#

Legislation about behavior at school came down to a matter of attendance at the New Hampshire House on Thursday.

The Parents Bill of Rights (SB 272) was “indefinitely postponed” by a vote of 195-190, meaning that the topic is dead under House rules for the rest of the current two-year legislative session.

“They completely nuked the bill,” said Rep. Erica Layon (R-Derry), a parental rights supporter. “It would take a two-thirds majority to bring it back, and that won’t happen.”

Polls show Granite State voters — and parents in particular — support the legislation, which would prevent school employees from keeping information about a student’s on-campus behavior secret from parents who ask about their own children. Because that includes behavior regarding sex and gender, Democrats have attempted to label the bill anti-LGBT, arguing that parents are too dangerous to be allowed to have this information about their children.

A handful of absences among GOP members and near-perfect attendance by Democrats in the closely-divided House left Republicans without a functioning majority. When Republicans began defecting to add amendments to the Senate bill, the battle was lost.

Majority Leader Jason Osborne (R-Auburn) drew equal boos and cheers as he made an angry statement about the vote from the House well.

“For the next two years, parents will have to continue to accept that school is a mysterious and secretive black box where they deposit their children. Who knows what will happen inside that box, and who knows what will come out the other side?” Osborne said. “By indefinitely postponing this bill, parents will have no choice but to avail themselves of the wildly successful Education Freedom Accounts.”

The writing was on the wall early in the day when Rep. Mike Bordes (R-Laconia) gave cover to Republican defectors with an amendment altering the bill so as to remove references to LGBTQ identities and remove the requirement that schools not lie to parents. Several other Democratic-sponsored amendments passed as well, with the net effect of essentially gutting the bill. 

Supporter Rep. Joe Sweeney (R-Salem) tried and failed to have the bill tabled, which would have meant it could be brought back in some form later in the current legislative session.

“We should not be cutting our legs off to continue to have this discussion,” Sweeney said. 

But the die was cast and, with the help of Republican Reps. David Bickford (R-New Durham) and Joseph Guthrie (R-Hampstead), Democrats notched a major win.

House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) said the state GOP will continue pushing for parents’ rights.

“I am disheartened House Democrats chose institutions over New Hampshire parents today,” Packard said in a statement. “They chose secrets over parent-involved solutions. They chose to ignore the majority of New Hampshire parents who made it clear they were looking for legislative support to help protect their rights and their children.”

Senate Republicans called on Gov. Chris Sununu to issue an executive order setting to affirm parental rights, saying Democrats have betrayed families.

“The decision by Democrats to block this important bill is a direct assault on parental rights and a clear indication of their misguided priorities. By denying parents the opportunity to exercise their inherent authority, Democrats have undermined the very fabric of our society, where the family unit and parental involvement play an essential role in the upbringing and development of our children,” Senate Republicans said in a statement.

“We urge Gov. Sununu to take a stand for Granite State parents and issue an executive order to affirm the rights they rightly deserve.”

Sununu did not respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Alissandra Rodrigues Murray (D-Manchester) spent time hugging and chatting with 603Equality founder Linds Jakows, who lobbied hard against the legislation. Jakows even offered a plane ticket to fly a vacationing Democrat from Florida so he could vote against the bill.

Asked to comment on the victory, Murray replied, “I don’t talk to New Hampshire Journal.”  

Rep. Gerri Cannon (D-Somersworth), who identifies as a woman, understands parental concerns about kids’ behavior at school. Cannon agreed parents should be able to know what’s in the curriculum and is being taught in classrooms, but added concern for the safety of LGBTQ children is paramount.

“If they don’t have the right to be themselves, it can put them at risk,” Cannon said.

Cannon was echoing the message New Hampshire Democrats have made the center of their opposition to parental rights: Parents are potentially too dangerous to the lives and safety of their own children to be given the same information about their kids that school officials have.

Enough Republicans agreed with Cannon and the rest of the Democrats to kill the bill.

“I think there are some people on the Republican side who support the rights of children just like any person, and there are people who understand there is the potential for harm,” Cannon said.

