Who Wins With “Parental Rights?

[RANT]

Senators and Representatives who wins with “Parental Rights?”

Case #1

Parent A wants the movie Ruby Bridges banned because it is “Racist” and it teaches about racism in our country.

Parent B wants their child to learn about our racist history.

Well friends who wins the parent who wants to prevent all the children from learning about racism or parent B who wants parents to make their own choices?

Case #2

Parent C wants a book that mentioned abortion pulled from the library because abortion is against their religion.

Parent D wants the book in the library because abortion is not against their religion.

Okay senators and representatives who wins? Both claim religious views about the book so with the wisdom of King Solomon which religion wins? Does the book remain in the library or not?

Case #3

Parent E wants a play banned because of “sex” is not appropriate for school children, in the play two boys hold hands and that is the “sex” the parent is talking about.

Parent F sees nothing wrong with that and wants her children to learn about LGBTQ+ children.

Who wins?

***

In each case both parent are concerned about their children, but in each case the first parent wants to limit what other can read or see, while the other parent believes it the duty of the parent to raise their child.

What happens when what a parent wants is against the non-discriminations laws? Like banning books on different religions, about racism, or books on LGBTQ+ issues, they are protected classes by law.

What about the parent that loses will they take them to court? Will we have cases going to the Supreme Court to decide which books to have on a library shelf?

Senators and representatives be very, very careful about opening a can-of-worms.

[/RANT]

---

In other news, what could possible go wrong with a Idaho bill making its way through the legislature.

Idaho bill allowing parents to sue libraries over ‘harmful’ books heads to governor
Idaho Statesman
By Ryan Suppe
March 31, 2023

Idaho libraries and schools soon could be sued for allowing minors to obtain books, films and other media that depict sexual content deemed “harmful” for kids.

The Legislature on Friday advanced the bill to Gov. Brad Little. The bill would allow the guardian of a child who was able to obtain “harmful” material from a library to claim $2,500 in statutory damages for each instance the material was obtained.

Senate President Pro Tem Chuck Winder, R-Boise, said the bill would create age-appropriate separations between library material. It requires that library officials take “reasonable” steps to restrict access of material to minors to avoid liability, according to the legislation.

But opponents said the bill’s definition of “harmful” material is too broad. Parents should be responsible for ensuring their kids don’t access inappropriate content, they said, and the civil “bounty” could be abused.

Now what could possible go wrong with the definition of “harmful”?

“Harmful” material, according to the bill, features “nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sado-masochistic abuse” when it’s lewd or “patently offensive to prevailing standards” among adults. “Sexual conduct” under the law includes depictions of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse and physical contact with genitals and female breasts.

Hey wait a minute!

Homosexuality?

Harmful?

Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, said there’s no pornography in libraries and highlighted the reference to “homosexuality” in content that would be considered “harmful.”

“There are people that are trying to ban books with LGBTQ themes,” Wintrow told the Senate. “I think that’s what this is about.”

You think so?

Could that be what they are trying to do? Ban LGBTQ+ books?

So a book that mentioned two boys holding hands could get me a bounty of $2,500! While a book that mentions a boy and a girl holding hands is worth nothing? Naw, that isn't discriminatory. 

What could possible go wrong? You know darn well that the bounty hunters will pick out every minutiae in every book to get the $2,500! Maybe the bounty hunters might get an education as they read through every book in the library.

***

Lets stop and take a look at a few things…

First what this bill does is tell the parents, we don’t think you can raise your child in a way we like, so we are going to tell you how to raise your child.

Second, it will create fear in the library and censor what books to buy. The law is written so broadly that almost anything will qualify as “harmful.”

Third, what does it do to the children who are LGBTQ+? Do they now feel like it is wrong to be LGBTQ+ that they are somehow immoral?

***

The first time they couldn’t get the bill out of committee so the Republicans did a end run.

 After the House Education Committee rejected the first version of the bill, sponsors, Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, and Sen. Cindy Carlson, R-Riggins, crafted new legislation that reduced the penalty.

Instead of going back to the education committee, House GOP leadership directed the new version to the House State Affairs Committee, where it overwhelmingly advanced.

Those sneaky little Republicans.

It seems like the definition of “Parental Rights” is only how the conservatives define it, and their “Parental Rights” trumps other's peoples “Parental Rights.”