Parental rights are emerging as one of the major civil liberties movements of this generation — and one of the greatest conflicts between the right and the left in this country. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled schools can hide a change of gender in young children from their parents. Now, Colorado is poised to pass a law that would threaten the custody rights of parents who “deadname” or “misgender” their own children. If a parent does not adopt a child’s new pronouns or name, they could be found to have exercised “coercive control” and lose custody in divorce proceedings in favor of a more enlightened parent.
As someone who grew up in an Italian family, I must confess that I thought “coercive control” of a parent was called . . . well . . . parenting. I can still remember my Sicilian mother brandishing a broom in front of our door to prevent one of my sisters from going out with a boy that she did not like. She simply declared “I gave you life, I can take it away” and my sister went back upstairs.
I admit the Italian parental style can be a bit shocking for outsiders and misunderstood by many. (My Irish father would sit bemused in the kitchen). In reality, it was all drama but you knew that it conveyed not anger but love.
Under the new proposal, House Bill 25-1312, Colorado would use the “Kelly Loving Act” to make “deadnaming” and “misgendering” children a factor in child custody disputes. Referring to your child’s biological gender or given name or pronoun would now be considered harmful and abusive, inviting a court to take your child away from you as a coercive parent.
“Section 2 provides that, when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control. A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child.”
So the state will require parents to adopt a gender, name, and pronoun that they believe are harmful for their children. Many such parents may believe that a young child should proceed slowly and not make such changes as they consider the implications of such decisions.
One question is whether this would be limited to custody proceedings or eventually expand to families generally. If this is deemed abusive or harmful during custody battles, it would also be presumably abusive or harmful outside of such proceedings. The fear is that the underlying conclusions could support a view of a household being abusive and not being in the best interests of the child.
Notably, the Supreme Court will now be considering a Colorado case involving a ban on counselors offering “conversion therapy” for children. Under the state rule, a counselor can lose her license if she agrees to such counseling at the request of her parents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit tossed the challenge, ruling that conversion therapy is harmful and the rule is part of an effort to regulate the healthcare profession.
Rep. Lorena Garcia, D-Denver, insisted that:
“This bill is the bare minimum of what we can do as a state, and the fact that we have to legislate for people to not bully and misgender and deadname people because of whatever insecurities they might have is sad to me. Why can’t we just respect one another? Why can’t we just understand that someone else’s identity has nothing to do with me or you?”
The bill passed the committee on a straight party vote with Republicans in opposition. I believe that the Democrats are not just ignoring parental rights but political realities. They will find that this is not a partisan issue. It is a primal issue. For parents, Democratic politicians like Garcia fail to “understand” that it has a lot “to do with them.” They are the parents of these children. If Democrats do not “understand” that, they are likely soon to find that out.
Funny how Colorado Democratic legislators are now acting in loco parentis to spank the parents!
Actually, the House Bill is much more disruptive and potentially harmful than the one provision that the good professor is focusing on (which, in and of itself, is alarming).
Section 3 of the Bill shoots an arrow through longstanding interstate comity and the Privileges and Immunities Clause,
by allowing Colorado schools and courts to disregard and disallow statutory/case law from other states that interfere with Colorado’s more aggressive/progressive law. This is the most troublesome provision for me, when I contemplate potential consequences.
Sections 5 and 6 prohibit education providers from creating or enforcing dress codes based on gender and REQUIRE educators to allow any student the option to choose from any of the dress options that are provided for either sex.
Elections 2028: red states, blue states, and rainbow states.
^ from me, hit send too fast. Moreover, I add that one of our fellow commenters should probably read the entire House Bill to grasp a better understanding of the issue(s).
LIn, Colorado as a state like any red state is entitled to create their own laws. If they deem these kinds of laws ok in their view it’s their prerogative just like in deep red states.
“ Sections 5 and 6 prohibit education providers from creating or enforcing dress codes based on gender and REQUIRE educators to allow any student the option to choose from any of the dress options that are provided for either sex.”
