Nightmare for Families


This MassResistance Colorado parent finished his unflinching testimony, and right
afterwards the Senate Committee voted 3-2 to defeat the bill!

Wed May 10, 2017 - 1:06 pm EST

We can defeat the LGBT juggernaut if we fight hard enough. Here’s proof.

May 10, 2017 (MassResistance) -- When pro-family people fight back hard and tell the truth fearlessly, they can derail the well-funded LGBT legislative agenda. We’ve shown that over and over again. This was one of those times.

A frightening bill that would allow children as young as 12 years old to “decide” they need psychiatric therapy – without their parents’ knowledge or consent – was stopped in the Colorado Senate on Monday, May 1. The 3-2 vote by a Senate committee came after strong testimony at the public hearing by Colorado MassResistance and other pro-family activists against a torrent of emotional pleas by the bill’s proponents.

The bill, HB17-1320, had passed in the Colorado House of Representatives the previous week. Had it made it through the Senate committee, it would have gone to the Senate floor for a full vote.

A nightmare for families
As we recently reported, the bill would have allowed LGBT-allied “therapists” in school-based clinics to push vulnerable children to affirm and accept homosexual and transgender “identities” and behaviors as “normal,” among other things. Parents would not even be notified that this psychotherapy was being given to their children.

The thwarted plan had terrifying implications for parents and families. Children are emotionally defenseless and can easily be persuaded by adults that they need counseling “help” from unknown, agenda-driven mental health professionals. These therapists could diagnose and “treat” the children with whatever approach they chose, without knowing vital medical history or other information from parents, or being accountable to them.

The original version of the bill, filed on April 5, set the age of consent for outpatient psychotherapy to 10. But the bill’s supporters got nervous, and at the House Committee hearing they changed it to 12 to help it pass.

Apparently it was expected that the bill would pass and become law. Therapists were already being placed in Colorado’s school-based clinics, according to a MassResistance Colorado parent who researched it.

Proponents use “suicide prevention” as a lobbying tactic
The LGBT movement has been quietly but forcefully pushing these bills across the country for nearly a decade. They use “suicide prevention” as a lobbying tactic. They get local allied groups to come and give emotional “suicide attempt” testimonies. They try to persuade legislators that parents are a big part of the problem, and thus the children need “independence” from their interference.

They make their case as emotional as possible. It can be compelling to legislators, unfortunately, if not properly countered by good, solid pro-family testimony.

Left-wing activists attack hard during testimony

At the Senate committee public hearing, the bill’s proponents were well organized and their testimony was slick and well scripted.

Fourteen came to testify. They were from various Colorado left-wing social-work foundations and suicide-prevention organizations, a transgender group, the University of Denver, and a Latino group. Besides activists, they included teenagers, a young child, and a liberal rabbi and a liberal psychologist.

The usual radical groups. This group, Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights,
was lobbying hard for the bill. It is also a major advocate for school-based clinics in Colorado.

Most of their testimony included very emotional depictions of personal trauma and attempted suicide. But their overall strategy was to make parents seem like the “enemy” of their own children, or at least too incompetent to be allowed to decide.

They testified that “parents don’t have the resources or education to do what’s right” and “are not equipped to deal with children’s mental health needs.” Also, “parents are often the cause of their children’s stress,” and may likely be abusing their kids. Strangely, most of their testimony was not pertinent to the bill because it related to older teenagers and young adults.

An "anti-suicide" activist (standing) prepares to testify, as Sen. Stephen Fenberg, a sponsor of the bill, smiles at her.
Fenberg later told the other Senators that he "doesn't get" the pro-family argument for parents rights.

One of the bill’s sponsors, a Senator, even testified that “parents don’t have the right to be the only ones” who direct their children’s counseling decisions – the State must be included.

Parents fight back even harder
Five pro-family people who came to testify – including two from Colorado MassResistance, a constitutional attorney, and representatives of Colorado Citizens Commission on Human Rights and Lutheran Family Services.

They warned the Senators that the bill allowed for a dangerous overreach by mental health staff at schools. It virtually removed accountability for therapists (to parents or anyone else) and would lead to inappropriate testing, misdiagnoses, and bad treatment plans. It would certainly prompt lawsuits because of the bill’s dubious constitutionality, given the history of Supreme Court decisions favoring parental rights.

In particular, the MassResistance Colorado parents demanded that it’s vital that parents be involved for many reasons. A child is not competent to provide adequate mental health history or other important information. The child can’t competently decline therapy against the persuasive powers of a school clinic or choose a different venue and travel there. In fact, there is a conflict of interest between the clinic’s funding and the fact that the child can be a captive patient.

And there was guaranteed to be outrage over the presumption that parents don’t have the best interests of their own children at heart, or the competency to deal with their emotional problems.

The MassResistance Colorado parents also submitted a letter by Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, against the bill. Dr. Cretella strongly advised the legislators that adolescents are not capable of making these kinds of judgments about their mental health and psychological therapy. It was the only actual medical opinion in the hearing.

The committee votes to kill the bill
Immediately after the testimony, one of the bill’s Senate sponsors, Sen. Stephen Fenberg, spoke up and made a disturbing remark dismissing the rights of parents. It reflected the arrogance of the bill’s proponents – and their anger that parents came and confronted this bill. Fenberg said, “In response to the parents’ rights argument, I don’t get it.” He believes that the state has just as much of a right to raise the children. He went on to describe one opponent’s testimony as “disgusting.”

Right after that, the committee voted 3-2 to effectively kill the bill for this session. Needless to say, the bill’s proponents didn’t like the outcome at all. The parents – and common sense – had won!



Well-Known Member
Thanks for posting, Admin! Such an important article on many levels. It makes me sick to my stomach how these demonic libs think....think they have more rights than parents!. this has been going on for years. God bless these parents for fighting.. Every parent has to know whats going on. Personally, keep the kids home if you can. Cant trust Parochial schools either. When the parent is kept from knowing that a child could see a therapist without their knowledge, then you can never be sure. Plus it undermines parents to the children and causes rebellion. So happy for those families in Colorado for being victorious!

Deleted member 149

Another expression of society without Christ. Sodom and Gomorrah continues to knock on the door. Emotions seem to be the lead to foster "rights" and not common sense and principles. Indeed it is necessary to fight, it is hoped however, that such groups who fight would do so not only on the human power of things...otherwise, such would still allow the sin to enter in other ways, but on the Pillar of Christ these novus ordo bishops fail to promote to the masses.

If ecumenism needs to be "respected", and its sins only "faults", then these LGBT groups have a foot in the door -wasting away the human energy of these groups- only to provide more onslaught in legislation like waves consistent on a shore.

The fight is with sin God tells us; these LGBT's need to be called out for the sin and there workings trying to promote their sin in tactical steps and degrees.

When sin is not blatant anymore, it becomes tolerated; then normal; then accepted. This is what we have here. Only the reverse of it will we find battles won.

Outside of Christ is dog chasing tail; with Christ darkness cowers.
Last edited by a moderator:



Legislators in Texas have been working toward passing a host of laws to reform the state’s Child Protective Services agency.
New legislation has been crafted to improve the agency which has seen multiple dilemmas resulting in detrimental safety problems for children in the state. There have been several bills introduced this year aimed at improving the agency. One bill, in particular, House Bill 39, seeks in part to require medical exams to be performed more quickly on children who have been newly placed into the foster care system.

HB 39, introduced by Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston), would mandate that the state’s Department of Family Protective Services schedule a medical examination for children who have been in temporary state custody for longer than three business days. Children in rural locations would be required to receive a medical exam within seven business days.

While the bill was originally centered around hastening medical exams for new foster children, questions arose regarding whether vaccines would be included as part of these medical exams. Rep. Bill Zedler (R-Arlington), the vice chairman of the Texas Freedom Caucus, introduced an amendment to HB 39 to make vaccinations exempt from the required medical treatments. The bill saw a turbulent debate upon Zedler’s amendment as the discussion turned to childhood vaccines and who should be responsible for crucial medical decisions when custody is obscured.

