April 23, 2025 • 36 mins
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in the case (Mahmoud v. Taylor) of Maryland parents suing the Montgomery County Public Schools over being able to opt students out of curriculum with objectionable content on religious grounds, such as LGBTQ-themed books and discussions.
Mahmoud v. Taylor - SCOTUSblog
Lori Gimelshteyn, founder of Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, joins Ryan to discuss to implications of a SCOTUS decision which appears to be heading to a 6-3 margin in favor of the parents - including what it means for the ongoing legal battle for Elizabeth Public Schools against the ACLU along similar lines. What books belong in an elementary school classroom, library, and curriculum? And who gets to decide?
Mahmoud v. Taylor - SCOTUSblog
Lori Gimelshteyn, founder of Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, joins Ryan to discuss to implications of a SCOTUS decision which appears to be heading to a 6-3 margin in favor of the parents - including what it means for the ongoing legal battle for Elizabeth Public Schools against the ACLU along similar lines. What books belong in an elementary school classroom, library, and curriculum? And who gets to decide?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, this is Representative Scott Bottoms.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I need to tell you some things that have been
building for quite a while, and now I think it's
time that we get this stuff out there. We have
three young ladies that are working as aids in the Capitol.
One is an aide to a senator, to or aids
to representatives, and these girls have been as others, including
(00:24):
female representatives. They have been having to deal with men
coming into their bathrooms and using their bathrooms while they're
in there. Now these men are saying, well, I'm transgender,
so I'm a woman, and so I'm coming to their bathroom.
I don't agree with that kind of stuff, that it
is men that are using women's bathrooms. And so three
of these aids they came out and they said that
(00:46):
they would file the complaint against this, and immediately the leadership,
the Democrat leadership in the House, the Speaker of the
House went after these girls. They said, well, we're going
to keep this quiet while we kind of investigate. They
didn't need to investigate anything. These guys are using these
(01:06):
women's bathrooms and have been for a while, and they
now these girls are being persecuted. They the Speaker of
the House has tried to squash them, try to control
this thing. The Speaker of the House has also went
after them with legal things. There's transgender lawyer groups that
are going after them. They've they've done what's called kora
their phone records and all these things, investigated their phone
(01:29):
and email and all these other kind of things. These
are these are young ladies that are that are trying
to be professional within the political arena. They are hired
aids by representatives and the way that the Democrats treat
these women is deplorable. They are going after these women.
This is egregious. One of the one of the aids
(01:50):
has already quit. She's walked away and said, I don't
want to do this. She was literally thinking that maybe
she would like to have a future in politics, but
that she can't. She can't deal with the complete control
and attack that's been coming down from the Speaker.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Thousand, Representative Scott Bottom's Republican District fifteen, and the Colorado
General Assembly.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
To start off today's program, we.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Invite you to join a long five seven, seven, three
nine send your text attention to Ryan. Ryan Schuling live
here with Zach Seegers on the other side of the
Glass always appreciate his help, and we have reached out
to Representative Bottoms, who is also a Republican candidate for
governor in twenty twenty six, to expand on this conversation
that I always want to start off with left brain logic, statistics, mathematics,
(02:36):
the number of young women who are impacted by the
incident that Representative Bottoms describes far out way statistically, numerically,
the number of trans individuals who are to be accommodated.
I preface this statement always with the notion that, yes,
I want to validate include gender individuals in our body politic.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
I want to welcome them.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Those that are conservatives like Kimberly and our listening audience
like my friend Sarah Higden who's on the show.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Often if they have.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Conservative principles and are pulling in the same direction as
us from a standpoint of values, then I want to
have a big tent party. Where I differ, and where
it's difficult is the rights of the individual that overlap
that intrude upon the rights of other individuals and in
(03:36):
this case many individuals. This is why I've had this conversation.
There is no perfect solution. I want to acknowledge that
right out of the gate, there is no perfect solution here.
I don't want to exclude or demonize trans individuals who
are just trying to live their lives, live their best life.
If that doesn't infringe upon the rights and the lives
(03:57):
of others, I have no or issue with it. It's
not even a topic of discussion. It doesn't really bother me.
But it's easier for me to say as a biological
heterosexual male person who uses male restrooms. I've said this
many times to my fiance Kelsey. We talk about it
when we go to our fitness club about you know
(04:20):
how difficult it would be. Little girls are not allowed
to go in the men's locker room, I mean for
obvious reasons, But when you're the other way around, a
little boy until I think he's like four or something
like that can go in the women's locker room with
his mom. There's this it all comes down to, And
I hate to be so crass and blunt about it,
(04:42):
but I got to go there. And if you listen
to this show, it's at least PG thirteen. So'll just
always be forewarned. An individual with a functioning male organ
should not be in a girls or women's sport or space.
That's the starting point for me, because that is the threat.
(05:03):
That is what makes a woman vulnerable and unsafe in
a in any public space. If there is a person
in that area with a functioning male organ, that is
a threat. Obviously that I have to explain. It is
excruciating to me. Now there are various stages and shades
(05:25):
of transgenderism. There is me being a fool and an
idiot showing up one day and going I'm gonna be
a girl. I'm gonna do girl things on going the
girl's locker room. That's that's ridiculous. I am not a woman.
I don't pretend to be a woman. If I decided
one day, it would be a mockery not only of
women but also of genuinely transgender people who have gender dysphoria,
which I do not, So I don't want to do that.
(05:46):
But then you have to acknowledge there's a scale here
for me on one end of it, and other biological
men who just are boring guys like me, And then
it goes all the way down to somebody that's gone
through all of the surgeies, reassignment et cetera, the hormones,
et cetera. But then there are those This is where
I get really kind of.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Agitated about this.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
William Thomas is not Leah because of what I just mentioned.
Riley Gaines and other female swimmers that were in those
locker rooms saw his unit. Okay, And again, hate to
be crass and blunt, but apparently that's where we have
to go in this conversation because it's being misunderstood or
it's being distorted, like, oh, he says he's a woman,
(06:30):
does he have the part my part, the male part?
Then no, not a woman can't do women things can't
go in women's spaces. I think that's the beginning and
the end of it. This is why I've always advocated
for and I know there's an inconvenience, there's an added expense.
This is for businesses, for public places, but a third space,
(06:52):
and you could define that however. You want a gender
neutral restroom and changing room, a family restroom or changing
room those who are non binary, non conforming, transgender restroom
and changing room.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
What I've also noticed.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
And I think there are, especially in Denver, when I
go to maybe some bars and restaurants, things that I
like downtown, they have gone from having just a men's
room and a women's room to two unisex restrooms which
are one seaters or whatever.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And to me, I'm like, that's okay.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
I wouldn't prefer being a woman in those circumstances because
I know what guys do when we stand up to
go to the bathroom. Number one is you know, this
is why women want us to put the seat down
after we're done. But I understand that conflict too. However,
I think it's the most manageable path through this that
still acknowledges validates the rights of transgender individuals, which I
(07:48):
always want to do and be sensitive to and aware
of and cognizant of and recognize, while at the same
time preserving female spaces for what they are and what
they were meant to be. Why do we have men's
and women's bathrooms in the first place? Why are we
segregated in that way? Because of what I said, Because
(08:10):
men have a particular male unit that is a threat
to a female if it's functioning, Yes, that is a
threat for rape, for sexual assault, for representative bottoms. Here
he's mentioning aids that are uncomfortable with this and they're
the ones that are getting reprimanded and for the for
(08:33):
the trans individuals. I understand it's a conundrum. There's no
perfect solution. I said that before and I'll say it again.
