the population could overrule an overwhelming majority.
There are ways in which conservative Democrats could reduce the power of the filibuster to obstruct and still go on record as having saved the filibuster, and some of the Democrats who have opposed outright elimination of the filibuster (such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona) have indicated that they might be amenable to reforms such as:
a) amend the process; return to the requirement that they actually stand and hold the floor instead of just invoking by motion. When we had this in the past, filibuster was rarely used.
b) redefine filibuster; redefine what is eligible for inclusion in the budget reconciliation process which is exempt from filibuster
c) make voting rights and election security exempt from filibuster
d) limit the number of times filibuster can be invoked
e) require the speaker to remain on topic (no more reading phone books)
f) reverse the burden of invoking filibuster: right now they just make a motion to invoke filibuster and it takes a 60% vote to stop them. Reverse it. Instead of one person invoking filibuster and 60% having to agree to end it, require them to get 40% of the senate to vote to invoke filibuster — make them get the votes. Make them go on record as voting to obstruct something huge majorities of everyday people want (election reform, campaign finance reform, checks to individuals, a livable minimum wage, gun safety reform) and have to defend that in their next election.
None of these proposed reforms are mutually exclusive! You can do any or all or any combination. And there are likely other ways to reform and restructure filibuster without having to go on record as having actually eliminated it.
For those concerned about the “tyranny of the majority,” what we currently have is a “tyranny of the MINORITY.” We can protect minority interests and allow them to be heard without allowing senators who represent 16% of the population to tyrannize the rest of us.
Yesterday I posted Dr. Fauci’s qualifications to make public health suggestions, and to understand the data / science behind those recommendations. Let me make clear that the right wing media doesn’t have those qualifications at all. The people who claim they did their own research are only reading some one else’s summery and the opinions of people not qualified to understand or make those public health opinions. Scottie