Even with the bill knocked out for the next two years, the parents’ rights issue isn’t going away. Shannon McGinley, executive director of the pro-family advocacy group Cornerstone Action, said parents let down by their lawmakers need to get active.

“As the House will not act, the next step is to fight this battle on the local level. All we need is for parents to be just as fearlessly, consistently engaged with their local school boards as progressive activists are,” McGinley said. “If you are too afraid of controversy to speak up, then the cultural left will always win by default.

“But if one New Hampshire school board will stand up to the intimidation and cynical legalese of these groups, then other school boards could fall like dominoes.”

Call it the “Don’t Let the Door Hit You” Defense.

During oral arguments in a lawsuit over its policy of keeping parents in the dark about their children’s behavior, the Manchester School District’s attorney told the state Supreme Court that parents shouldn’t be able to challenge the district’s policy. Instead, they should pull their kids out of public school and go somewhere else.

“If the parents want to make a different choice, they can homeschool, or they can send their child to a private school; those are options available to them,” said attorney Meghan Glynn.

The district is being sued over its policy of keeping students’ behavior related to sex and gender secret from their parents.

Richard Lehmann, the attorney for the Manchester mother going by Jane Doe, who filed the lawsuit, said parents have the right to know if their children are being socially transitioned in schools with the aid of school staff.

Manchester School District lawyer Meghan Glynn told Supreme Court justices that parents who don’t like the district’s policies can send their kids to private school.

“The real issue is not a school reporting on what a student is doing in school, but for the school to report what the school itself is doing in school,” Lehmann said.

Lehmann rejected the argument that Doe’s lawsuit was an attempt to force the district to out LGBT students to their parents. He argued that it is about a government entity usurping parental powers and making decisions in place of a parent.

“This is the government substituting its own judgment over a parent’s judgment when it comes to gender identity,” Lehmann said. 

Jane Doe stated in her original complaint that she found out in the fall of 2021 that her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The school’s name was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity.

The mother spoke with school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. According to the lawsuit, the mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother received an email from the school principal stating that the mother’s instructions were being overridden due to the district’s policy. According to the lawsuit, the principal stated that the district’s policy requires school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated to not tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

Last September, Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer ruled in favor of the school district, declaring parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

Because Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi has recused herself from the case without giving a reason, the court may issue a 2-2 tie decision. If they do, Messer’s original ruling will stand.

On Friday, Glynn maintained the Manchester school staff, and officials did not lie to Doe about her child’s gender identity. They simply followed policy.

“If the issue, in this case, is truly that the district has a constitutional duty to report what the school is doing, the school has met that burden,” Glynn said.

Glynn said that parents have the right to have their voice heard when the district crafts policies, and they have the right to vote out school board representatives who pursue policies they do not support. A comment from Justice James Bassett seemingly rebuked this line of reasoning.

“Constitutional rights are not up for a vote,” Bassett said.  

In fact, parents’ rights are coming up for a vote in the New Hampshire House. Last week, the House Education Committee cast a 10-10 party-line vote on SB272, the Parents Bill of Rights. The full Hous is expected to vote on the legislation, which is supported by Gov. Chris Sununu, later this month.

Glynn cautioned the justices that if they decide in favor of Doe and parents’ rights in this case, more lawsuits will likely come.

“The next case up is going to be the case of a student,” she said.

Hanover school board chairman Ben Keeney confirms that his district is using the curriculum that involves teachers encouraging five-year-olds to draw their own naked bodies. But, he assured NHJournal, no parents are complaining.

“I’ve not heard from any parents about the situation directly,” Keeney said.

Care for Kids is taught at the Bernice Ray Elementary School through a partnership with WISE and has been part of Hanover’s curriculum for over a dozen years, Keeney said. Keeney said the goal of the program is to prevent abuse.

“It’s a sexual violence prevention tool,” he said.

WISE, a Lebanon-based non-profit to support victims of domestic and sexual abuse, has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

The Care for Kids program presented as an anti-abuse teaching tool, sparked an uproar when an Upper Valley parent, Chris Rivet, read from the graphic teaching aid during testimony at the State House. Rivet said he and his wife were never told about the content before it was offered. State law dictates parents be given notice before any sex education being offered in schools.