“You get that child back five, eight, 10 days later, and they’ve now had that surgery or they’ve had these vaccinations,” Zedler said according to Dallas Morning News. “That’s an issue of liberty.”

Wu was vocal about his belief that the law allows the state to assume authority in such situations. “Let me make very clear: the moment a child is removed from their home- the moment the child is removed- by law, the child is now a child of the state of Texas,” said Wu. “We have the responsibility to make sure that child is safe and is given proper medical care. That is the law.”

“When we put into the law that we are limiting the ability of our agency that is tasked with taking care of a child that is in their custody and they are legally responsible for, we are setting a dangerous precedent,” Wu continued. “This is the same thing I told you when we argued over my bills and this is the same thing I will tell you again when we argue over this bill.”

Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford) questioned Wu’s choice of wording: “Mr. Wu, you used the word ‘belongs to the state of Texas.’ Do you want to rethink that wording?” he asked. Strickland then interrupted Wu’s response and went on to ask “True or false: that CPS has taken children and found that they were wrong in doing so? And returned the child? Has that happened, Representative Wu?” Wu acknowledged that it has occurred “on rare occasions.”

Stickland challenged not only Wu but also Rep. Sarah Davis (R-West University Place), who sought to add an additional amendment in response to the amendment of Zedler’s, which would allow “cancer-preventing” vaccines to be administered, particularly the HPV vaccine.

Davis noted statistics related to cervical cancer deaths and low HPV vaccination rates in Texas and said that “the HPV vaccine will eliminate cervical cancer.” Stickland asked Davis if she believed that parents had the right to choose medical procedures for their children. Davis responded that she believed “children that have been taken from their parents and are in protective custody undergoing a medical examination should be given a vaccine that prevents them from developing cancer.”

Stickland asked Davis if she understood that they were discussing the issue of children in temporary custody with no parental rights terminated during the medical exams. “Agreed, but cancer is not temporary,” Davis answered.

Stickland repeated his question of whether she thinks parents have the right to choose medical procedures for their children, and Davis said that “we have to find a balance because there is absolutely in my opinion zero science behind the fact that any vaccines are systematically harming children.”

Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano) also challenged Davis’ amendment and said that it appeared that her amendment would transfer decision-making authority from families to a physician. Leach asked Davis if her amendment “goes against the wishes” of a child or the parents.

Leach added that he was not interested in deciding which vaccines are “good or bad” or who needs to be vaccinated, but was focusing on the question of who would have the authority to make vaccination decisions under her amendment. “Who at the core at the very basic level, who should make this decision?” Leach asked Davis.

Davis’s amendment was tabled in a 74-64 vote; Zedler’s amendment to prohibit vaccines during medical exams was passed in a 74-58 vote, with another amendment attached by Wu to allow for tetanus shots to be administered in emergencies.

Zedler later said to The Texas Tribune that the majority of parents that he’s communicated with are not overall opposed to vaccines but are troubled by the scheduling. He also said that “the only one that might possibly be [an emergency] is a tetanus shot.”

In the video below, Wu makes the ominous claim that parents — who’ve not been found guilty of any wrongdoing — no longer have care over their children and that those children now belong to the state. When the state begins to claim they own our children, something is very wrong.




Fri May 26, 2017 - 1:41 pm EST

Mom loses lawsuit against school that secretly gave her son ‘transgender’ treatment

ST. PAUL, Minnesota, May 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- A mother’s lawsuit against a Minnesota school system for secretly helping her 15-year-old son "transition" to "female" was dismissed by a federal judge.

Anmarie Calgaro of Iron Junction discovered all too late last November that her son's school was secretly giving him female hormone treatments with funding from the government. She sued the school district, the county health board, and a local health care entity for violating her rights as a parent.

But the school countered that the boy was “emancipated” from his mother because he had been living on his own, and was therefore legally able to make his own medical decisions.

The 15-year-old had previously moved in with his father — with the mother's permission — to go to a better school (Calgaro is divorced from her husband). The boy then moved in with friends before eventually living on his own. The school interpreted the boy living on his own as "emancipation" from parental influence, determining that the minor teen could make his own elective medical decisions.

Unbeknown to the mother, the boy had also filled out an emancipation form and filed it with the help of a homosexual advocacy group.

"If there had been a court order of emancipation, then Anmarie would have received notice and an opportunity to be heard," Calgaro's attorney Erick Kaardal of the Thomas More Society explained.

The mother says her son’s emancipation filing was filled with false information. For one thing, it claimed that the mother had surrendered her parental rights.

The boy's emancipation filing also claimed that Calgaro failed to report him "as a runaway" and "made no attempt to bring him home," concluding that she "no longer wishes to have contact with him." But the mother denies these claims.

The mother’s defense team says the case is essentially about protecting parental rights.

“The U.S. Constitution says that parental rights are fundamental rights, that can’t be terminated without due process,” Kaardal told the local CBS affiliate.

Calgaro said she is suing not just for herself but "for the benefit of all parents and families who may be facing the same violation of their rights.”

Because of the assumption of emancipation, the school refused to give Calgaro her son’s medical or educational records, and the Department of Human Services refused to give Calgaro information about his "transition" treatments, including a "life-changing operation," according to the Thomas Moore Society (TMS).

TMS even notes that ironically, the boy’s application for a name change was denied by the St. Louis County District Court because of the “lack of any adjudication relative to emancipation.”

This week District Judge Paul Magnuson dismissed Calgaro's lawsuit. He admitted the boy was not legally emancipated, and so Calgaro's parental right "remain intact." Despite this, the judge nevertheless decreed that the school and health care facility “cannot be held liable … because they did not act under color of state law.”

In essence, the judge decided that the school and government agencies could only be held accountable if it acted against a law or a “policy or custom.” Therefore, Calgaro had no legal claim, he argued.

The judge went so far in downplaying parental rights as to rule that a parent's access to their child's medical and education records is a question to be solved. He admitted in his ruling that he "explicitly left open the question ‘whether and to what extent the fundamental liberty interest in the custody, care, and management of one’s children mandates parental access to school records.'”

The mother's defense team plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

“Anmarie Calgaro is living a parent’s worst nightmare," Kaardal of the Thomas More Society said. "Her minor child has been piloted by third parties through a life-changing, permanent body altering process by organizations that have no legal authority over him, and that have denied his own mother access.”

LGBTQ advocates supporting the boy's "transition" outside parental knowledge say the boy's mother proves her anti-trans prejudice by still referring to her biological son who now looks like a female as "he."

David Edwards of the transgender group Transforming Families told NBC News that he took offense when Calgaro referred to her son in male pronouns. "Purposefully mis-gendering a transgender person is an act of violence," Edwards claimed. "To continually do that to your child is not only insensitive but also really harmful," he said.




Ontario passes ‘totalitarian’ bill allowing gov’t to take kids
from Christian homes

TORONTO, June 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne Liberals have passed what critics describe as “totalitarian” Bill 89 by a vote of 63 to 23 on the last day before Queen’s Park adjourns for the summer.

Pro-family advocates warn Bill 89 gives the state more power to seize children from families that oppose the LGBTQI and gender ideology agenda, and allows government agencies to effectively ban couples who disagree with that agenda from fostering or adopting children.

Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, repeals and replaces the former Child and Family Services Act that governs child protection services, and adoption and foster care services.

It adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.”

At the same time, it deletes the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child as a factor to be considered, and mandates child protection services consider only the child’s own “creed” or “religion” when assessing the best interests of the child.

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history,” says Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition.

“Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

“Disappointed as I am with this result, I am not surprised,” commented Tanya Granic Allen, president of Parents As First Educators (PAFE). “The Kathleen Wynne Liberals have for years been pursuing their anti-parent and anti-family agenda and Bill 89 is the latest installment.”