But isn't there a sense of, you know, if I'm
making someone uncomfortable, maybe maybe that's on me a little bit.
Maybe it's my presence here is making somebody uncomfortable. It
could be for any reason, not just this reason. But
(08:54):
wouldn't that strike you at some point going I don't
want to do this. I don't want to do this
or cause this problem for other women who are obviously
not okay with this.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
We had her name was.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Collette Celeste from California last week, This poor girl, seventeen
years old, just breaking down, tearfully testifying and being told
to wrap it up by a woman on that school
board in California about just how horrified she was having
to change in her room where a biologically male person
(09:27):
was sitting there watching her change.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Now, that's another creepy element to this.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Not all transgender people are creeps and weirdos in that
way where they're just looking to be voyeurs. There's something
weird going on with William Thomas if you checked out
his Instagram posts and so forth. I think there are
legitimately transgender people again who are just trying to live
their lives, and that's what.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
They have chosen to do.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
It's not because they're looking to get their jollies by
frequenting a women space. I think we have to have
a very kind of nuanced approach to this. One size
does not fit all, but representative bottoms brings up an
interesting point because they're vilifying the young women in this case,
further to the cause of the misogyny that's inherent in
(10:18):
this that a man pretending to be a woman can
invade her space, can invade her sport, can claim a
metal can take a spot on a team, can take
a scholarship. As Jennifer Say told us from XXXY Athletics
just over the last several days, the Boston Marathon had
three categories, men, non binary, and women, in which a
(10:44):
biological male could participate in any of those three. What then,
why did you have the non binary category that's where
that person should go, Because to say trans women are women,
well they're not.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
They're not. Okay, they're just not. They can't be. It's
not possible, not in nature.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
You can transform, you can become, you can portray a woman,
you can have the characteristics of a woman. You are
not an XX chromosomal individual who produces estrogen naturally at
the level that women do it. It really is a pseudoscience.
My advice if I had a friend who is going
(11:29):
through genderdysphor you would be to air on the side
of caution, would be to eron not transing, would be
to aeron be gay or a cross dress, do all
of that, but changing your body. I mean, this is
this is a Pandora's box that once you open it,
now you're We've talked about this with Aaron Lee too.
(11:50):
You're a lifetime patient at that point, having to consistently
and constantly be a ward of big pharma beyond drugs,
go to medical exams, have procedures, and they have a
patient for life. And this is now a million, if
not billion dollar industry nationwide and especially here in the
(12:10):
United States. They're going in the other direction overseas, in
the countries that I've mentioned before, in Finland and Sweden
where they've banned transit the kids, in the United Kingdom
where that was just recently done and decided, and where
a recent Supreme Court case was decided that in order
to be a woman, to be considered a woman, you
must be a biological woman born that way.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
And JK.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Rowling celebrated, I believe, with the post on X of
her smoking a cigar. So again, no easy answers, but
the crazy doesn't stop there. In the state capitol, Harry
is Representative Cecilia Espinoza. She represents the fourth House district,
which at one time was sadly represented by Tim Hernandez,
(12:56):
a noted anti Semite and communist. Now we're thinking, well,
anybody but Tim Hernandez has got to be better, right,
And I texted my friend Russ Waldman, who notoriously had
that confrontation that went viral on October eighth. The very
next day after the attacks of October seventh in Israel,
(13:17):
Tim Hernandez, this clown, was out at a pro Palestine
rally cheering on Hamas and what had just happened, and
he claimed he cut the you know what, you know
what you were doing, and that's what Russ was telling him.
And this is where I struck up a conversation and
now a friendship with Russ He's a solid individual, great
citizen journalist, and I ran this by him for Cecilia
(13:40):
Espinoza and what you're about to hear, and he's merely
responded baby steps for house to trick four Ryan.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
They're not sending their best. Well, judge for yourself.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
This is representative Cecilia Espinoza citing a very interesting example.
You might even call it irony to demonstrate, you know what,
parents have not always had rights over their children, what
happens to them decisions about their health care and future.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Let's see where she goes with it.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
Under English common law, it was recognized that the care
of all infants is lodged in the king as parents patriarch,
and by the king, this care is delegated to.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
The court of chancery.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
In protecting neglected and dependent children, chancery courts use what
are called equitable powers, the essential ideas of which our flexibility,
guardianship and the balancing of interest in the general welfare,
with a view to getting a fair result than could
be obtained by applying applying older and more rigid roles.
So the notion that parents have rights have always reigned
(14:41):
supreme is not in our English Saxon history, but rather
that there was always a recognition that the state had
an interest in protecting the rights of children, and that
was balanced by the best interests of the child doctrine
which we see in much of the case law which
my colleague from Denver referred to, which balances the rights
of the parents and the child. In this other context
(15:03):
of issues, and in light of all of that, in
my knowledge of the history of how those rights of
children have been balanced over time, I would just I
will have to say that I will.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Be a known tonight, my God, the layers to this
onion that I must unpeel for you.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
You're welcome.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
First of all English Saxon history, that would be Anglo
Saxon history. And I was told, reliably by those of
Cecilia Espinoza's political persuasion that that was bad, that inherently
white Anglo Saxon Protestants are evil, that that is part
of white supremacy, that was the founding of this nation
(15:43):
in sixteen nineteen, not seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
But she's citing that part of history.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Second to that point, the monarchy, the crown, the children
are wards of the state, wards of the king, and
his court. Huh, we had a revolution against King George
the Third George Washington did not want to be a king.
He would only serve two terms as president and that
would be the precedent for every successor of his until
(16:12):
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And then we passed an amendment saying
you couldn't serve more than two terms as president. They
wanted Washington to basically be the king here. He didn't
want that. We didn't want a monarchy. We rebelled against that.
We were revolted against that. We fight fought a war against
the King of England. I thought kings were bad. Everybody
out there on the left is criticized Donald Trump is
(16:34):
behaving like a king. He's behaving like a monarch. He's
making kingly decisions autocratically. Wait no, No, Representative Cecily Espinosa says,
that's a good idea. These are olden times. They're like
medieval times. The king is at court, long lived, the king,
the king has ultimate authority and power over your chiuldern.
(16:56):
What are you talking about? Then there's the other part
of the what about the patriarchy. I was told in
the movie Barbie and I only watched it surreptitiously through
Dan Kaplis because I refused.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
To watch that crap.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
But that movie told us the patriarchy was bad and
it was to be fought against. Men are terrible, especially
white men, and especially straight white men. They're the most
evil of all. Cecilia Espinoza, this is a grand slam
of stupid. This is not only full of the weak territory, Cecilia, congratulations,
(17:34):
my dear, you are full of the year territory with
this comment. And no, no, children do not have, not,
should not, will not if we avoid the powers of
the left that be have equal rights as their parents.