Care for Kids has teachers instruct children to draw themselves naked and encourages teachers to push children who are uncomfortable to draw penises, nipples, and other body parts.

Rivet, a parent and a teacher, said the program is totally inappropriate for the age group. He read from the curriculum on the floor of the New Hampshire House during a hearing on the GOP-backed Parents Bill of Rights.

The bill’s prime sponsor in the Senate, Republican Sharon Carson, said the bill is in response to parents who learned for the first time what their children were being taught in schools while overseeing classwork during the COVID school closures. Those parents were shocked, Carson said.

Another reason for the bill is found in the lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who was told by school employees they could not tell her the truth about her child’s gender identity.

“Parents shouldn’t have to file lawsuits to find out about their children,” Carson said.

The Care for Kids program, which comes from the organization Prevent Child Abuse VT, is taught throughout Vermont and in some Upper Valley communities in New Hampshire along the Connecticut River under a Healthy Relationships course.

Healthy Relationships is also taught in New Hampshire schools throughout the Monadnock region through the Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention in Keene without mention of the kindergarten naked drawing course. Representatives with MCVP Healthy Relationships program were unavailable for comment.

However, Keeney said the program is getting a review from the school board. That review is part of the regular curriculum review the board conducts and is not in response to any complaints.

“The curriculum as a whole is being looked at by the board as an ongoing, constant improvement project,” Keeney said.

After Chris Rivet testified before the House Education Committee about the troubling, sexualized curriculum offered to his kindergarten-aged son, he was quickly labeled a liar on social media.

But documents shared with NHJournal show the program “Caring for Kids” is very real. The kindergarten curriculum in which adults encourage children to draw genitalia comes from WISE, an Upper Valley nonprofit with a history of putting questionable content into public elementary schools.

Rivet told NHJournal he initially did not want to testify last week about SB 272, the Parents Bill of Rights, because he did not want to deal with people opposed to the measure.

“I dislike how politicized it’s become. People fear speaking out because of the backlash,” Rivet said.

People who support the Parents Bill of Rights were labeled transphobic and “white supremacists” by elected Democrats like Rep. Maria Perez (D-Milford). Though initially hesitant, Rivet said Granite Staters need to know about what’s really going on in schools. So, he went to the State House and read from the “Caring for Kids” teacher’s manual.

“‘Now that we have talked about our bodies and our public and private parts, we are going to do an activity. We are going to trace our bodies, and then you can draw your body just as it looks when you come out of the bathtub or shower,’” Rivet read. “It then goes on, on the second page, to say, ‘If a child is hesitant about drawing, you can gently suggest adding more parts. Can you add your elbows? How about your fingernails? A penis? Another useful approach is to offer to draw for them. Where would you like me to put the nipples?’”

Rivet and his wife immediately saw red flags when they learned about the program, about which parents were not given prior notice.

“I thought, ‘Why does my kid need to learn the word vulva at 5 years old?’” Rivet said.

He asked not to use the name of his child’s school so that his son could avoid harassment.

The curriculum comes from WISE, a nonprofit with a mission to serve survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. WISE representatives did not respond to a request for comment.

The organization took heat in 2018 after it went to schools in Vermont and New Hampshire with a survey asking fifth graders about their sex lives, with questions ranging from gender and sexual identity to the sexual activities they engaged in.

School officials at the Windsor School, for example, were forced to apologize for the WISE-supplied questionnaire, which asked ten-year-old students questions about their romantic and sexual relationships, according to media reports, conducted without parental knowledge or consent.

“To any family involved in this survey, we sincerely apologize,” then-Superintendent David Baker said at the time. “Sometimes, in an effort to do good, people go too far, too fast.”

The aim of classes like the one Rivet objected to is to teach children about bodily integrity as part of a way to combat child sexual abuse. Rivet said it is clear there are good intentions with the class but dangerous execution. The class essentially has adult women coaching young boys on how to draw their own penises. If the gender roles were reversed, with an adult man teaching a 5-year-old girl how to draw her own vagina, most people would see the problem, he said.