Conservative MPPs present at Queen’s Park for the vote opposed the bill, which was in stark contrast to their position at second reading in March, when 83 of Ontario’s 107 MPPs passed Bill 89 unanimously.

The Conservatives who voted June 1 against Bill 89 included Monte McNaughton, Jeff Yurek, Bob Bailey, Gila Martow, Todd Smith, Michael Harris, and Steve Clark.

PC leader Patrick Brown was not in the house for the vote.

Trillium Party MPP Jack MacLaren also voted against the bill.

A source present at a Tory caucus meeting two weeks ago told LifeSiteNews the Conservative members were swayed by “three or four” MPPs who said they could not in conscience vote for what the source described as a bill that is “fundamentally and morally wrong.”

The PC caucus, now at 28 members, thereupon decided to vote as a block against Bill 89, according to the source.

Fonseca lauded those PC MPPs who “came to their senses, stopped listening to that propagandist for Kathleen Wynne’s policies, and I do mean Patrick Brown, and chose to finally vote against tyranny.”

“And thank God they did, because it serves as a symbol of resistance,” he said.

“CLC had been directly lobbying MPPs to oppose the bill, and we believe that may have been a factor in why the PCs ended up voting en masse against it.”

Parents As First Educators and the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) have also been at the forefront of relentless lobbying against the bill.

But despite these efforts, no Liberal broke ranks to vote on behalf of concerned parents, and a number of NPD MPPs voted for the bill as well.

Bill 89 retains the provision in current law that a child who is suffering or “at risk of suffering” mental or emotional harm and whose parents do not provide “treatment or access to treatment” is in need of protection under the law.

But while the former law said the Children’s Aid Society should take the “least disruptive course of action,” Bill 89 adds “including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services," according to an ARPA analysis.

“The implication is that intervention should not be presumed to be more disruptive than non-intervention,” the ARPA report adds.

Statements by Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau clearly signaled the pro-LGBTQ, gender ideology Liberal agenda, critics warned.

Coteau, who introduced the bill, told QP Briefing he sees questioning teenagers’ self-identification as LGBTQI or telling them to change as abuse.

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently,” he said.

“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

Children’s Aid agencies now have “a type of police power to bust down your door, and seize your biological children if you are known to oppose LGBT ideology and the fraudulent theory of ‘gender identity', if for instance, some claim is made that your child may be same-sex attracted or confused about their ‘gender,’” according to Fonseca.

“We already see similar tyranny happening in other jurisdictions, such as Norway, where the main child protection service there, Barnevernet, has been involved in numerous high profile seizures of children from traditionally-principled families,” he added.

Fonseca pointed out the Liberal bill gives legal cover for government workers to discriminate against Christians who want to adopt or foster children.

“Even before Bill 89 was passed, but immediately after its introduction in December, I learned of several Christian couples who were turned down for adoption on account of their deeply held religious beliefs about traditional marriage and human sexuality,” he told LifeSiteNews.

This reveals the “stunning hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry” of the left, Fonseca said.

The Ontario court in 1995 ruled “for the first time in Canadian history that it was ‘discriminatory’ of the Child and Family Services Act to not allow homosexual couples to bring a joint application for adoption.”

But the “same activists who cried discrimination in 1995 [are] now actively legislating the same discrimination upon Bible-believing Christians, by banning them from having children through adoption,” Fonseca said.

“Will the left never feel ashamed of its hypocrisy?”

Fonseca also issued a plea to Christian leaders, particularly the Catholic bishops.

“Why has the most powerful spiritual body in this province, the Catholic hierarchy, not lifted a finger nor raised a voice to oppose this tyranny against Christian families, and those from other faiths?” Fonseca questioned.

“The lack of spiritual leadership is killing us. Every single time that Liberals, either federally or provincially, roll out the LGBT juggernaut to take away our rights, or to demonize us as bigots, we hear nothing but silence from the Church. This has to stop.”



Jun 5, 2017 - 9:14 am EST

Petition calls for repeal of ‘totalitarian’ bill allowing children to be taken from Christian homes

TORONTO, June 5, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — LifeSiteNews has launched a petition for the repeal of the Kathleen Wynne Liberals’ Bill 89, which passed last week by a vote of 63 to 23.

Pro-family advocates warn the bill gives the state power to seize children from families that oppose the LGBTQI and gender ideology agenda, and allows government agencies to effectively ban couples who disagree with that agenda from fostering or adopting children.

“Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption,” says Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition.

“This is a direct hit against parental authority,” echoed Tanya Granic Allen, executive director of Parents As First Educators (PAFE), which along with the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) has been at the forefront of lobbying against the bill.

Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, repeals and replaces the former Child and Family Services Act that governs child protection services, and adoption and foster care services.

It adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.”

At the same time, it deletes the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child as a factor to be considered, and mandates child protection services consider only the child’s own “creed” or “religion” when assessing the best interests of the child.

Sign the petition: Ontario MUST repeal totalitarian LGBT bill

Pro-family advocates point to public comments by Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau as evidence the Liberals will use Bill 89 to enforce a pro-LGBTQI, gender ideology agenda in the home.

Coteau told QP Briefing shortly after he introduced the bill that he sees questioning teenagers’ self-identification as LGBTQI or telling them to change as abuse.

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently,” Coteau said.

“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

Coteau reiterated this to QP Briefing after Bill 89 passed Thursday.

While the state wouldn’t intervene over a difference of opinion between parent and child on a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity, it would if it considered a child was being abused on those grounds, he said.

“[Y]ou can’t remove a kid because the parent disagrees with the fact that a child is gay. What you can do is remove a child if that child is being abused because of that,” Coteau told QP Briefing.

“Abuse is abuse.”

Added the minister: “It’s the same way I would not allow a black child to be abused because they were black, or a Catholic child to be abused because they’re Catholic.”

Coteau was unavailable for comment when LifeSiteNews contacted his office.

As with the previous law, Bill 89 regards a child in need of protection under the law if that child is deemed to be suffering or “at risk of suffering” mental or emotional harm and the parents do not provide “treatment or access to treatment.”

But while the former law said the Children’s Aid Society should take the “least disruptive course of action,” Bill 89 adds “including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services," according to an ARPA analysis.

“The implication is that intervention should not be presumed to be more disruptive than non-intervention,” ARPA adds.

Fonseca contends that Bill 89 “institutionalizes child abuse.”

“With this law, parents are being coerced to help their children embrace their sexual confusion, instead of helping them to accept who they really are, as evidenced by their bodily reality.”

Dr. Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, expressed similar concerns in an interview with Granic Allen and Queenie Yu, founder of the Stop the New Sex Ed Agenda Party.

“I don’t think the children’s best interests are being put forward by policies such as this,” observed Peterson, who has come to prominence as a vocal critic of enforced gender ideology and as a free speech advocate.

"It’s a mistake and we’re going to pay for it in a big way,” he added.

“Because we’re moving very rapidly to a point where radical interventions like puberty blocking hormones, for example, and even surgical interventions are being implemented on younger and younger people, and that’s permanent.”

Peterson said “caution is the byword” when dealing with children and the politically charged issue of gender identity.

“We don’t allow children to make decisions like that with many other things that are relevant and important to them, and I think that the argument that you’re protecting them more by delaying than hurting them is a very, very powerful argument,” he told Yu and Granic Allen.

“I don’t trust the other argument. I don’t trust the people who are making it.” added Peterson.

“I think they, they care about the political agenda and they’re willing, perfectly willing to sacrifice children to it.”

Granic Allen commended the 22 Progressive Conservative MPPs “who finally saw fit to do their job and actually oppose a piece of Kathleen Wynne social policy,” and voted against the bill.

PC leader Patrick Brown was not one of them.

She also credited lone Trillium Party MPP Jack MacLaren, who voted against bill, for “applying some pressure to the ‘right’ of the PCs” and thus galvanizing Tory opposition.