(17:55):
It's not a fifty to fifty equation. I was a kid,
I know this. I was a fool and an idiot
myself age seven, I couldn't survive on my own.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
I was what they call a dependent, and.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
So were each and every one of you, And so
was Cecilia Espinoza at one time. You do not have
full rights as a seven year old, as a twelve
year old, even as a seventeen year old. You get
more rights. As you get older, you get more freedoms.
As you get older, you're tasked with more responsibilities.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
As you get older.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
But there's a reason why children are dependent on their parents,
and yes, parents should have full authority and control over
the safety, well being, education, nutrition, so many things for
their kids.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
And not every parent's perfect.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
But if we're going to start drawing this line of
you have to adhere to XYZ by edict of the
state of the king or whoever you want to define,
or else you're going to lose your kids.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
That's a slippery slope.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
I don't want to encounter barring full on a abuse
and that does happen of children, those should be removed
from those volatile homes. Short of that, a parent must
be free to exercise discipline, boundaries and consequences for their kids.
And yes, parents should have those full rights preserved.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
Is not in our English Saxon history, but rather that
there was always a recognition that the state had an
interest in protecting the rights of children, and that was
balanced by the best interests of the child doctrine, which
we see in much of the case law which my
colleague from Denver referred to, which balances the rights of
the parents and the child. In this other context of issues,
(19:45):
and in light of all of that and my knowledge
of the history of how those rights of children have
been balanced over time. I would just I will have
to say that I will be a known.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Tonight Democrat House District for Colorado State represent of Cecilia Espinoza.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
If she was.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Standing and delivering a sixth grade book report, that would
have been n f I can't get over this quote,
and I pulled a shorter version of it there for
our next guests to respond to from the Colorado Parent
Advocacy Network Laurie Gimmelstein, and I anticipate she's going to
have a lot to say.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
About it here on Ryan Schuling Live. Laurie.
Speaker 5 (20:22):
Welcome, good afternoon, Ryan, Thank you so much for the
opportunity to join you today.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Now, what Representative Espinosa suggested there is that the state
or the monarchy, as she was citing from an earlier example,
always had a stake in protecting the rights of children.
And my question would be to her and to you
and right now, protecting the rights of children from whom.
Speaker 5 (20:49):
Well, in our state of Colorado, it is absolutely protecting
children from their parents, because our democratic legislature believes very
strongly that parents or enemy number one. And so it's
so disappointing. It's so disheartening to see the Unamerican ways
(21:09):
that are happening under the Golden Dome in Denver. And
also just the disruption of a parent's fundamental authority to
direct the upbringing, education and care of their children.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
How much of this LORI in your estimation and you
spent a lot of time on this, especially with the
bill we're going to discuss house Built thirteen twelve. But
let's just strip this down to brass tags. How much
of this is just strictly a power play by democrats
in charge to take control of children in order to
indoctrinate them and create little minions.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
Well, it's a very interesting just focus group if you
could have a focus group on is taking a look
at legislation that has passed since twenty nineteen under Democrat
Governor Polis. We have seen a chipping away of parent
rights and this new movement for child rights, you know,
(22:07):
with the passing of the Imatter program where they redefined
children ages twelve and up as youth and giving them
special rights so that these these youth could have access
to mental health care without their parents knowledge, consent, or involvement.
We're seeing legislation that is tasked that is forcing standards
(22:30):
and of social studies that require grades one through twelve
to implement lgbt q I a gender ideology into social studies,
and parents are not allowed to opt out of social
studies curriculum. You know, we have opt outs on a
reproductive sex ed, but we don't have opt outs out
(22:51):
of social studies. And we have just all of these
complex bills that all together are really eroding parental rights.
And we're helping four family right now, and I know
that you've spoken with several of them, Ryan, where they've
actually already lost custody of their children for not affirming
their child's decleared gender identity. So their child come home
(23:15):
and says, I'm actually a boy, and a parents say.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
No, you're my daughter, You're not a boy.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
That child can go to school talk with a counselor
without their parents' knowledge. And what this new bill that
actually was assigned to the Judiciary Committee yesterday in the Senate,
and their next meeting is Monday at one point thirty.
It has not actually been assigned to that committe yet,
but we are watching it very very carefully, and we
(23:43):
are working with some really phenomenal national groups to help
protect parental rights and bring the national attention that thirteen
twelve deserves and its sister bill thirteen oh nine. I
think Aaron Lee would protect kids. Colorado is really doing
a phenomenal job educating that thirteen twelve is not the
most There are several egregious bills, and I think thirteen
(24:06):
twelve is getting a lot of attention, and it's allowing
these other bills to eighty four that went into committee
today that would allow organizations to come in during the
school day to talk with your children. And it's very
alarming about what is happening. But I will say nationally, yesterday,
Scotis heard oral arguments in the Mood versus Taylor case.
(24:31):
And this is a case out of Maryland where basically
the Supreme Court is considering whether parents have a constitutional
right to opt their children to specific lessons that conflict
with their religious beliefs without changing the curriculum for everyone else.
And I think this particular case is going to have
huge implications on parental rights. And we were actually very
(24:54):
blessed to be a part of an amicust brief with
the Thomas Moore Society that we filed in support of
the the moods in their case. So lots to talk about.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Her group on x you can follow at Seapan Colorado
and online it's Coloradoparents dot org. That's the Colorado Parent
Advocacy Network. But the work that they're doing is done
on behalf of these children, what's best for them, and
parents know best in universally, almost every case. Lorie Gimmelstein,
our guest. He made mention of the case Mahmoud versus Taylor.
(25:34):
Here oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court yesterday.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
We'll start here.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
This is Attorney Eric Baxter arguing on behalf of the parents.
Justice Clarence Thomas asking a question. There seemed to be
a couple of flashpoints here as to whether the books
were in the schools at all, whether they were just
on the shelves available to the students, or whether there
were lesson plans designed around these very controversial books which
had LGBTQ content, which we're targeted toward youth as young
(26:02):
as five in kindergarten. That seemed to be something that
Chief Justice John Roberts had an issue with.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
But here is Justice Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 6 (26:10):
What I'm talking about is not necessarily what the books say,
but rather is that are the books just there and
no more? Or are they actually being taught out of
the books?
Speaker 7 (26:23):
Now we know that the teachers are required to use
the books. When the books were first introduced in August
of twenty two, the boards suggest that they've used five
times before the end of the year.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
That's in the that's at.
Speaker 7 (26:36):
Two seventy three a in the sort appendix.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
One of the.
Speaker 7 (26:38):
Schools, the Sherwood School, in June for Pride Months, said
that they were going to read one book each day
to celebrate Pride Month. The board's own testimony through Superintendent Hazel,
said that the books must be used as part of
the instruction and that at six forty two in the
appendix that discussion will ensue and that was the entire
(26:59):
point of withdrawing the opt outs and removing even notifying
parents are not even allowed to know. The board said
in that statement it was so that every student would
be taught from the inclusivity story books. And also the
district Court transcript at sixty three has council's admission that
some of the books have to be used and it
can be more.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
Eric Baxter citing this and even opposing counsel through drips
and drabs, as Justice Neil Gorsitch was ringing them out
like a sponge. Had to concede, had to acknowledge that
not only were they part of lesson plans, but that
there were guide books as to how to handle students.