I would assume this applies to education providers who take state funds. As we all know too well by now government can dictate certain requirements as a condition of accepting funding. Republicans use this to force schools to do things they want all the time. Right?
Turley’s issue is about parental rights, but he narrates it as if it is about government forcing parents to not misgender or deadname their children. He makes either in passing or barely mantions that this particular issue is specifically about child custody cases. Obviously judges are going to do what is best for the child.
Parental rights is about what only one parent wants.
As I have said earlier. Parental rights is all good and right until one parent decides or chooses a course of action that only certain people don’t like. Then it becomes a “its-not-their-right” argument because they don’t like the choice or decision of one parent or a parent. If they are going to argue for parental rights then it should include the rights of both parents. Even if they choose to support their child’s want to identify as a different sex. It’s literally the point. Why should it be anyone else’s business? Because that seems to be the idea behind parental rights. Leave the state out of it and that means leave the public at large out of their decisions too.
Sure, States Rights, just like segregation in the Jim Crow South, yet dems at the federal level thought that they could force states to rid segregation from their laws. Isn’t that the same, how hypocritical is your argument. There is a over-arching notion of common decency and protection of the innocent that supersedes these crazed woke hordes intent on imposing their agenda – much like islamic jihadis bent on forcing everyone to worship allah or die. Can you not see the thug characteristics of this legislation and how the far left has abandoned the very principles of 3000+ years of Judeo Christian moral sense in order to force their insanity on the world. If you want to be abnormal, that is fine, but leave the children alone.
More gross display that the modern Democrat party is as sick as they come. Evil even.
Colorado is a state where over the counter mind altering substances are legal. No surprise here!
Whiskey?
So, essentially, vulnerable children are brainwashed by groomers into thinking they are “trans” and the politicians are protecting the groomers and their end product. In this instance it depends on a scared and confused parent to assist the groomers in a custody battle.
It is like some sort of sick invasion of the body snatchers. The mentally ill are reproducing by passing their mental illness on to other people’s children. Human cuckoos, so to speak. It is a sickness that needs to be stopped **** in its tracks. How long before parents start doing just that ?
Is this law going to be called the Colorado Hitler Youth Act? Will the children be required to inform on their parents? Will parents be sent to re-education camps about naming? Will the state soon produce suitable pronouns and legal names for all children and Prosecute those miscreant parents who backslide? Will there be mass meetings in Mile High Stadium for all the faithful to swear allegiance to the new order with all the Appropriate martial music? Will Governor Polis grew a new 2 inch mustache and start using a somewhat familiar salute that was all the fad in the 1930’s? Will the Democratic Party in Colorado be renamed the Colorado-American Bund?
Will George get out his black jackboots, send his brownshirts to the cleaners for cleaning and pressing , and clean up his visored hats with their chin straps in anticipation of a summer trip to the New Reich of Colorado.
Will cattle cars be pulling up to rail sidings to carry away the really intractable parents.
I did not know that Colorado was going to pull off a real world Hunger Games. Time to move to Wyoming.
GEB,
Well said. Seems Colorado is the new breeding grounds for stupid and crazy. Given enough time, they will look like the failed state of CA.
Back in the 1970s, I used to see bumper stickers on cars with Colorado plates that said, “Don’t Californicate Colorado.” Well, it happened.
Colorado is engaging in a variation of “Tracking”.
There are a variety of Tracking activities, not just Academics.
Obviously Colorado is adopting Gender Identity as one.
Athletics (Sports) another, but the one that is not spoke of is the Criminality Tracking.
The Police intelligence collection of Profiles. surveillance which is done by fellow Students, who are usually the children of LEO families.
They are indoctrinated (recruited) by the School Administrator in charge of the program and encouraged by thier Parents.
This keeps them on the ‘Cleared’ profile list, while the Subject Students are on the ‘Watched’ list.
The Profile Data (Tracking Data) then follows the Individual though life.