“It gets really gross really quickly,” he said.

There are other programs with the same goals that are more age-appropriate, Rivet said. He said the one used by WISE includes inappropriate methods based on junk science. Rivet says he is a science teacher and former scientist. He investigated the program’s evidence-based data and found it wanting.

“The evidence behind the program is comically bad,” Rivet claims.

Rivet is frustrated by how his local school, district, and the state Department of Education responded to his complaint. He does not see parents getting better information about what is happening even if SB 272 becomes law. 

“I don’t have hope anyone will follow the Parents Bill of Rights even if it passes,” he said.

Giving parents notice about sex education classes in public schools is already mandated under New Hampshire law. But the Care for Kids program is being presented under the guise of something along the lines of a social-emotional learning program. 

Rivet says he is a big believer in public education, but felt he has no other choice than to send his son to a private school next year. He has friends who are making similar decisions, and Rivet expects that trend to continue. Enrollment in New Hampshire public schools has been dropping steadily for years.

“In the end, it’s still frustrating,” Rivet said. 

Parents do not have the right to know their middle school children have access to graphic novels that depict children engaged in sex acts and include links to gay dating apps, nor are they allowed to know teachers are urging kindergartners to draw themselves naked.

That was the case New Hampshire Democrats made as they opposed GOP legislation expanding parents’ rights over their kids’ public school experience.

The battle over the Parents’ Bill of Rights took center stage Tuesday with a packed Representatives Hall for the House Education Committee hearing on SB 272. The Senate passed the bill along party lines last month.

A similar House bill sponsored by House Speaker Sherman Packard, HB 10, died in the closely split legislature this year. Packard said the Senate version needs to pass to give parents the final say over their children’s education.

“Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their own children. We support the parents’ right to know what is happening to their child in school. These are our children, not the state’s or the school district’s,” Packard said.

Emotions ran high during several hours of testimony, as Democrats and left-leaning media outlets have characterized the bill as targeting LGBT students.

The bill is designed to address situations like the one in the Manchester school system in which a mother requested information after hearing rumors her child was identifying as a different gender at school. The Manchester district’s policy is to keep that information secret from parents. The mother was forced to sue, and Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer upheld the district’s policy directing teachers and staff not to fully and accurately inform parents about their children’s behavior.

Democrats have responded by arguing parents are simply too dangerous to be given the same information about their children that teachers, students, and school staff have.

“What parents are we helping with a bill like this? Not parents who have good relationships with their kids,” Rep. Alicia Gregg (D-Nashua) said Tuesday.

Progressive Rep. Maria Perez (D-Milford) told the bill’s supporters they should be ashamed of themselves. Perez shared her personal tragedy of having grown up in an abusive home and argued that was proof the bill would hurt children.

“I can tell you parents are not always right,” Perez said.

Perez claimed the bill is part of a national movement to harm LGBTQ children and that parents’ rights supporters are enabling hate and white supremacy.

“This language has given white supremacy groups and the Proud Boys the right to come to our communities to be hateful and tries to scare us,” Perez said.

The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), pushed back on the claim the bill is designed to harm gay youth. The bill is a response to what parents learned during the COVID-19 school closures, she said, when many discovered their children were being exposed to sexually inappropriate material as part of public education.

“Many parents became the teachers for their children, and parents were beginning to see what was happening and started raising questions. Unfortunately, parents were shut out and ignored,” Carson said.

Carson said many parents in the state have since learned their school districts have enacted policies that require teachers and staff to lie about a child’s gender identity, as happened in Manchester.

“Those are the types of policies that parents are upset about and that they want changed,” Carson said. “Parents love their children, they care about their children, and they want the best for their children. Schools can’t provide that.”

Former state Senate president and potential 2024 gubernatorial candidate Chuck Morse (R-Salem) testified on behalf of the bill.