Maybe they have objections, well then you get them right
back in the line, you tell them that's not right.
(27:38):
And that there were basically judgments being formed by the
faculty in this matter. And this kind of got to
the whole question of whether they were just exposed to
these ideas or coerced into believing these ideas. Laurie, as
you boil it down everything that went on at the
Supreme Court yesterday, what does this mean and what does
(27:58):
it mean for Colorado's specifically the case that we've been
following down in the Elizabeth Public School District.
Speaker 5 (28:05):
Yeah, these are really really good questions. And yes, there
were school lessons that teachers were required to use using
these books, and we actually have evidence of that happening
in many school districts here in the state of Colorado
as well. And we also have multiple reports of students
who have received poor grades. They have been the target
(28:29):
of disciplinary actions. They've been the target of ridicule for
going against any co worse belief in the classroom. We
have many kids and many teachers who do have very serious,
sincere religious beliefs. This is not just a disagreement with
the ideology, you're just not simply liking it. It is
(28:50):
a sincere religious belief. And that's really what the Mood
case is about. This is their sincere religious belief. And
you know, the case if the mood is found, if
they are found, if the pearents are basically considered here
and that they do have a constitutional right to off
their children. Now, the case from Elizabeth School District, so
(29:12):
many of you may not know, but the ACLU is
doing the Elizabeth School District in Colorado. We're removing nineteen
books out of their library that contained content that was
deemed not developmentally appropriate for minor children. And so that
was a decision between the board of education in the
community after a period of time where those books are
(29:33):
on display and they had information around you know, of
course adult obscene content, but also like on shootings and
other issues, so it wasn't just obscene content. But if
the court sides with the petitioners in the mood, it's
really going to strengthen Elizabeth School District's defense because what
it will say is, you know, the parents authority is
(29:55):
of a constitutional interest. I mean, that's really what it
comes down to. Schools must respect parental rights when it
comes to morally or developmentally sensitive content. You know, school
districts across the state for decades have had board policies
on teaching controversial and sensitive issues, and they are just
completely ignoring those policies. And the other the thing is
(30:18):
that local school boards have the right to set boundaries, right,
That's what it comes down to. We have local control
and I think it's really important. One of one of
the justices, I believe it was Justice Jackson. She stated
she was making a remark saying, how you know, it's
(30:39):
ridiculous that instead of this school district having elected representatives
and experts in the field making the decisions about which
books should be taught to kids in the classrooms, She's
upset that now she is, as a judge, has to
flip through these picture books and decide whether these are
appropriate for.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
Five year olds.
Speaker 5 (30:55):
She says, it's pretty troubling because you know, ordinarily public
education has been the subject local control, you know, And
if that said, you know, it upholds Elizabeth's case, right
like in terms of that they have local control of
determining what books they want to use tax dollars to
ensure that are available to children for educational purposes. And
(31:17):
I just think it's really really important for people to
know what's happening because parental rights are under attack here
in Colorado and across the dation. And I do believe
that this case of a Mood case really highlights the
constitutional weight of requiring permission for controversial instruction.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
A Mood v.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
Taylor heard before the Supreme Court oral arguments yesterday, And
if you really want to study the minutia of this,
I highly recommend you watch the interaction between Justice Neil
Gorsuch and the attorney representing the schools in this Alan Schoenfeld.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
It is surgical, it is masterful.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
Nobody is better at it than Justice Gorsage, and he
mentions masterpiece cake shop, the case that when all the
ways Supreme Court Jack phillips right here in Colorado, it
may serve as a precedent for the decision they make
in My Mood, and that decision as Laurie just stated,
could have a profound impact on Colorado right here, specifically
in the Elizabeth School District, but not limited to that one.
(32:18):
Lori Gimmelstein, our guest Colorado Parent Advocacy Network find out
more online at Coloradoparents dot org. Glory thank you so
much as always for your time.
Speaker 5 (32:27):
Thanks Dian, have a great afternoon.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
All right, your thoughts in reaction five seven, seven thirty nine,
wrapping up our number one of Ryan shuling live after this.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Halftime of the program, a.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
Two hour program that means when we're done with one hour,
it's halftime, and Zach seekers on the other side of
the glass. He will take full advantage at the NFL
Draft coming up tomorrow, and we'll be privileged enough to
be joined by Ryan Edwards, my counterpart. Ryan in the building.
I call him Ore, he calls me rs. And he
(33:02):
will be joining me live in studio at about two
fifteen for the second half of that opening segment to
preview the NFL Draft, which begins Thursday night in Green Bay, Wisconsin,
and the Broncos pick at number twenty overall.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Is that right, Zach?
Speaker 3 (33:20):
You know all these things He's giving me the thumbs up.
And the Lions, my Detroit Lions, are at twenty eight.
They should have been at thirty two because they should
have won the Super Bowl. And I'm still not over
at folks. I'm not my team, which has been laughable
over decades since my father was ten years old. That's
the last time they won an NFL title. That's before
the Super Bowl existed, because nineteen fifty seven, my dad
(33:43):
was ten. And they've been a punchline and laughing stock,
and they've been featured on Jay Leno when he was
hosting throughout the nineties as to what a terrible franchise
team they were.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
They went fifteen and two last year. It was a
it was a dream.
Speaker 3 (33:59):
This is a phenomenal team, and they had some injuries
on defense and then they lost in the playoffs to Washington.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
I think they need to go back to being called
the Redskins. What do you think?
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Five seven seven three night? Anyway, we lost and it hurt.
I want to make sure to get to this text
from Kimberly from yesterday. Kimberly is a transgender individual and
a loyal listener to the show, and I appreciate her
so much. I don't understand this part, Kimberly, So I
want to do this one first, Ryan. The test for
what a teacher should be able to say, be allowed
to say at a minimum, should be the same as
(34:30):
what you're required to use or not use it to
air this segment. I heard your guest and you catching
yourselves now said now the guest, I think that Kimberly
is referring to as brad Bergford and this goes to
her longer text, ran you kind of know where I
stand with this topic. I'd like to point out, and
I don't know what that word is. Somewhile a minority
(34:51):
little boys and girls are dealing with gender dysphoria. Again,
I say, I notably dealt with this at age seven.
Unfortunately I did not have any resources or even begin
to understand it, or would you have been understood in it, Kimberly,
And I think that's the bigger factor to me, Especially
that age, you don't have people that you can talk
to about it.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Who will I understand? And it's okay and we're gonna
deal with it.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Your guest uses use of terms clearly shows that he
does not believe I exist. I would like for me
not to exist or would not like to me to exist. Furthermore,
ignoring it does cause an increase in suicide, right, ignoring it?