It is the culling of the flock, Society need, Doctors, Lawyers, Professionals, well as Jocks, Factory Workers and Janitors. Your performance in High School set you on a path (the Chute) they profiled you for. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described it in ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, you’re either relegated to school of Professionals or the School of Janitors, for life.
The ‘Colorado Hitler Youth Act’ is a very applicable parallel. You all had Classmates which were ‘Brown Shirts’ (Narcs) in your School, I bet you could name them all if you tried.
Tracking (education)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_(education)
Gender Identity Tracking will be adopted in Colorado.
Here’s where the program(s) stem from.
Schools are just part of the Community Program:
What is the community based policing model?
Community-based policing is a philosophy and organizational strategy where law enforcement collaborates with community groups and citizens to address safety and security issues, focusing on proactive problem-solving and building strong relationships.
Core Principles:
Community Partnerships: Community policing emphasizes building strong relationships and partnerships between law enforcement and community members.
Problem-Solving: It focuses on identifying and addressing the underlying causes of crime and other public safety issues through collaborative problem-solving.
Proactive Approach: Community policing moves beyond reactive policing, aiming to prevent crime and address issues before they escalate.
Community-Driven Priorities: It involves community members in identifying and prioritizing law enforcement issues, ensuring that efforts are aligned with local needs and concerns.
Increased Accountability: Community policing aims to increase police accountability by fostering transparency and building trust between law enforcement and the community.
How it Works:
Officer Assignments: Community policing often involves assigning officers to specific geographic areas or community groups, allowing them to build relationships and become familiar with local issues.
Community Meetings and Outreach: Law enforcement agencies engage in regular meetings, events, and outreach programs to connect with community members and gather information.
Collaborative Problem-Solving: Law enforcement works with community members, organizations, and other stakeholders to develop and implement solutions to local problems.
Data Analysis and Evaluation: Community policing relies on data analysis to identify trends, assess the effectiveness of interventions, and make adjustments as needed.
Benefits:
Improved Community Relations: Community policing can foster trust and build positive relationships between law enforcement and the community.
Reduced Crime Rates: By addressing the root causes of crime, community policing can contribute to a safer community.
Increased Community Involvement: Community policing empowers community members to play an active role in shaping their neighborhoods and improving public safety.
Enhanced Police Legitimacy: By working collaboratively with the community, law enforcement can enhance its legitimacy and build trust.
What are the three types of community policing?
Three of the most important of these are citizen input, broad function, and personal service. (1) Citizen Input – Community policing incorporates a firm commitment to the value and necessity of citizen input to police policies and priorities.
What are the three pillars of community policing?
Pillar 1 — Building trust and legitimacy. Pillar 2 — Policy and oversight. Pillar 3 — Technology and social media.
What are the two core components of community policing?
Community partnership and problem solving—the two core components of community policing—can be accomplished in a variety of ways.
How is community policing different from traditional policing?
Community policing differs from traditional policing in how the community is perceived and in its expanded policing goals. While crime control and prevention remain central priorities, community policing strategies use a wide variety of methods to address these goals.
What are the three C’s in law enforcement?
1.7. The Three C’s: Cops, Courts, and Corrections – SOU …
The Three C’s: Cops, Courts, and Corrections.
Community Policing (read)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_policing
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/commp.pdf
This is a bill to pit parents and children against one another to increase power of the state and spread chaos through society. It’s positively Soviet.
Gonna say, it sounds like a certain book, plus a certain couple of countries’ dogmas, to turn the children, the most malleable of subjects, into little spies
This just in, liberals want the murder of adolescents to be reclassified as late-term abortions. Conservatives foolishly object. Developing…
Anything is possible on Epstein Island. Is that what we’re headed?
Under U.S. Constitution. Art. IV§1, the full faith and credit clause, what happens if a Colorado divorce judgement terminating parental rights for deadnaming ends up in a state court where gender affirming care is statutorily child abuse?