MacLaren, who was ousted from the PC Party just two days before he was to announce his departure to Trillium Party, told LifeSiteNews he sees Bill 89 as undermining parental rights.

The measure “would potentially say that the parent is interfering in the child’s rights to choose his own sexual orientation,” MacLaren said.

The votes against Bill 89 show lobbying efforts pay off, Granic Allen wrote in an email to supporters.

“MPPs are realizing that parents are a large voting block and that we demand our voices be heard,” she pointed out. “If not they will face a tough time at the next election.”

Fonseca says Bill 89 is “an issue on which the current regime should fall” and he urged parents to continue the fight.

“Resist! Speak to your religious leader, your pastor, your bishop. Demand that they stand up for your parental rights and the well-being of these children who will be abused by the child protection system itself,” Fonseca said.

“If they have any shred of mercy in their hearts, they’ll join parents in the streets.”




Fri Jun 30, 2017 - 10:41 am EST

Baby’s life-support will be switched off today against parents’ wishes: judge rules

LONDON, England, June 30, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — All Chris Gard and Connie Yates want is for their little boy to be given a chance. Instead, Great Ormond Street Hospital has won its lawsuit to force him to remain untreated and disconnect his life support.

The long legal battle for 10-month-old Charlie Gard’s life has gone as far as it can go. After appealing through the English court system all the way to the Supreme Court, Chris Gard and Connie Yates put their son’s life in the hands of the European Court of Human Rights. Now they, too, have ruled Charlie must “die with dignity.”

Charlie was born August 4, 2016, with a rare disease causing progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and he was put in intensive care. Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital decided there was nothing they could do.


Connie Yates and Chris Gard with baby Charlie

But Chris and Connie did not give up on their baby’s life. They discovered an experimental therapy for Charlie’s condition being offered in the United States and started a fundraising campaign online to take him there.

With 83,000 donations pouring in that totaled £1.3 million, that is more than what they need to take Charlie to America and pay specialists for his treatment.

British judges, however, stopped the parents from taking their son for potentially life-saving care. The courts felt the experimental therapy was not a realistic hope, and Charlie’s suffering would only be prolonged if his parents were allowed to seek the treatment.

A High Court judge agreed in April, as did the Court of Appeal in May.

Attorneys reasoned before the Supreme Court that parents should be able to decide what is best for their children and give them experimental treatment.

“We say Charlie is being deprived of his liberty at Great Ormond Street Hospital,” the parents’ lawyers argued. “The state is not entitled to cause a child’s life to be extinguished.”

Nevertheless, last week the Supreme Court dismissed the parents’ appeal, allowing the hospital to shut down Charlie’s life support within 24 hours, pending the European Court of Human Rights’ concurrence.

Outside the courtroom, Connie tearfully screamed, “How can they do this to us?!”

Chris explained that his son is “not in any pain or suffering,” and to take him for care in the U.S. would not cause him to suffer more. “They are lying,” Connie insisted. “Why don’t they tell the truth?”

Charlie’s last hope was the European Court of Human Rights. On Tuesday, that group of arbiters declared “the decision is final,” because it was not their place to second-guess “the competent domestic authorities.”

On Thursday, the parents posted on Facebook, “We’re not allowed to choose if our son lives and we’re not allowed to choose when or where Charlie dies.”

“We promised our little boy every single day that we would take him home,” Connie told the Daily Mail. “We want to give him a bath at home, put him in a cot which he has never slept in, but we are now being denied that.”

“We begged them to give us the weekend. Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time,” she added. “Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator, but we are being rushed.”

Great Ormond Street Hospital issued a press release, stating, “Our priority is to provide every possible support to Charlie’s parents as we prepare for the next steps. There will be no rush by Great Ormond Street Hospital to change Charlie’s care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion.”

There are supporters who still hold out hope in this life-or-death battle with the English government’s “justice” system.

An email account was created by one such supporter ( with a plea to Pope Francis that anyone may sign. “Even non-Catholic can write to him,” Jen Nelson told LifeSiteNews via email. “If the Pope will speak on little Charlie’s behalf, it will reach millions of people around the world. He often does a public address every week.”

The Vatican did issue a statement this week. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, offered prayers for Charlie and his parents. “The matter of the English baby Charlie Gard and his parents has meant both pain and hope for all of us. We feel close to him, to his mother, his father, and all those who have cared for him and struggled together with him until now. For them, and for those who are called to decide their future, we raise to the Lord of Life our prayers, knowing that “in the Lord our labor will not be in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:58)

But Paglia added, “We must also accept the limits of medicine and […] avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family.”

Pro-lifers around the world that are concerned for parental rights are also being urged to comment on Great Ormond Street Hospital’s Facebook page in a last-ditch effort to apply public pressure to keep Charlie alive. Additionally, the family’s website ( has a list of people to contact.

“As of now, he is still alive, but could be taken off of life support any day,” Nelson said. “People can storm the hospital with calls, emails, Facebook messages, and YouTube video comments asking them not to kill Charlie!”

“They have done this to other parents before,” Nelson charged. “It’s time they stop killing children against their parents’ wishes!”

“If this isn’t nipped in the bud, this euthanasia movement will only grow.”

“This little boy has the potential to protect other children who are facing the same type of forced euthanasia as we speak, and in the future,” Nelson added. “This will send a big message to their politicians as to the people wanting a respect for innocent human life!”


Amye Marquis' daughter had the same medical condition as Charlie Gard's and she just turned four.
Facebook comments have poured in with pleas for Charlie’s life. Amye Marquis wrote, “My daughter was diagnosed at 13 months with (Charlie’s disease). I was told to let her die. We got her a trachea, a vent and a feeding tube. She was weaned off vent, goes to school and was given a chance at life. She just turned 4.”

Marquis added, “Every child should be given a right to fight, every parent should not have to live with ‘What If?’”

Sam Bennetts commented, “What saddens me more than anything (is) the parents of Charlie not only wanted to help their son by getting this treatment but to be the first to try it for the babies and families of the future, who will now no doubt be sentenced to the same outcome as Charlie Gard.”




Great Ormond Street Hospital continues to defend its actions in the Charlie Gard case.

Charlie Gard hospital slams ‘world where only parents
decide for children’

LONDON, England, July 19, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A July 13 document from the hospital refusing to release baby Charlie Gard reveals it doesn't think parents should be the only ones who have a say in what happens to their kids.

Dominican Father Thomas Petri shared a portion of the document on Twitter. The paragraphs he highlighted are deeply troubling to those who think parents rather than hospital and government bureaucrats should decide the fate of their children.

The full document can be accessed here.

Charlie's case has captured the world's attention.

Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is arguing in court that it should be able to decide to pull the 11-month-old's life support against his parents' wishes. His parents have raised more than $1.5 million to bring him to the U.S. for cutting-edge treatment. So far, English and European courts haven't even let them bring Charlie home for his last few hours of life, let alone to another country to continue his care.

"A world where only parents speak and decide for children and where children have no separate identity or rights and no court to hear and protect them is far from the world in which GOSH treats its child patients," according to the hospital.

"Charlie’s parents fundamentally believe that they alone have the right to decide what treatment Charlie has and does not have," GOSH said. "They do not believe that Great Ormond Street should have had the right to apply to the Court for an independent, objective decision to be made. They do not believe that there is any role for a judge or a court. They believe that only they can and should speak for Charlie and they have said many times that they feel they have been stripped of their rights as parents."

The government-appointed "guardian" who is supposedly advocating for the infant's well-being in this bioethics case is a euthanasia activist. Her name is Victoria-Butler Cole and she has tried to block Charlie's parents from being allowed in the room as doctors meet and examine him.

The advocacy site explains its position this way: "Children need to be raised and represented by parents who love them, not by disconnected government officials. When it comes to raising children, parents are better than the government."

GOSH acknowledges that Charlie's parents have "great fortitude and devotion" for their son.