Speaker 1 (35:29):
Okay, No, I get that.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
Secondly, Kimberly says, as a Christian myself, I sure the
heck hope the Quran in the Bible is not being
used in the classroom just the same because that is
an ideology as well.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
That was to my point.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
I think Kimberly that this whole political movement in and
of itself is an ideology.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
It's a dogma, it's a belief system.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
And for the left, who are atheistic and have strong
animosity and antipathy toward organized religion, it is their religion.
Their politics is the religion, and they're trying to preach
to these children and convert them to that ideology. To me,
that's the same thing as a religion. Well, have more
of this when we come back our number two, straight
(36:10):
ahead Ryan schuling life
Hello, this is Representative Scott Bottoms.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I need to tell you some things that have been
building for quite a while, and now I think it's
time that we get this stuff out there. We have
three young ladies that are working as aids in the Capitol.
One is an aide to a senator, to or aids
to representatives, and these girls have been as others, including
(00:24):
female representatives. They have been having to deal with men
coming into their bathrooms and using their bathrooms while they're
in there. Now these men are saying, well, I'm transgender,
so I'm a woman, and so I'm coming to their bathroom.
I don't agree with that kind of stuff, that it
is men that are using women's bathrooms. And so three
of these aids they came out and they said that
(00:46):
they would file the complaint against this, and immediately the leadership,
the Democrat leadership in the House, the Speaker of the
House went after these girls. They said, well, we're going
to keep this quiet while we kind of investigate. They
didn't need to investigate anything. These guys are using these
(01:06):
women's bathrooms and have been for a while, and they
now these girls are being persecuted. They the Speaker of
the House has tried to squash them, try to control
this thing. The Speaker of the House has also went
after them with legal things. There's transgender lawyer groups that
are going after them. They've they've done what's called kora
their phone records and all these things, investigated their phone
(01:29):
and email and all these other kind of things. These
are these are young ladies that are that are trying
to be professional within the political arena. They are hired
aids by representatives and the way that the Democrats treat
these women is deplorable. They are going after these women.
This is egregious. One of the one of the aids
(01:50):
has already quit. She's walked away and said, I don't
want to do this. She was literally thinking that maybe
she would like to have a future in politics, but
that she can't. She can't deal with the complete control
and attack that's been coming down from the Speaker.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Thousand, Representative Scott Bottom's Republican District fifteen, and the Colorado
General Assembly.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
To start off today's program, we.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Invite you to join a long five seven, seven, three
nine send your text attention to Ryan. Ryan Schuling live
here with Zach Seegers on the other side of the
Glass always appreciate his help, and we have reached out
to Representative Bottoms, who is also a Republican candidate for
governor in twenty twenty six, to expand on this conversation
that I always want to start off with left brain logic, statistics, mathematics,
(02:36):
the number of young women who are impacted by the
incident that Representative Bottoms describes far out way statistically, numerically,
the number of trans individuals who are to be accommodated.
I preface this statement always with the notion that, yes,
I want to validate include gender individuals in our body politic.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
I want to welcome them.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Those that are conservatives like Kimberly and our listening audience
like my friend Sarah Higden who's on the show.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Often if they have.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Conservative principles and are pulling in the same direction as
us from a standpoint of values, then I want to
have a big tent party. Where I differ, and where
it's difficult is the rights of the individual that overlap
that intrude upon the rights of other individuals and in
(03:36):
this case many individuals. This is why I've had this conversation.
There is no perfect solution. I want to acknowledge that
right out of the gate, there is no perfect solution here.
I don't want to exclude or demonize trans individuals who
are just trying to live their lives, live their best life.
If that doesn't infringe upon the rights and the lives
(03:57):
of others, I have no or issue with it. It's
not even a topic of discussion. It doesn't really bother me.
But it's easier for me to say as a biological
heterosexual male person who uses male restrooms. I've said this
many times to my fiance Kelsey. We talk about it
when we go to our fitness club about you know
(04:20):
how difficult it would be. Little girls are not allowed
to go in the men's locker room, I mean for
obvious reasons, But when you're the other way around, a
little boy until I think he's like four or something
like that can go in the women's locker room with
his mom. There's this it all comes down to, And
I hate to be so crass and blunt about it,
(04:42):
but I got to go there. And if you listen
to this show, it's at least PG thirteen. So'll just
always be forewarned. An individual with a functioning male organ
should not be in a girls or women's sport or space.
That's the starting point for me, because that is the threat.
(05:03):
That is what makes a woman vulnerable and unsafe in
a in any public space. If there is a person
in that area with a functioning male organ, that is
a threat. Obviously that I have to explain. It is
excruciating to me. Now there are various stages and shades
(05:25):
of transgenderism. There is me being a fool and an
idiot showing up one day and going I'm gonna be
a girl. I'm gonna do girl things on going the
girl's locker room. That's that's ridiculous. I am not a woman.
I don't pretend to be a woman. If I decided
one day, it would be a mockery not only of
women but also of genuinely transgender people who have gender dysphoria,
which I do not, So I don't want to do that.
(05:46):
But then you have to acknowledge there's a scale here
for me on one end of it, and other biological
men who just are boring guys like me, And then
it goes all the way down to somebody that's gone
through all of the surgeies, reassignment et cetera, the hormones,
et cetera. But then there are those This is where
I get really kind of.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Agitated about this.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
William Thomas is not Leah because of what I just mentioned.
Riley Gaines and other female swimmers that were in those
locker rooms saw his unit. Okay, And again, hate to
be crass and blunt, but apparently that's where we have
to go in this conversation because it's being misunderstood or
it's being distorted, like, oh, he says he's a woman,
(06:30):
does he have the part my part, the male part?
Then no, not a woman can't do women things can't
go in women's spaces. I think that's the beginning and
the end of it. This is why I've always advocated
for and I know there's an inconvenience, there's an added expense.
This is for businesses, for public places, but a third space,
(06:52):
and you could define that however. You want a gender
neutral restroom and changing room, a family restroom or changing
room those who are non binary, non conforming, transgender restroom
and changing room.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
What I've also noticed.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
And I think there are, especially in Denver, when I
go to maybe some bars and restaurants, things that I
like downtown, they have gone from having just a men's
room and a women's room to two unisex restrooms which
are one seaters or whatever.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And to me, I'm like, that's okay.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
I wouldn't prefer being a woman in those circumstances because
I know what guys do when we stand up to
go to the bathroom. Number one is you know, this
is why women want us to put the seat down
after we're done. But I understand that conflict too. However,
I think it's the most manageable path through this that
still acknowledges validates the rights of transgender individuals, which I
(07:48):
always want to do and be sensitive to and aware
of and cognizant of and recognize, while at the same
time preserving female spaces for what they are and what
they were meant to be. Why do we have men's
and women's bathrooms in the first place? Why are we
segregated in that way? Because of what I said, Because
(08:10):
men have a particular male unit that is a threat
to a female if it's functioning, Yes, that is a
threat for rape, for sexual assault, for representative bottoms. Here
he's mentioning aids that are uncomfortable with this and they're
the ones that are getting reprimanded and for the for
(08:33):
the trans individuals. I understand it's a conundrum. There's no
perfect solution. I said that before and I'll say it again.