OK, this situation needs a speedy reason for being sent to the SCOTUS. Just how can sane, civilized people even consider this coercive legislation?
Just how far are normal Americans going to allow this putrid ideology to destroy, not only innocent children’s lives, but the very foundation of civilization?
People, sane people, should be taking to the streets in protest in a far more vigorous fashion to save these innocent children than any bunch of ignorant tools screaming for a free palestine or drag queen rights etc.
If ever there was a cause belli it should be this.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Parental Rights since 1923. In June of 2000 the Court once again ruled in favor of Parental Rights. Justices O’Conner, Ginsburg, and Breyer were three of the six justices who once again found that the 14th amendments do process clause protected Parental Rights. in O’Connor’s written ruling you can tell she’s perturbed that once again, the Court is having to rule on n Parental Rights That have been Previously been ruled that they are a Constitutional protected right. She states in her ruling more than 75 years ago, in Meyer V Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399, 401 (1923), We held that the “liberty” Protected by the Dur Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up their children” and “to control the education of their own.
You can hear the irritation in Justice O’Connor’s written words. This case is Troxel v. Granville 503 US 57 (2000) Should have once again ended all attacks on parental rights. However, as you can see from the article Colarado as well as Washington and Maine are attacking those rental rights again. The parents of The states are going to end up in court getting the laws thrown out. However, this time the parents need to sue members of their state, legislature and executive branch branches. Congress Gave us laws for justice type of attack on our fundamental Civil Rights.
42 USC 1983 civil action against Deprivation of rights. This law holds those who injured them liable. It would be great to see government lawmakers and executives actually be held accountable for once.
whimsicalmama-It’s called a Rocky Mountain High but nothing like what John Denver had in mind.
And these people are not “sane”.
Funny thing, as I was driving to a Dr. appt earlier today a Volkswagen pulled out in front of me nearly causing an accident; when I saw their plates, they were from Colorado and as I pulled up next to them at the light, I saw that they were young woke stupid f*cks who only thought of themselves. So, yes, Colorado, along with other blue states pose a danger to the overall health of this nation in so many ways.
The only time that government should interfere or intervene with parental authority is when it is presented with clear evidence of ongoing physical abuse resulting in significant injury to the child. I would personally also favor that a state adopt a policy whereby a child could seek emancipation from his or her parents at an age prior to full adulthood (probable minimum of 16 or 17) provided that the child can furnish some reasonable assurances of maturity and self-sufficiency. Beyond that, government should butt out and allow parents to fulfill their natural responsibility of child rearing.
I am torn in my feelings about this because CPS doesn’t always protect children who are being starved, tortured, caged etc by insane parents. Just because you can reproduce doesn’t mean you are a fit parent. I don’t want to remove valid reasons for government to interfere in such cases, but this new concept out of the crazy capital of the US goes way to far in allowing mentally ill parents to mutilate their child with government permission.
How did we grow so many morons in the past 60 years?
whimsicalmama-your point is well made. There have been many cases of children ending up dead because CPS did not do their job. Often lack of funding is a cause but seems more often to be incompetence
Do your examples not arguably meet an “ongoing physical abuse” standard? CPS in the states I am familiar with is nothing but the typical self-empowering government bureaucracy, and does virtually nothing to benefit the children is is alleged to serve. Do problems of poor and even harmful parenting exist? Of course they do. Is there any remedy that government is capable of applying to fix that? By my observation over my long lifetime, the answer is a resounding”no”. Even if the answer was “yes, and government should rightfully be empowered to remedy the situation, what should happen in the cases of abusive parents of the type you cite is that the child should be immediately removed and placed with alternative parents. What actually happens in cases of genuine abuse is that CPS will spend months or years attempting to “repair” parents who are incapable of ever being made right, while the child continues to suffer. Sorry, while I agree that you have identified a real problem of some degree of magnitude (I certainly don’t trust government statistics to enumerate that) government is incapable of providing a solution, and should not be empowered or entrusted to do so.