“This may seem simple, but it is often overlooked in our education system. Parents should have access to information about their child’s curriculum, as well as any materials or resources that are being used in the classroom. This knowledge is essential to ensure that parents can make informed decisions about their child’s education and can provide the necessary support at home,” Morse said.

Rep. Peter Petrino (D-Milford) claimed the bill would put LGBTQ children in harm’s way, either from abusive parents or self-harm. He said that parents already have legal rights under New Hampshire law, and SB 272 is unnecessary.

And he added that parents should be satisfied with their current ability to file school board complaints, or lawsuits if necessary. Parents should not feel entitled to be told the truth by their children’s teachers.

“No one has the right to compel someone to do something against their will,” Petrino said.

The bill would also give parents the right to see all of the content being taught to their kids, another policy Democrats oppose. Some parents have expressed horror at learning their school library has books available for children that contain graphic sexual content, such as “Gender Queer” and “This Book is Gay.”

When he testified before the committee, Chris Rivet identified himself as a parent and public school teacher. He said he and his wife have been through the system of filing complaints after learning about the social-emotional curriculum offered for five-year-olds. He read from the curriculum, citing a section where teachers urge students to draw themselves naked, including genitalia.

“‘Now that we have talked about our bodies and our public and private parts, we are going to do an activity. We are going to trace our bodies, and then you can draw your body just as it looks when you come out of the bathtub or shower,’” Rivet read.

“Our school is asking our five-year-old children to draw themselves naked, that’s this curriculum. It then goes on, on the second page, to say, ‘If a child is hesitant about drawing, you can gently suggest adding more parts. Can you add your elbows? How about your fingernails? A penis? Another useful approach is to offer to draw for them. Where would you like me to put the nipples?’”

“Would you consider an adult asking a minor to draw themselves naked abuse?” Rivet asked.

Rivet and his wife complained about the curriculum to both local and state education officials, but nothing was done.

“There was no accountability,” Rivet said.

New Hampshire middle schoolers have free access to books containing pornographic images of sex acts through their school libraries and through school-hosted library apps, a NHJournal investigation has found.

Books like “Gender Queer,” “This Book is Gay,” and “Flamer,” all of which contain explicit, graphic content, can be found in public middle school libraries across the state. They can also be accessed through school district websites that host apps like Sora, where students can get e-books from multiple sources.

While media coverage of the conversation about parental rights and school education content has focused on claims of censorship or alleged anti-gay sentiment, there has been relatively little coverage of the actual content in question. One reason, as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) recently demonstrated, is that the books are so graphic, their images can’t be broadcast on television or published in a community newspaper.

A DeSantis press conference on his state’s new law included a video with images from the books in question. The school library books depict “explicit language or pictures depicting male and female genitalia, different sexual acts and, in one case, instruction on masturbation.” Television stations had to cut away from the press conference during that video.

An edited version of art from the book Gender Queer

NH Journal was able to find many of the same books through school district library websites, including “This Book is Gay,” which contains instructions on how to perform gay sex.

Hanover SAU 70, where many of the books can be found, did not respond to a request for comment. 

State Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R-Tuftonboro) is sponsoring a bill to require school boards to adopt complaint policies that would allow parents to file objections to specific books. Currently, such policies are voluntary in New Hampshire.

Cordelli’s attempt to give parents the power to keep pornographic books out of their local school libraries is already getting pushback from teachers unions. Deb Howes, president of the New Hampshire chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, opposes the bill.

“What we don’t want is for one parent who objects to a book in the library or in the classroom to be able to decide for all children in that school what your child is able to read,” Howes told the New Hampshire Bulletin.

New Hampshire’s Department of Education is already fielding complaints about many of these books and said the matter can be taken to court. New Hampshire has had RSA 571-B Exposing Minors to Harmful Materials and RSA 650 Obscene Matter for decades. The laws allow either the Attorney General’s Office or any county attorney’s office to pursue obscenity cases in court. It is not known if any such cases are being brought before a judge.

A book with instructions on how to have gay sex is available to Hanover middle schoolers through the public library.