But isn't there a sense of, you know, if I'm
making someone uncomfortable, maybe maybe that's on me a little bit.
Maybe it's my presence here is making somebody uncomfortable. It
could be for any reason, not just this reason. But
(08:54):
wouldn't that strike you at some point going I don't
want to do this. I don't want to do this
or cause this problem for other women who are obviously
not okay with this.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
We had her name was.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Collette Celeste from California last week, This poor girl, seventeen
years old, just breaking down, tearfully testifying and being told
to wrap it up by a woman on that school
board in California about just how horrified she was having
to change in her room where a biologically male person
(09:27):
was sitting there watching her change.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Now, that's another creepy element to this.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Not all transgender people are creeps and weirdos in that
way where they're just looking to be voyeurs. There's something
weird going on with William Thomas if you checked out
his Instagram posts and so forth. I think there are
legitimately transgender people again who are just trying to live
their lives, and that's what.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
They have chosen to do.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
It's not because they're looking to get their jollies by
frequenting a women space. I think we have to have
a very kind of nuanced approach to this. One size
does not fit all, but representative bottoms brings up an
interesting point because they're vilifying the young women in this case,
further to the cause of the misogyny that's inherent in
(10:18):
this that a man pretending to be a woman can
invade her space, can invade her sport, can claim a
metal can take a spot on a team, can take
a scholarship. As Jennifer Say told us from XXXY Athletics
just over the last several days, the Boston Marathon had
three categories, men, non binary, and women, in which a
(10:44):
biological male could participate in any of those three. What then,
why did you have the non binary category that's where
that person should go, Because to say trans women are women,
well they're not.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
They're not. Okay, they're just not. They can't be. It's
not possible, not in nature.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
You can transform, you can become, you can portray a woman,
you can have the characteristics of a woman. You are
not an XX chromosomal individual who produces estrogen naturally at
the level that women do it. It really is a pseudoscience.
My advice if I had a friend who is going
(11:29):
through genderdysphor you would be to air on the side
of caution, would be to eron not transing, would be
to aeron be gay or a cross dress, do all
of that, but changing your body. I mean, this is
this is a Pandora's box that once you open it,
now you're We've talked about this with Aaron Lee too.
(11:50):
You're a lifetime patient at that point, having to consistently
and constantly be a ward of big pharma beyond drugs,
go to medical exams, have procedures, and they have a
patient for life. And this is now a million, if
not billion dollar industry nationwide and especially here in the
(12:10):
United States. They're going in the other direction overseas, in
the countries that I've mentioned before, in Finland and Sweden
where they've banned transit the kids, in the United Kingdom
where that was just recently done and decided, and where
a recent Supreme Court case was decided that in order
to be a woman, to be considered a woman, you
must be a biological woman born that way.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
And JK.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Rowling celebrated, I believe, with the post on X of
her smoking a cigar. So again, no easy answers, but
the crazy doesn't stop there. In the state capitol, Harry
is Representative Cecilia Espinoza. She represents the fourth House district,
which at one time was sadly represented by Tim Hernandez,
(12:56):
a noted anti Semite and communist. Now we're thinking, well,
anybody but Tim Hernandez has got to be better, right,
And I texted my friend Russ Waldman, who notoriously had
that confrontation that went viral on October eighth. The very
next day after the attacks of October seventh in Israel,
(13:17):
Tim Hernandez, this clown, was out at a pro Palestine
rally cheering on Hamas and what had just happened, and
he claimed he cut the you know what, you know
what you were doing, and that's what Russ was telling him.
And this is where I struck up a conversation and
now a friendship with Russ He's a solid individual, great
citizen journalist, and I ran this by him for Cecilia
(13:40):
Espinoza and what you're about to hear, and he's merely
responded baby steps for house to trick four Ryan.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
They're not sending their best. Well, judge for yourself.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
This is representative Cecilia Espinoza citing a very interesting example.
You might even call it irony to demonstrate, you know what,
parents have not always had rights over their children, what
happens to them decisions about their health care and future.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Let's see where she goes with it.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
Under English common law, it was recognized that the care
of all infants is lodged in the king as parents patriarch,
and by the king, this care is delegated to.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
The court of chancery.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
In protecting neglected and dependent children, chancery courts use what
are called equitable powers, the essential ideas of which our flexibility,
guardianship and the balancing of interest in the general welfare,
with a view to getting a fair result than could
be obtained by applying applying older and more rigid roles.
So the notion that parents have rights have always reigned
(14:41):
supreme is not in our English Saxon history, but rather
that there was always a recognition that the state had
an interest in protecting the rights of children, and that
was balanced by the best interests of the child doctrine
which we see in much of the case law which
my colleague from Denver referred to, which balances the rights
of the parents and the child. In this other context
(15:03):
of issues, and in light of all of that, in
my knowledge of the history of how those rights of
children have been balanced over time, I would just I
will have to say that I will.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Be a known tonight, my God, the layers to this
onion that I must unpeel for you.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
You're welcome.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
First of all English Saxon history, that would be Anglo
Saxon history. And I was told, reliably by those of
Cecilia Espinoza's political persuasion that that was bad, that inherently
white Anglo Saxon Protestants are evil, that that is part
of white supremacy, that was the founding of this nation
(15:43):
in sixteen nineteen, not seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
But she's citing that part of history.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Second to that point, the monarchy, the crown, the children
are wards of the state, wards of the king, and
his court. Huh, we had a revolution against King George
the Third George Washington did not want to be a king.
He would only serve two terms as president and that
would be the precedent for every successor of his until
(16:12):
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And then we passed an amendment saying
you couldn't serve more than two terms as president. They
wanted Washington to basically be the king here. He didn't
want that. We didn't want a monarchy. We rebelled against that.
We were revolted against that. We fight fought a war against
the King of England. I thought kings were bad. Everybody
out there on the left is criticized Donald Trump is
(16:34):
behaving like a king. He's behaving like a monarch. He's
making kingly decisions autocratically. Wait no, No, Representative Cecily Espinosa says,
that's a good idea. These are olden times. They're like
medieval times. The king is at court, long lived, the king,
the king has ultimate authority and power over your chiuldern.
(16:56):
What are you talking about? Then there's the other part
of the what about the patriarchy. I was told in
the movie Barbie and I only watched it surreptitiously through
Dan Kaplis because I refused.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
To watch that crap.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
But that movie told us the patriarchy was bad and
it was to be fought against. Men are terrible, especially
white men, and especially straight white men. They're the most
evil of all. Cecilia Espinoza, this is a grand slam
of stupid. This is not only full of the weak territory, Cecilia, congratulations,
(17:34):
my dear, you are full of the year territory with
this comment. And no, no, children do not have, not,
should not, will not if we avoid the powers of
the left that be have equal rights as their parents.
(17:55):
It's not a fifty to fifty equation. I was a kid,
I know this. I was a fool and an idiot
myself age seven, I couldn't survive on my own.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
I was what they call a dependent, and.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
So were each and every one of you, And so
was Cecilia Espinoza at one time. You do not have
full rights as a seven year old, as a twelve
year old, even as a seventeen year old. You get
more rights. As you get older, you get more freedoms.