I agree, bureaucrats exist only to further their comfy nest at government expense. The less government employees, (other than defense of the nation and foreign affairs) the better we would be. There are far too many examples of this seen daily as DOGE exposes all the insanity, graft, corruption etc within our federal government (and I am certain it is the same at lower government levels such as states and counties) which should teach us that big government is a danger to us and our Republic.
These Lunatics are straight up Insane (redundant I know). Their Statism is anti-American and anti-Constitutional. It is a violation of Human Rights and Human behavior. There is NO greater threat to humanity than a Government that takes children from Parents……………
any judge or lawmaker supporting this SHOULD BE JAILED
Too typically, the issue is much more serious than one of politics and ‘free speech in the age of rage.’ If gender confusion, like the rage, were a natural phenomenon it might make some sense to side with the children who are the primary victims of now generations of hormone disrupting chemicals FDA (minimally) approved as allegedly ‘safe’ food (minimally) additives since the late 1960s. But, it’s not entirely natural. While scientific ‘proof’ is not readily available there are the timelines and statistics to reference which are consistent with the growing problem. By December of 2006 one Jim Rutz published a six-part article on the subject of phytoestrogen (similar to human female estrogen) rich soy being causal (e.g., https://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39253/). Regardless, the soy is still a rather common allergen and an incomplete protein which has been mostly processed more cheaply with toxic hexane with some residue since the early 1970s; illegally adulterating real-food sources of safer proteins in violation of the FFDCA (USC21 Chapter 9 Subchapter 3 Article 331a, prohibited acts). As with the rage, which is more likely attributable to added artificially cultured brain damaging, mind altering “free” (can cross the blood brain barrier) monosodium glutamate (MSG), it will probably take permanently banning a number of FDA approved toxic food additives to see positive results in a decade or two; the sooner the better.
I do wish RFK would investigate the long term effects of so much soy within our food supply. It may turn out that this use of soy has been the instigation of so many of our now mental illnesses that plague us. Being 74 I do not remember the chaos in young children that we see today. I know diet is part of it, but Dr. Spock started half of this nation down a very damaging path when he disrupted millennia of cultural values about parenting and we are seeing this damage daily in news reports and statistics of crime and decline in education and just plane social values. This can all be traced back to the progressive movements nascent at the beginning of the 20th century with such progressive champions as woodrow wilson and eleanor roosevelt.
It’s interesting how Turley left out the name of the law.
“ Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals”
This isn’t just about denying parents rights. It’s about determining which parent would get to decide what is best for their child. One parent may use misgendering and deadnaming to coerce a child to the point it becomes abusive. Also, emotional abuse is a thing and courts have to consider that in child custody cases.
Turley disingeniously frames this issue as an infringement on parental rights, as in both parents. Clearly that’s not the case. This is about what one parent’s wishes against another. That changes the context of the purpose of the proposed law. Turley explicitly ignores the purpose of this as a custody issue. Instead he uses this to mislead readers into thinking the state is forcing parents, as in both, to do something they are against.
Speaking of how Turley, and I guess only Turley, misses the point about the naming of a bill, I ask you George, do you still support the “INFLATION REDUCTION ACT”?
Paid fool is worse than your everyday fool.
Professor Turley did not mislead anyone. Your comment didn’t contain any information that I hadn’t already learned from Professor Turley’s post. There is indeed a problem when one parent considers a child to be suffering from gender dysphoria and another parent wants to change the child’s gender. The government should not create a law to automatically side with the parent who coerces their child to embrace transgenderism.
Turley relies on his readers ignorance to mislead. It happens often.
This law does not force a judge to automatically decide in favor of one parent over another. This law is just another tool for a judge to determine what is best for the child after considering all the options and circumstances in whatever particular case is being decided.