"All at GOSH wish to pay tribute to their dedication to their only child and their tireless pursuit of a cure for him," the document says. "The hospital feels certain that they have done all that they have for Charlie out of love and because they could not have done anything less even if they had wanted to."

Even though GOSH acknowledges Charlie's parents are loving, it still thinks the government should be able to decide to pull the baby's life support even if the parents have the means to bring him elsewhere for treatment. The legal document says GOSH and Charlie's parents have a "fundamental and unbridgeable divide of principle" over their parental rights.

"When asked what happens to the role of the Guardian if their belief that only they have the right to decide on Charlie’s treatment is correct, Charlie’s parents answer that he does not need a Guardian because they will speak for him," GOSH complained.

Except in rare cases where parents are clearly abusive, parents and not the state have the right to make their child's medical decisions, bioethicists argue.

But "GOSH holds and is bound by different principles."





Hospital: Charlie Gard’s parents
shouldn’t be allowed
to take him home to die

LONDON, England, July 25, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Great Ormond Street Hospital argued in court today that Charlie Gard's parents, who ended their legal fight to save their son from being removed from his ventilator, shouldn't be allowed to take him home to spend his final hours.

It's "absolutely tragic ... to see the hospital fight over this issue," human rights activist Rev. Patrick Mahoney, who is in England helping Charlie's parents, told LifeSiteNews.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates fought for months in British and European courts for the right to take their 11-month-old son, Charlie, to another hospital for treatment for his rare mitochondrial disease. Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) argued that its bureaucrats, not Charlie's parents, should decide his fate. GOSH wanted to remove his ventilator.

Chris and Connie raised more than $1.5 million to transfer him to the U.S. Had Charlie been allowed a transfer months ago, his parents believe cutting-edge treatment could have greatly improved his life.

They announced Monday that they were ending their battle to allow Charlie to be transferred because tests from an American doctor showed Charlie's muscles had been allowed to deteriorate too much while the case was in court. Had the doctor been able to treat Charlie earlier, they say it would not have come to this.

"If Great Ormond Street Hospital had allowed Charlie's parents, which they maintained all along, to go to New York to seek this cutting-edge medical treatment, Charlie most likely would be greatly improved right now," Mahoney said in a Facebook live video outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Now, GOSH is continuing its "extremely distrubing" pattern of arguing against Charlie's parents' rights, he said.

"Great Ormond Street Hospital, which is considered one of the finest children's hospitals in the world, just said in open court they did not want to transport Charlie home to his parents to spend his final hours with them," said Mahoney. He said "as a parent and grandparent," it was hard to believe GOSH was arguing this. The court is currently on a short break. Mahoney asked pro-lifers across the globe to pray that Charlie's parents prevail.



Parents have no idea what
doctors are telling their kids behind closed doors

August 16, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Friends of ours related a chilling incident that happened to their teen son.

Visiting a family physician for a school sports’ physical, the boy was asked by the doctor, "So, are you attracted to girls, to boys, or both?"

Stunned, the boy replied, “To girls,” and later recounted this exchange to his parents.

It’s becoming standard medical practice to approach homosexuality and bisexuality as normal.

And it’s common for adolescent patients to be counseled separately from parents during an office visit so a private conversation can occur about sexual practices, contraception, condoms and other “needs.”

Why this elitist social engineering of other people’s children? Parental control can be a child’s enemy, so the thinking goes, sometimes motivated by ignorance, fear, and repression. Child emancipation/separation tactics are being pushed everywhere in medicine, as they are in public education.

“They” know what’s best for your kids.

Highly-educated professionals in a healing occupation who should know better sometimes discourage children from staying close to the people who care the most about them in the whole world. They often have contempt for traditional family values that may motivate a teen to remain responsibly abstinent until marriage.

Why keep the parents in the dark about medical advice?

Part of it might have to do with a doctor wanting to support the adolescent’s budding sexuality that the doctor sees as being threatened by parental boundaries. Schools behave this way as well, with numerous incidents recounted of children directed to abortion clinics and pro-homosexual counselors and groups without parental knowledge.

It’s a busybody mentality wedded to the ethic of individual freedom, even for younger children before they reach the natural balance provided by maturity. That maturity also corresponds—or did until recent years—to legal restrictions as well.

Leftists are willing, even eager to smash boundaries, including age of consent laws. They believe they are entitled to advise your children on intimate and life-changing matters without your input.

When I was a young teacher and a committed social liberal volunteering at Planned Parenthood, I told several 8th-grade girl students who asked me how to obtain contraception without a parent’s knowledge.

I am terribly ashamed of this chapter in my past and confess right now to the Lord how sorry I am.

I never learned the results of my irresponsible guidance, but the reality is, such educational or medical advice can be terribly destructive.

I recently interviewed Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, on my Ohio radio show. When questioned about gender dysphoria in children, she made a very chilling point—that current medical protocols have raced beyond any science to back them up.

In other words, children and teens are guinea pigs, being administered potent, life-changing drugs and steered down Mengelian paths by physicians at some of the top children’s medical centers in the nation who cater to radical sexual politics, not to empirical evidence that supports such treatment.

Dr. Cretella’s courageous claim that aiding a child in gender “transition” is “child abuse” is being disputed by an Australian study, but tellingly, they fail to make a scientific case for their challenge.

One organization famous for ignoring scientific truth is Planned Parenthood, whose new guidelines for parents of preschoolers got a lot of publicity recently. We should teach children that their genitals do not determine their gender, they claim. The abortion giant is now also in the hormone treatment business.

One commentator, S.E. Cupp, said this about the PP advice: ”Of all the things it is—absurd, irresponsible, pretentious—one thing it definitely is not is scientific.”

The medically-accepted age where minors can give consent is decreasing rapidly. In some states, the law is explicit. Others, not so much.

The Guttmacher Institute, established as a research arm of Planned Parenthood, summarizes the liberalization of consent, which they view positively:

The legal ability of minors to consent to a range of sensitive health care services—including sexual and reproductive health care, mental health services and alcohol and drug abuse treatment—has expanded dramatically over the past 30 years. This trend reflects the recognition that, while parental involvement in minors’ health care decisions is desirable, many minors will not avail themselves of important services if they are forced to involve their parents… In most cases, state consent laws apply to all minors age 12 and older. In some cases, however, states allow only certain groups of minors—such as those who are married, pregnant or already parents—to consent.

Yes, the excuse that “teens won’t report problems” is used everywhere to legitimize the left’s sexual agenda. The results speak for themselves.

Some states remain silent on whether a minor can receive contraception without parental consent—Ohio, for instance. So what happens? Clinics and physicians probably do whatever they want. And Title X clinics—like Planned Parenthood—will keep a teen’s visit “confidential.”

But the trend toward medical lawlessness and mythology is understandable once you look at people in key leadership posts. Take, for instance, Dr. Rachel Levine in Pennsylvania, the state’s physician general. “She” was actually born a “he.” And he is not alone.

In Virginia, Dr. Marissa Levine is the state’s commissioner of health. It’s unclear if these two are related. But what is clear is “Marissa” is a guy named Mark who identifies now as a woman.

With leadership so foundationally compromised, why are we surprised when sodomy is sold in private exam rooms to teen boys and grade school children are given puberty blockers by pediatric “experts”?

Katherine Kersten in The Weekly Standard said it this way: ”In short: The use of sex-reassignment treatments in children amounts to a massive, uncontrolled experiment.”

I would submit that the same description applies to the normalization of homosexuality and promiscuity in adolescents.

And educators, doctors and public health professionals should worry about angry parents at the door today, confronting the flagrant abuse of their children.

But they should worry about facing a much more daunting Authority sometime in the future. And He will not be smiling.




Kindergarten celebrates 5-year-old
transgender ‘transition;’ kids traumatized

ROCKLIN, California, August 21, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — A number of angry parents are considering legal action after a charter school kindergarten teacher staged what one critic calls a transgender “transition ceremony” in class for a five-year-old boy without informing parents beforehand.