Progressives who want to control public school curricula and limit the influence of parents use the phrase “book ban” to paint conservatives as anti-literate haters who want to stamp out learning, says Shannon McGinley, executive director at Cornerstone Action of New Hampshire.

The issue is not literature, McGinley said. It’s porn.

“The problem with books like “Genderqueer” isn’t that they’re offensive. It’s that these books are graphic, illustrated pornography,” McGinley said. She wants to see New Hampshire Republicans focus on the content of these books, which are being accessed by children as young as 10 or 11.

“Any time Republicans talk in general terms about ‘obscene’ books, they help Democrats promote the fantasy that people are going after Huckleberry Finn and Harry Potter.

“Use the word ‘pornography,’” she said.

Standing outside the Manchester School District office, GOP congressional candidate Karoline Leavitt called out the city’s schools and her Democratic opponent over the issue of parental rights.

“Far left Democrats, including my opponent (U.S. Rep.) Chris Pappas, do not believe that parents have a fundamental right to know when their child is expressing concerns over their gender status at school,” Leavitt said. She was surrounded by supporters waving “Moms for Karoline” signs.

Leavitt was responding to a recent ruling by Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer rejecting a Manchester mother’s demand she be told about her child’s behavior at school regarding gender identity. District policy forbids teachers and employees from informing parents if children adopt a different gender or engage in related behavior while at school.

Messer ruled that parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are educated in public schools.

Leavitt said if elected she would push for a federal parents’ bill of rights.

“Parents have an inalienable right to know what’s going on in their child’s classroom, and in Congress, I will proudly support legislation to enact a federal parental bill of rights,” Leavitt said. “I will always ensure that Granite State moms and dads feel heard at the highest level of our government. That is why I am here today, and I will always put parents over politicians.”

Manchester School District spokesman Andrew Toland declined to comment on Leavitt’s remarks, saying the lawsuit is still potentially pending. After Messer dismissed the lawsuit, the mother’s attorney Richard Lehmann told NHJournal he plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Leavitt said the district’s policy is based on the false assumption that parents will automatically harm their LGBTQ+ identifying children and will not seek to do what is in the true best interest of their child.

“I spoke directly and personally with the mother who filed this lawsuit,” Leavitt said. “You know what she told me? She told me, ‘I may have lost my daughter. My daughter may have taken her own life if I was not accidentally informed that she was expressing concerns over her gender at school.’ She said, ‘Who would’ve been responsible then if my sweet innocent child lost and took her own life? She was expressing concerns over her emotional and mental health crying out for help to these teachers,’” Leavitt said.

Activists with the liberal organization Granite State Progress told NH Journal Leavitt is wrong to champion parents’ rights over the school’s policy to keep gender identity secrets. Children who identify as transgender or some other variation of LGBTQ+ run the risk of parental violence when they come out, said Sarah Robinson with the organization.

“We believe that students deserve to go to school to learn in a place of belonging. And as a mom myself, I believe that my children deserve to be valued in whatever space they step into. And we know that coming out to parents is a big decision for students and teachers and educators and staff of schools. Interrupting the parent-child relationship is not the way this conversation needs to go,” Robinson said.

Asked what other information teachers should keep secret from parents about their children’s behavior, Zandra Rice Hawkins, executive director of Granite State Progress, deflected the question. Instead, she claimed most parents in New Hampshire support Manchester’s policy of secrecy, based on the most recent school board election results.

“Here’s the deal: We had school board races up and down New Hampshire in the spring, and the candidates who came out on top were those who supported all kids in the classroom. And parents who are involved in their children’s lives and create supportive, loving environments at home. Their kids come to them and talk to them. And kids who do not have that at home need to be safe and supported and firmed in the other spaces they are in,” Rice Hawkins said.

Pappas declined to respond to requests for comment. However, just hours after Leavitt’s press conference he joined his fellow House Democrats in a vote to kill an amendment to protect parents’ right to know.

“Every House Democrat just voted against requiring parental notice and consent before a school provides services related to sexual orientation or gender identity,” tweeted House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) “Outrageous. Parents have a right to know what schools are doing with their kids.”