Turley frames this issue as a parental rights issue as if it were about both parents being forced against their will. By leaving out the fact that this law is about child custody disputes which are by their nature complicated decisions and require a judge’s best judgement on what would be best for the child he leaves the notion upon his less capable readers to assume this is about government, leftists to be precise, infringing on parental rights. Obviously this is not about that. He’s using this misleading narrative as a springboard to incite anti-leftist sentiment and further the right’s rage rhetoric against such dastardly ‘transgressions’.
You’re assuming the child is transgender. In adversarial custody disputes, parents gaslight their children to accuse the other parent of abusive behavior regularly. Now the gaslighting parent has a new avenue of attack. I would much rather have a court weigh the totality of facts and circumstances than put a thumb on the scale for the parent embracing a child’s new name, gender, and identity. The law basically threatens a parent with severe consequences if a parent disagrees that embracing the “new identity” is in the best interests of their child. The State should not inject politics into family court.
That’s not what this law is about. It’s just an additional category for a judge to consider in a child custody dispute because the issue of transgender children is now part of the national discourse.
It makes sense to include in law a new consideration for judges to use in their deliberations.
Turley is just using this law to insinuate or impugn the notion that the state is forcing parents to refrain from misgendering and deadnaming their child if the child is considered transgender. He’s making this look like a “leftist overreach” without providing greater context and that plays well to his loyal MAGA readers. It gives them a reason to “rage” on leftists.
It is a primal issue…If Democrats do not “understand” that, they are likely soon to find that out.
The modern Democratic party is built on understanding two things: money and power. The carnage left in the wake of their actions is a necessary byproduct of transforming the culture. Even when they FAFO, they will not understand why they lost money and/or power.
I will rephrase: The Democratic Party fundamentally cannot govern/legislate with the core understanding their only purpose is to secure our right to life, liberty and property. Show me a Democrat that does understand that and I will show you someone transitioning out of that party.
Now do the republican party.
@Wally
He just did. Along with everyone else that refuses to align with the madness of the modern left.
so the groomers are winning in Colorado!
Time to DESTROY Democrats!
End Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits, colleges/students
Ban Public Unions, the political army of Democrats
Also TAX any non-profit where anyone gets $100k+
Defund them!
So taking this idea to it’s illogical extreme, if a child, say 5 or 6, says I want to smoke cigars, the parents are required to cave? Or smoke meth, shoot smack, or engage in any number of vices they may hear/see on the approved child’s program?
Move the hell out of that state
Oh geez, really? Turley seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to complain about anything these days.
This discussion is about child custody disputes in court, particularly in divorce cases. The new rule or law serves as another tool for judges to use when considering child custody matters. The term “coercive parenting” as used by Turley isn’t necessarily negative, but he overlooks the distinction between “coercive parenting” and “coercive abuse.” Courts are required to act in the best interest of the child when handling custody cases. These cases are complex and challenging, and this new law provides judges with an additional resource to consider.
In some Asian countries, it’s considered acceptable to discipline children in public, right? Just because it’s acceptable in another culture doesn’t mean it should be accepted here. Of course not.
It’s amazing how George, a paid “contributor” will defend anything a leftist does to the extreme point of arguing in favor of making a father calling his child by their birth name abusive.
Keep talking pal, it is working great for your side.
Hullbobby, this is about child custody battles durng divorce. Not about forcing both parents to not misgender or deadname a child because they want to.
One parent may not agree with the the other and this gives judges in these kinds of sensitive cases the authority to consider this as means to decide what is best for the child.
Turley is providing a misleading narrative that is clearly meant to sow distrust and rage against democrats
No George, this is about the leftists forcing their insane trans agenda on everyone else. Just because so blue haired, nose-ringed, face tattooed “mother” has forced her 5 year old into believe they are the wrong gender doesn’t mean the poor father should go along with it.
If the father is abusive there will be other fact and examples of such abuse, but calling your child by their birth name cannot be called abusive.
George, can the family court consider the mother’s actions in convincing a child of 5 or 6 that they are the wrong gender be considered abusive? If not why not? Odd that no legislation in any blue state has that as a criteria when discussing what is best for the child?????