But Rocklin Academy Schools has countered that it didn’t have to tell parents about the transgenderism lesson that has left a number of five-year-olds shaken and disturbed. Because gender identity isn’t sex education, the administration said, it's not subject to California’s parental consent and opt-out laws, reported Fox40News.

Moreover, with gender identity and gender expression prohibited grounds for discrimination in the state, not to accept a five-year-old “trans girl” could leave the Sacramento-area charter school board open to lawsuits.

Parents only found out what happened from their kids, says Jonathan Keller of the California Family Council, a Focus on the Family-founded group that’s advising parents.

‘Transition ceremony’: 5-year-old boy becomes a ‘girl’
Rocklin Academy Gateway’s kindergarten teacher gave the lesson on transgenderism because a boy in the class is transitioning to a girl, Keller told LifeSiteNews.

During the lesson on the second-to-last day before summer break, the teacher read two books, "I am Jazz" and "The Red Crayon," that purport to explain “transgenderism” to children aged four to eight, Fox40News reported.

"I am Jazz" is particularly explicit, beginning “From the time she was two years old, Jazz knew that she had a girl’s brain in a boy’s body.”

But the “huge bombshell” was that the teacher didn’t just read the books but “essentially put on this more-or-less transition ceremony” for the child, says Keller.

After the teacher introduced the five-year-old student to the class as a boy, he then went into the bathroom and emerged dressed as a girl.

The teacher then reintroduced “her” to the children, explaining “she” was now a “girl” who now had a girl’s name and was to be called that from now on.

Parents angry, kids traumatized and confused
That left a number of kids “really deeply emotionally bothered and traumatized,” Keller said.

“There were several of the little girls that went to their parents and were crying and saying, ‘mommy or daddy, am I going to turn into a boy?’”

And a boy who hadn’t given “gender” a single thought before is now asking his mother if he can dress as a girl for school, added Keller.

Responding to backlash from parents, principal Jillayne Antoon sent out a letter a week later that did not mention transgenderism, reported Fox40News.

Nor did it mention the transition ceremony or the teacher presenting the boy as a girl to his five-year-old classmates.

Antoon maintained the books were “age appropriate” and that the school’s non-discrimination policy “protects all students, including on the basis of gender, gender identity and gender expression.”

The teacher, however, never sought approval from the administration before using the books, according to Fox40News.

The board has now adopted the policy that books outside the curriculum have to be approved.

LifeSiteNews contacted the school board but did not hear back by deadline.

No opt out or parental consent for gender issues: law
District Superintendent Robin Stout told Fox40News that parents were not notified because kids can’t opt out of gender identity and expression lessons.

The school board also held a special session on the matter on July 31, which included a presentation on California law by Young, Minney & Corr law firm that echoed Stout’s assertions.

According to that presentation, since January 2016, state law allows parents to only opt their children out of sex education.

“Diversity and tolerance curricula are not ‘sex education,’” it emphasized.

“California law explicitly provides that ‘instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions’ are not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws.’”

Moreover, a student has the “right to self-identify” and “a right to the use of his or her preferred pronoun at school and in class.”

To not comply intentionally with this is “considered gender identity harassment,” the law firm asserted.

'Institutional child abuse'
Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, has denounced “institutions that promote transition affirmation” as engaging in “nothing less than institutionalized child abuse” that can inflict “untold psychological damage.”

“All children should be told the truth that sex does not ever change and cannot be changed,” Cretella told LifeSiteNews in an email.

“All children should be nurtured to embrace their bodies and the reality of their biological sex. All children should be affirmed as the unique boys or girls their bodies proclaim them to be.”

A number of families have decided to pull their children from the school, Keller says. Parents are also circulating a petition asking for parental notification before controversial material is brought up in class.

CFC is considering pushing for state legislation to protect parental rights.

“It’s such an egregious case, we’re trying to figure out what can be done, from the legal perspective, the legislative perspective, or at the very least at the local level,” Keller said.

What happened at Rocklin Academy, he said, is another instance of the “growing effort in Western democracies to try to fracture the relationship between parents and their children, and to make children wards of the state.”



School disciplines first-grader for ‘misgendering’
a gender-confused classmate

2017 - 4:37 pm EST

ROCKLIN, California, August 24, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The Sacramento-area charter school already rocked by parental backlash over a five-year-old boy transitioning to a girl in kindergarten class last June has now sent a first grade student to the principal’s office for “misgendering” the boy.

The first grade student at Rocklin Academy Gateway inadvertently called the trans “girl” by his boy’s name on the playground earlier this week, Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Research Institute, told LifeSiteNews.

The first grader “knows the student’s name from last year, and innocently on the playground called him by his name, and was told she needed to refer to him as a ‘she’ and needed to refer to him by his new name, which the student said OK,” England said.

“But then later the student was later called into the principal’s office so that the incident could be investigated to see if it was intentional or not, as if six-year-old kids are even thinking about this.”

The parent met with the principal on Wednesday, England said, and the school reiterated to the parent that their child needs to refer to this biological boy as a girl with the girl’s name.

The first grade student was “upset” because she thought she was in trouble, England said, adding: “The parent is very concerned for their child. This was an innocent mistake.”

LifeSiteNews contacted Rocklin Academy Gateway and was referred to the Rocklin Academy school board, which did not return a call from LifeSiteNews by deadline.

Rocklin Academy Schools has been hit by parental backlash after a five-year-old boy in kindergarten class transitioned to a girl in June.

Parents weren’t told the child was transitioning and that the kindergarten class would introduced to his transition in a way that some parents say has traumatized their five-year-olds, who are now fearful they too will change to the opposite sex.

While accounts vary on the sequence of events, the kindergarten teacher read two pro-transgender books to the class on the second-to-last day before summer break.

According to a parent account provided by Greg Burt at California Family Council, somewhere in between these readings, the five-year-old boy “changed his clothes from boy clothes to girl clothes.”

England described what happened as a “transgender reveal exercise on one of the last days of kindergarten” where “ the young boy arrived at school a boy and left identifying as a girl.”

Parents were told a week later in a letter from principal Jillayne Antoon that the two books had been read in class, but not that the boy had transitioned to a girl, the parent stated.

The kindergarten teacher won’t say what happened that day, nor will the school board, England told LifeSite News.

Parents have been left to find out what happened from their children.

Regardless of just how the five-year-old boy’s transition took place, it’s not disputed that parents weren’t told about it beforehand, a number of his classmates have been left disturbed, and that several parents are angry.

And it now appears Rocklin Academy Gateway is doubling down on enforcing the boy’s change to a girl, with a visit to the principal’s office a possibility for any child who hasn’t gotten with the program.

According to CBS, the school board will address the issue during next month’s board meeting.


School refuses to answer parents’ questions about kindergarten transgender lesson

Kindergarten celebrates 5-year-old transgender ‘transition;’ kids traumatized



Parents pull children out of pro-LGBT school.
Now they’re getting hate mail

Thu Sep 21, 2017 - 10:03 am EST

ISLE OF WIGHT, England, September 21, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The UK parents who pulled their two young sons from a Church of England school because of a government-funded push to normalize “transgenderism” have faced continued contempt for speaking out.

Nigel and Sally Rowe have received hate mail and been the subject of intense public criticism since voicing their concerns publicly.

Sally Rowe said she is “scared stiff” from the campaign of hate being conducted against them, the Daily Mail reported, and she is terrified for her family’s safety.

“This transgender agenda is almost like a trendy thing that’s infiltrating schools, and if you don’t subscribe to it you are a bully,” Sally said. “The hatred we’ve received is ... is … ”

Struggling to get her words out, she said, “This is painful for us, really painful. We’ve been so churned up. This is our community, our friends and now ... now … ”

Sally Rowe’s phone has chimed with nasty texts in the wake of the couple going public and bringing legal action against the school, claiming it is inappropriately applying a 2010 anti-discrimination law. Nigel Rowe has gotten numerous “vitriolic phone calls and emails,” the report said, and “he looks as if he’s barely slept a wink in the week since announcing their legal challenge.”