As you get older, you're tasked with more responsibilities.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
As you get older.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
But there's a reason why children are dependent on their parents,
and yes, parents should have full authority and control over
the safety, well being, education, nutrition, so many things for
their kids.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
And not every parent's perfect.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
But if we're going to start drawing this line of
you have to adhere to XYZ by edict of the
state of the king or whoever you want to define,
or else you're going to lose your kids.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
That's a slippery slope.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
I don't want to encounter barring full on a abuse
and that does happen of children, those should be removed
from those volatile homes. Short of that, a parent must
be free to exercise discipline, boundaries and consequences for their kids.
And yes, parents should have those full rights preserved.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
Is not in our English Saxon history, but rather that
there was always a recognition that the state had an
interest in protecting the rights of children, and that was
balanced by the best interests of the child doctrine, which
we see in much of the case law which my
colleague from Denver referred to, which balances the rights of
the parents and the child. In this other context of issues,
(19:45):
and in light of all of that and my knowledge
of the history of how those rights of children have
been balanced over time. I would just I will have
to say that I will be a known.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Tonight Democrat House District for Colorado State represent of Cecilia Espinoza.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
If she was.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Standing and delivering a sixth grade book report, that would
have been n f I can't get over this quote,
and I pulled a shorter version of it there for
our next guests to respond to from the Colorado Parent
Advocacy Network Laurie Gimmelstein, and I anticipate she's going to
have a lot to say.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
About it here on Ryan Schuling Live. Laurie.
Speaker 5 (20:22):
Welcome, good afternoon, Ryan, Thank you so much for the
opportunity to join you today.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Now, what Representative Espinosa suggested there is that the state
or the monarchy, as she was citing from an earlier example,
always had a stake in protecting the rights of children.
And my question would be to her and to you
and right now, protecting the rights of children from whom.
Speaker 5 (20:49):
Well, in our state of Colorado, it is absolutely protecting
children from their parents, because our democratic legislature believes very
strongly that parents or enemy number one. And so it's
so disappointing. It's so disheartening to see the Unamerican ways
(21:09):
that are happening under the Golden Dome in Denver. And
also just the disruption of a parent's fundamental authority to
direct the upbringing, education and care of their children.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
How much of this LORI in your estimation and you
spent a lot of time on this, especially with the
bill we're going to discuss house Built thirteen twelve. But
let's just strip this down to brass tags. How much
of this is just strictly a power play by democrats
in charge to take control of children in order to
indoctrinate them and create little minions.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
Well, it's a very interesting just focus group if you
could have a focus group on is taking a look
at legislation that has passed since twenty nineteen under Democrat
Governor Polis. We have seen a chipping away of parent
rights and this new movement for child rights, you know,
(22:07):
with the passing of the Imatter program where they redefined
children ages twelve and up as youth and giving them
special rights so that these these youth could have access
to mental health care without their parents knowledge, consent, or involvement.
We're seeing legislation that is tasked that is forcing standards
(22:30):
and of social studies that require grades one through twelve
to implement lgbt q I a gender ideology into social studies,
and parents are not allowed to opt out of social
studies curriculum. You know, we have opt outs on a
reproductive sex ed, but we don't have opt outs out
(22:51):
of social studies. And we have just all of these
complex bills that all together are really eroding parental rights.
And we're helping four family right now, and I know
that you've spoken with several of them, Ryan, where they've
actually already lost custody of their children for not affirming
their child's decleared gender identity. So their child come home
(23:15):
and says, I'm actually a boy, and a parents say.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
No, you're my daughter, You're not a boy.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
That child can go to school talk with a counselor
without their parents' knowledge. And what this new bill that
actually was assigned to the Judiciary Committee yesterday in the Senate,
and their next meeting is Monday at one point thirty.
It has not actually been assigned to that committe yet,
but we are watching it very very carefully, and we
(23:43):
are working with some really phenomenal national groups to help
protect parental rights and bring the national attention that thirteen
twelve deserves and its sister bill thirteen oh nine. I
think Aaron Lee would protect kids. Colorado is really doing
a phenomenal job educating that thirteen twelve is not the
most There are several egregious bills, and I think thirteen
(24:06):
twelve is getting a lot of attention, and it's allowing
these other bills to eighty four that went into committee
today that would allow organizations to come in during the
school day to talk with your children. And it's very
alarming about what is happening. But I will say nationally, yesterday,
Scotis heard oral arguments in the Mood versus Taylor case.
(24:31):
And this is a case out of Maryland where basically
the Supreme Court is considering whether parents have a constitutional
right to opt their children to specific lessons that conflict
with their religious beliefs without changing the curriculum for everyone else.
And I think this particular case is going to have
huge implications on parental rights. And we were actually very
(24:54):
blessed to be a part of an amicust brief with
the Thomas Moore Society that we filed in support of
the the moods in their case. So lots to talk about.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Her group on x you can follow at Seapan Colorado
and online it's Coloradoparents dot org. That's the Colorado Parent
Advocacy Network. But the work that they're doing is done
on behalf of these children, what's best for them, and
parents know best in universally, almost every case. Lorie Gimmelstein,
our guest. He made mention of the case Mahmoud versus Taylor.
(25:34):
Here oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court yesterday.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
We'll start here.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
This is Attorney Eric Baxter arguing on behalf of the parents.
Justice Clarence Thomas asking a question. There seemed to be
a couple of flashpoints here as to whether the books
were in the schools at all, whether they were just
on the shelves available to the students, or whether there
were lesson plans designed around these very controversial books which
had LGBTQ content, which we're targeted toward youth as young
(26:02):
as five in kindergarten. That seemed to be something that
Chief Justice John Roberts had an issue with.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
But here is Justice Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 6 (26:10):
What I'm talking about is not necessarily what the books say,
but rather is that are the books just there and
no more? Or are they actually being taught out of
the books?
Speaker 7 (26:23):
Now we know that the teachers are required to use
the books. When the books were first introduced in August
of twenty two, the boards suggest that they've used five
times before the end of the year.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
That's in the that's at.
Speaker 7 (26:36):
Two seventy three a in the sort appendix.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
One of the.
Speaker 7 (26:38):
Schools, the Sherwood School, in June for Pride Months, said
that they were going to read one book each day
to celebrate Pride Month. The board's own testimony through Superintendent Hazel,
said that the books must be used as part of
the instruction and that at six forty two in the
appendix that discussion will ensue and that was the entire
(26:59):
point of withdrawing the opt outs and removing even notifying
parents are not even allowed to know. The board said
in that statement it was so that every student would
be taught from the inclusivity story books. And also the
district Court transcript at sixty three has council's admission that
some of the books have to be used and it
can be more.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
Eric Baxter citing this and even opposing counsel through drips
and drabs, as Justice Neil Gorsitch was ringing them out
like a sponge. Had to concede, had to acknowledge that
not only were they part of lesson plans, but that
there were guide books as to how to handle students.
Maybe they have objections, well then you get them right
back in the line, you tell them that's not right.
(27:38):
And that there were basically judgments being formed by the
faculty in this matter. And this kind of got to
the whole question of whether they were just exposed to
these ideas or coerced into believing these ideas. Laurie, as
you boil it down everything that went on at the
Supreme Court yesterday, what does this mean and what does
(27:58):
it mean for Colorado's specifically the case that we've been
following down in the Elizabeth Public School District.
Speaker 5 (28:05):
Yeah, these are really really good questions. And yes, there
were school lessons that teachers were required to use using
these books, and we actually have evidence of that happening
in many school districts here in the state of Colorado
as well. And we also have multiple reports of students
who have received poor grades. They have been the target
(28:29):
of disciplinary actions. They've been the target of ridicule for
going against any co worse belief in the classroom. We
have many kids and many teachers who do have very serious,
sincere religious beliefs. This is not just a disagreement with
the ideology, you're just not simply liking it. It is
(28:50):
a sincere religious belief. And that's really what the Mood
case is about. This is their sincere religious belief. And
you know, the case if the mood is found, if
they are found, if the pearents are basically considered here
and that they do have a constitutional right to off
their children. Now, the case from Elizabeth School District, so
(29:12):
many of you may not know, but the ACLU is
doing the Elizabeth School District in Colorado. We're removing nineteen
books out of their library that contained content that was
deemed not developmentally appropriate for minor children. And so that
was a decision between the board of education in the
community after a period of time where those books are
(29:33):
on display and they had information around you know, of
course adult obscene content, but also like on shootings and
other issues, so it wasn't just obscene content. But if
the court sides with the petitioners in the mood, it's
really going to strengthen Elizabeth School District's defense because what
it will say is, you know, the parents authority is
(29:55):
of a constitutional interest. I mean, that's really what it
comes down to. Schools must respect parental rights when it
comes to morally or developmentally sensitive content. You know, school
districts across the state for decades have had board policies
on teaching controversial and sensitive issues, and they are just
completely ignoring those policies. And the other the thing is
(30:18):
that local school boards have the right to set boundaries, right,
That's what it comes down to. We have local control
and I think it's really important. One of one of
the justices, I believe it was Justice Jackson. She stated
she was making a remark saying, how you know, it's
(30:39):
ridiculous that instead of this school district having elected representatives
and experts in the field making the decisions about which
books should be taught to kids in the classrooms, She's
upset that now she is, as a judge, has to
flip through these picture books and decide whether these are
appropriate for.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
Five year olds.
Speaker 5 (30:55):
She says, it's pretty troubling because you know, ordinarily public
education has been the subject local control, you know, And
if that said, you know, it upholds Elizabeth's case, right
like in terms of that they have local control of
determining what books they want to use tax dollars to
ensure that are available to children for educational purposes. And
(31:17):
I just think it's really really important for people to
know what's happening because parental rights are under attack here
in Colorado and across the dation. And I do believe
that this case of a Mood case really highlights the
constitutional weight of requiring permission for controversial instruction.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
A Mood v.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
Taylor heard before the Supreme Court oral arguments yesterday, And
if you really want to study the minutia of this,
I highly recommend you watch the interaction between Justice Neil
Gorsuch and the attorney representing the schools in this Alan Schoenfeld.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
It is surgical, it is masterful.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
Nobody is better at it than Justice Gorsage, and he
mentions masterpiece cake shop, the case that when all the
ways Supreme Court Jack phillips right here in Colorado, it
may serve as a precedent for the decision they make
in My Mood, and that decision as Laurie just stated,
could have a profound impact on Colorado right here, specifically
in the Elizabeth School District, but not limited to that one.
(32:18):
Lori Gimmelstein, our guest Colorado Parent Advocacy Network find out
more online at Coloradoparents dot org. Glory thank you so
much as always for your time.
Speaker 5 (32:27):
Thanks Dian, have a great afternoon.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
All right, your thoughts in reaction five seven, seven thirty nine,
wrapping up our number one of Ryan shuling live after this.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Halftime of the program, a.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
Two hour program that means when we're done with one hour,
it's halftime, and Zach seekers on the other side of
the glass. He will take full advantage at the NFL
Draft coming up tomorrow, and we'll be privileged enough to
be joined by Ryan Edwards, my counterpart. Ryan in the building.
I call him Ore, he calls me rs. And he
(33:02):
will be joining me live in studio at about two
fifteen for the second half of that opening segment to
preview the NFL Draft, which begins Thursday night in Green Bay, Wisconsin,
and the Broncos pick at number twenty overall.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Is that right, Zach?
Speaker 3 (33:20):
You know all these things He's giving me the thumbs up.
And the Lions, my Detroit Lions, are at twenty eight.
They should have been at thirty two because they should
have won the Super Bowl. And I'm still not over
at folks. I'm not my team, which has been laughable
over decades since my father was ten years old. That's
the last time they won an NFL title. That's before
the Super Bowl existed, because nineteen fifty seven, my dad
(33:43):
was ten. And they've been a punchline and laughing stock,
and they've been featured on Jay Leno when he was
hosting throughout the nineties as to what a terrible franchise
team they were.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
They went fifteen and two last year. It was a
it was a dream.
Speaker 3 (33:59):
This is a phenomenal team, and they had some injuries
on defense and then they lost in the playoffs to Washington.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
I think they need to go back to being called
the Redskins. What do you think?
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Five seven seven three night? Anyway, we lost and it hurt.
I want to make sure to get to this text
from Kimberly from yesterday. Kimberly is a transgender individual and
a loyal listener to the show, and I appreciate her
so much. I don't understand this part, Kimberly, So I
want to do this one first, Ryan. The test for
what a teacher should be able to say, be allowed
to say at a minimum, should be the same as
(34:30):
what you're required to use or not use it to
air this segment. I heard your guest and you catching
yourselves now said now the guest, I think that Kimberly
is referring to as brad Bergford and this goes to
her longer text, ran you kind of know where I
stand with this topic. I'd like to point out, and
I don't know what that word is. Somewhile a minority
(34:51):
little boys and girls are dealing with gender dysphoria. Again,
I say, I notably dealt with this at age seven.
Unfortunately I did not have any resources or even begin
to understand it, or would you have been understood in it, Kimberly,
And I think that's the bigger factor to me, Especially
that age, you don't have people that you can talk
to about it.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Who will I understand? And it's okay and we're gonna
deal with it.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Your guest uses use of terms clearly shows that he
does not believe I exist. I would like for me
not to exist or would not like to me to exist. Furthermore,
ignoring it does cause an increase in suicide, right, ignoring it?
Speaker 1 (35:29):
Okay, No, I get that.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
Secondly, Kimberly says, as a Christian myself, I sure the
heck hope the Quran in the Bible is not being
used in the classroom just the same because that is
an ideology as well.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
That was to my point.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
I think Kimberly that this whole political movement in and
of itself is an ideology.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
It's a dogma, it's a belief system.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
And for the left, who are atheistic and have strong
animosity and antipathy toward organized religion, it is their religion.
Their politics is the religion, and they're trying to preach
to these children and convert them to that ideology. To me,
that's the same thing as a religion. Well, have more
of this when we come back our number two, straight
(36:10):
ahead Ryan schuling life
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!