Again, please continue defending these ;eft wing issues, your party still has a few percentage points left to hit bottom.
Hullbobby,
“ Just because so blue haired, nose-ringed, face tattooed “mother” has forced her 5 year old into believe they are the wrong gender doesn’t mean the poor father should go along with it.”
That right there is the problem. You all scream “parental rights!” but at the same time you dismiss these parents because they don’t fit YOUR definition of what constitutes a parent by dissmisively calling them a “mother”. It doesn’t matter what they choose to wear or believe. They are still the parents and if their choice is to support their child the way they believe is best for THEIR child it’s literally the whole idea of parental rights. You’re picking and choosing for others what they are entitled to as a perental right while ignoring their right to decide what is best for their child because YOU don’t like it.
That you think is abusive for a parent to support their child in their choice is just your opinion. YOU have no say in it because you don’t like it. It’s just like in education. You support a parent’s choice no matter how crazy or lazy it is when it comes to their child’s education, right? It’s their right. But when medical decisons or things YOU don’t like its suddenly not their right. Your position is dependent on what YOU think is right, not of what the parent thinks. That would make the idea of parental rights a cruel joke.
It’s not a left wing issue Hullbobby, it’s a parental issue that YOU have no business judging. That’s for the judge to decide because in family court that’s THEIR job when there is a custody dispute. You don’t like the idea that others can make decisions YOU don’t like. Therefore you condone forcing the idea that one parent has more rights than the other because it one parent aligns with your values and views. That’s not how it works.
You appear to completely overlook the point. Judges should not have the authority to support a parent who coerces a child to change their gender. Such legislation is a bad law. It is an unnatural law.
How is that not contrary to parental rights? If one parent supports his/her child’s choice against the other why is that not also a parental right?
Obviously these cases are complicated and that’s why judges who specialize in child custody cases are tasked with making these difficult decisions. It’s literally their job.
Judges have a LOT of power to decide and many people don’t realize that. The law gives judges this authority and thats what this proposed law does. The legislature is well within it’s prerogative to create this law. If you don’t agree you can always call or write to your representative and demand the law be voted down or change it. Right?
It seems this is not really about parental rights. It’s about their opposition to anything related to LGBTQ or the transgender community. Religious zealots really. Couching their disagreement under the warm logical but misleading premise of “parental rights”.
Hullbobby did you ever stop to consider that one parent does not want the other to purposfully misgender or deadname their child because they may deem such actions abusive? Wouldn’t it be that parent’s right too?
Turley paints this as a parental rights issue, but he doesn’t make distinction of which parent and that is the context missing from his argument. He’s falsely insinuating that both parents are being forced to not deadname or misgender their child by the state. I would call this kind of misleading article as ‘rage bait’ for MAGAs. Which is ironic because Turley rages against rage rhetoric meant to incite rage on others, yet here he is writing about a topic that clearly induces “rage rhetoric” among MAGAs.
Keep talking George, Democrat’s own words are the Republican’s greatest asset.
Hullbobby, in other words you just don’t have a good argument.
Liberals/Radical Left gone Wild.. Colorado use to be a nice place to visit and great people but the Left/Liberals moved into Denver, Boulder etc took control along with the Liberal Elite of Aspen. Now you have proposed laws like this, migrants gone Wild, Mayors like the one in Denver put migrants before US Citizens, a Governor and a State Supreme Court who are a Rubber Stamp for the Left.
…the natural results of invasion by hippie has-beens and wannabes who reek of skunk stench, perhaps?
The courts continue their downward slide. Now legal documents have adopted the cant and jargon of the rabid Left, enshrining such foolish buzzwords as “deadnaming” into official court language. This is not superficial mildew on the system that can be washed away, it is a destructive penetrating mold that must be cut out.
We can only hope “The Democrats will likely soon find out!” The government control of our children over the parents may be the next “she cares about they/them; I care about you!”