The Rowes have two sons, ages six and eight.

When a boy in their older son’s class announced two years ago in a Show and Tell lesson that he had decided to be a girl and wanted to be addressed by a girl’s name, the Rowes, who had a close friendship with the boy’s parents, opted to not make an issue of it.

They later pulled their son from the school because the other boy’s actions were confusing and stressful to their son.

In a second case in their younger son’s class, though, another boy decided to come to class sometimes as a girl, sometimes as a boy. This time, however, they felt the situation was asking too much of very young children.

“This boy in our youngest son’s class, who’s six at the moment, decides one day to be a girl and the next to be a boy,” Nigel Rowe said.

“One night I was putting the boys to bed,” he continued, “reading them a bedtime story and having a little chat as we do every night, when my son said, ‘Daddy, I’m confused. How can — let’s call him Peter — be a boy one day and a girl the next?’ It was really upsetting him. At least if the child was a girl all the time you’d have some chance of explaining.”

The couple wrote to the school, unnamed for legal reasons, expressing their concerns, and received a letter in reply about transphobic bullying. They felt they had no choice but to do what they’ve done in terms of bringing legal action against the school.

The Rowes contend the school is misapplying the Equality Act 2010 and that it does not pertain to individuals under age 18. They say government-funded programs and influence by special interest groups are pushing an “ideology of transgenderism” in schools.

“There’s a social agenda with this pushing of transgenderism among young children in schools," Nigel Rowe said in a report from The Sun. "Why are they doing this?”

“It feels like they’re trying to create a new social construct,” he said.

The Rowes say the school took advice on transgender policy from the Tavistock Clinic, Britain’s only NHS unit specializing in child gender issues, and Mermaids, a charity that lobbies on behalf of transgender issues.

"It wasn’t an easy decision,” Nigel said. “We care for these families. We care for the school. This is not about them.”

“We are challenging the education authority and the diocese on the guidelines they’re giving,” he continued. “We believe they’re quoting from laws [the Equality Act 2010] that don’t apply in this situation. That’s because the age of when someone is legally recognized as transgender is 18.”

The couple was told by school leadership that the child decides on gender. “If the child wants to come in one day as this, one day as that, we have to do that,” the school head saying if she didn’t comply she could lose her job.

Sally Rowe said they have gotten some supportive texts from families within the school, other schools on the island, the mainland and even abroad. But she added, “I think most parents are scared to communicate with us or show allegiance to us.”

“We’re trying to keep a low profile,” she said. “The people who are lovely and supportive have told us to keep off social media. There’s been a torrent of nastiness. It does churn us up. It does affect you, the foul language, the ranting down the phone. Nigel’s tummy has been in knots since last Saturday.”

"I don’t understand it,’ Nigel Rowe added. “When you go to hospital and your child is born, they lift them up and say: ‘It’s a boy’ or ‘It’s a girl.’ That’s the way it’s been for centuries. Why is there now such a social agenda to change that?"




Fri Sep 22, 2017 - 9:44 am EST

More than 40 families pull children from school that forced transgender lesson on 5-year-olds

ROCKLIN, California, September 22, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Forty-one families have pulled 73 children from the elite Sacramento-area Rocklin Academy charter schools as the board continues to defend a kindergarten transgender lesson several parents say traumatized their 5-year-olds and that parents weren’t told about beforehand.

A mother who pulled her son from Grade 6 and daughter from Grade 3 at Rocklin Academy Gateway, where the incident took place, has kept a tally of parents who’ve done likewise.

“It was just the tipping point for most families,” the parent, who asked her name not be published, told LifeSiteNews.

Some parents pulled their kids “solely for this,” while other had “multiple reasons, but yes, this was part of everyone’s reason,” she said.

The controversy erupted after a lesson in which the boy appeared in girl’s clothes and was reintroduced to his kindergarten classmates as a girl.

Teacher Kaelin Swaney also read the pro-transgender “I am Jazz” during the lesson, which took place just before summer vacation.

A number of parents are upset because they weren’t told about the lesson that has left their children disturbed and afraid they, too, will “change” into the opposite sex.

Moreover, it’s still not clear what happened in the classroom because Swaney and the board refused to tell parents, and the board’s account differs from what a number of parents say their five-year-olds told them, the parent told LifeSiteNews.

What appear to be “inaccuracies” in the board’s accounts “make us feel betrayed as parents,” she said.

The board and administration “didn’t talk to the parents of the children in the class to get the story.”

The Rocklin Academy school board countered that it didn’t have to tell parents about lessons on gender identity because it wasn’t sex education. California law requires parental notification and allows opt out for sex education.

Moreover, the board claims not affirming the five-year-old boy’s transition to a “girl” will leave it open to lawsuits because California bans discrimination based on gender identity and expression.

On Monday, the five-member board unanimously rejected a “model parent proposal” to allow opt-out for lessons on gender identity and parental review of sensitive material before it hits the classroom.

The board did approve a policy directing teachers to try to let parents know beforehand that sensitive material would be taught, but the measure is “really weak” according to Greg Burt of the California Family Council.

Moreover, at “every board meeting, the administration seemed very adversarial to the parents,” according to the parent who spoke to LifeSiteNews.

But the August 21 meeting was the deal-breaker for her.

That’s when a number of teachers defended Swaney, she said.

“They were saying, ‘your kids will surprise you, they’re so accepting and loving, this is a great topic for kindergarteners to learn.’ … They were there to tell us parents to get out of the way,” she said.

“I did not feel safe sending my kids to school after that meeting,” the parent added.

“It’s a very tense atmosphere over there right now. It’s very like, which side are you on,” she said. “You don’t know who to trust, you don’t know who’s looking at you the wrong way.”

And with the board voting Monday to continue enforcing transgender ideology, more parents will be leaving, Burt predicted.

That’s echoed by Karen England, executive director of parents’ rights group Capitol Resource Institute, which authored the parent proposal the board rejected Monday.

“Several families are waiting until the end of the week” to pull their children out, she told LifeSiteNews in an email.

Elizabeth Ashford, a spokesperson for Rocklin Academy Family of Schools, agreed that more families will leave, “which is really a shame,” she told NBC-affiliate KCRA3 TV.

Ashford said 14 families and 23 kids have left over the controversy.

LifeSiteNews called Ashford at the public relations firm Fiona Hutton & Associates to confirm this figure, but she did not respond by deadline.

Many families might not have given the reason for their departure, suggested the parent who spoke to LifeSiteNews anonymously.

When the school emailed her to confirm her son’s leaving, it listed “moved during school year” as the reason.

The schools reportedly have a waiting list of 1,300, but a friend whose child was 110 on the list for a specific grade at the beginning of this year refused a spot the other day, she said.

“So that means they called 110 people before they called her, and they all turned the spot down,” the parent said.

The parent wanted to make it clear that those who left or are leaving Rocklin Academy Gateway are “not saying anything hateful or bigoted” regarding the transgender student.

“In fact, [many] of us have cried over this poor child because we feel for him. I don’t think he’s in a great situation.”

But the “board didn’t show any concern for the families or any respect for parents and our rights for our children,” she added.

“Many, many families are trying to figure out what to do with their kids,” she added. “Parents are saying they’ll homeschool if they have to.”


California school board won’t let kids opt out of transgender lessons
Kindergarten celebrates 5-year-old transgender ‘transition;’ kids traumatized
School gives transgender lesson to 5-year-olds, refuses to give details to parents
Pediatric expert calls kindergarten transgender lesson ‘psychological abuse’





New show teaches our children how to sin

Netflix now has a new show called Big Mouth that not only encourages our children to sin, it has very graphic animations showing how and clearly states that it's alright to do so.

As a guest on The Late Show with Steven Colbert, a Catholic, co-creator Nick Kroll was asked if this was the type of show parents would sit down and watch with their children.

While smiling, Kroll said "Steve, I'm going to leave that up to each and every individual parent". Admitting, "it's very dirty."1

Sign our protest and tell Netflix to pull this dirty, impure show

[It] "is kind of like the sex-ed video I wished I had gotten to see, but also, like, filthy."

Colbert then tells the audience that there was a clip for them to see but CBS would not allow it because it was "too vulgar to show".

I cannot even comment on much of the content, as it could be an occasion of sin to read.

This is not suitable for any audience let alone our dear children; furthermore, it encourages adult viewers to have sexual fantasies with puberty-age children.

Save Our Children and tell Netflix to stop promoting impure filth







‘Child protection’ officials chase down 12-year-old
homeschooler, seize him from parents

Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 2:20 pm EST

February 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Terese and Leif Kristiansen are currently living through one of a parent’s worst nightmares: Their 12-year-old son, Kai, was removed from the family home in As, Norway by force earlier this month. Kai attempted to run away from the police and social workers in order to stay with his family, and so the little boy was chased down, tackled in the snow, and dragged away. The boy has only been allowed to speak to his mother once since his state abduction, and his parents do not even know where their son is being kept.

Insanely enough, the Kristiansens are not accused of any abusive behavior towards their son. Rather, the parents had grown increasingly concerned about the bullying their son faced at school and had made the decision to homeschool him. The Kristiansens had informed the school of their decision—homeschooling isn’t illegal in Norway—and had also informed Barnevernet, the “child protection agency” that showed up to take their son away. The reason given for this government kidnapping was rife with painful irony: Apparently, social workers were concerned that if Kai were homeschooled, he would not be appropriately “socialized.” They didn’t comment on the trauma they had inflicted by removing a boy from a loving home by force and against his will.

Watch video of Barnevernet officials chasing down and tackling Kai:

To make the situation even stranger, the Kristiansens were not even told that their son would be taken from them if they did not send him back to school. Barnevernet officials simply showed up with an “emergency order” to take him to a foster home and into the care of the government—for the non-crime of pulling their son out of a government school. It is horrifying to consider what these parents must be going through right now—at the mercy of faceless bureaucrats who are keeping their son from them, in an undisclosed location—parents who have not even been accused of any abuse.

Readers might remember that the Barnevernet has had an ugly reputation for heavy-handedness for some time. Back in 2015, they removed five children from a Romanian-American family, citing concerns about occasional spankings. In that instance, they swooped in suddenly, scooping up children at the bus stop—and then showing up later to seize the baby, as well. The incidents sparked an international outcry, and the family was reunited after nine months—in which authorities had allowed minimal contact between the parents and the children.

Christian concerns about state power and interference with parental rights in education are often mocked, but it is scenarios such as this one that highlight why big government is so dangerous. When the state decides that government bureaucrats are better-qualified to determine what is best for a child than parents are, the results can be horrifying. It doesn’t hurt to point out here that progressives constantly point at the Scandinavian nations as a role model for other Western nations to follow—something that should make any parent nervous.

We’re already starting to see disturbing signs here in North America. Provincial governments are creating new curriculums that indoctrinate students into social justice ideology as well as implementing sex education curriculum that conflicts with the values of many parents—and most political progressives don’t think parents should be permitted to opt out. They believe, fundamentally, that children belong to the state—and some have come right out and said so. Parental rights in education will be one of the defining social battles of our time, because if we lose it—we lose the rights to our own sons and daughters.

Consider what has already befallen two Ohio parents this year, who were forced by government authorities to give up custody of their daughter. And why? Because after she was diagnosed with depression, gender dysphoria, and anxiety, they opposed her being given testosterone and sex change drugs, because they felt that such “treatment” would not be in their daughter’s best interests. Because of this stance, their daughter was removed from their care. Gender ideologies that are barely a decade old can now result in the loss of your children—and these threats will only continue to grow.

It is absolutely essential that we be paying attention to events like this, and that we make our voices heard. It is easy for those who send their children to a private Christian school or homeschool to perhaps think that their families are safe, and that what goes on in the public school system will not impact them. But this is unfortunately not the case. The ideologues will never be satisfied until children of all parents—especially their opponents—are indoctrinated into their ideas.




Take your kids out of class: Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson discuss the decline of masculinity

NEW YORK CITY, March 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — American men are in serious trouble, but few people seem to care.

That was Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s theme last night when he introduced a new series for his show called “Men in America.” It will air on Fox on Wednesdays in March.

In a stirring monologue, Carlson laid out statistics, ranging from lifespan to addictions to incarceration to unemployment to wages, that prove that it is boys and men--not girls and women--who are seriously disadvantaged in the USA today.

“American men are failing, in body, mind and spirit. This is a crisis. Yet our leaders pretend it’s not happening,” Carlson said. “They tell us the opposite is true: Women are victims, men are oppressors. To question that assumption is to risk punishment.”

“Our politicians and business leaders internalize and amplify that message,” he continued. “Men are privileged. Women are oppressed. Hire and promote and reward accordingly.”

“That would be fine if it were true. But it’s not true. At best, it’s an outdated view of an America that no longer exists. At worst, it’s a pernicious lie.”

Dr Jordan Peterson, author of the bestselling 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, told Carlson that there is a “directed policy” to emphasize that there is something wrong with masculinity and it should be limited in “all sorts of arbitrary ways.”

TELL DISNEY: Don’t make Elsa a lesbian in Frozen 2! Sign the petition here.

“The fact that male behaviour is often diagnosed as Attention Deficit Disorder is a manifestation of that,” he said.

Carlson asked Peterson why people would want to deemphasize or punish masculinity.

“Because it’s easy to mistake masculine competence for the tyranny that hypothetically drives the patriarchy,” the psychologist replied. “It’s part of an ideological worldview that sees the entire history of mankind as the oppression of women by men, which is a dreadful way of looking at the world.”

Peterson underscored that human history has been a cooperative endeavor between men and women and that to describe it as “centuries of oppression of women” is “an absolutely reprehensible ideological rewrite of history.”

This dystopian vision is taught as “unassailable fact” in universities and, increasingly, the public school system, demoralizing boys and young men.

Peterson advised parents to encourage their sons, that is, to instill courage in them, to teach them to be competent and to rely on themselves “to prevail, even in the darkest of circumstances.”

He had even more specific advice for parents regarding their children’s education.

“If you have your children in a school, and [teachers] talk about equity in class--equity, diversity, white privilege, systemic racism, any of that--you take your children out of that class,” Peterson said. “They’re not being educated; they’re being indoctrinated. And there’s absolutely no excuse for it.”

“You might run out of schools pretty quickly, though, here in this country,” Carlson quipped.

But Peterson wasn’t in a joking mood.

“That would be just fine,” he said, stony-faced. “The sooner, the better.”

The statistics Carlson provided--like the fact that 77% of suicide deaths are suffered by males or that 7 million working-age American men are now unemployed--were dire. However, the problem that he found most terrifying is that men are becoming “less male.”

“Sperm counts across the west have plummeted, down almost 60 percent since the early 1970s,” Carlson said. “Scientists don’t know why. Testosterone levels in men have also fallen precipitously. One study found that the average levels of male testosterone dropped by one percent every year after 1987. This is unrelated to age. The average 40-year-old-man in 2017 would have testosterone levels 30 percent lower than the average 40-year-old man in 1987.”

The host stated that low testosterone in men is associated with depression, lethargy, weight gain and decreased cognitive ability.

“You’d think we’d want to know what exactly is going on and how to fix it. But the media ignore the story. It’s considered a fringe topic,” he said.

Scientists don’t seem interested either.

“We checked and couldn’t find a single NIH-funded study on why testosterone levels are falling,” Carlson said. “We did find a study on, quote, ‘Pubic Hair Grooming Prevalence and Motivation Among Women in the United States’.”

Watch the discussion here: