Mission Statement

Abusive parents: What do grown children owe the …

New York State Office of Children and Family Services …

Older Children Abandoned Under Law for Babies - The …
From California
Capitol Resource Institute

The History and Danger of AB 606

[Note: Compare this California bill with the move to compel BritishColumbia schools to carry pro-homosexuality materials. See article entitled "Corren Case Moves Forward."]

AB 606 (D-Levine) was recently amended to require broad-sweeping changes toindoctrinate school children concerning homosexual, bisexuality andtranssexuality.

As amended, AB 606 would require California school districts to take specifiedactions to increase awareness and prevent incidences of discrimination andharassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender. It wouldalso require curriculum read by young school children to contain information onaccepting and embracing these various forms of sexuality.

If a school district fails to comply with the provisions in AB 606, the statesuperintendent has carte blanche discretion to withhold state-funding from thatschool district.

In order for you to understand exactly how disastrous AB 606 really is, you needto know a little background information.

AB 606 builds on AB 537, the California Student Safety and Violence PreventionAct of 2000 (SSVPA).

AB 537 added two new forms of discrimination (actual or perceived sexualorientation and actual or perceived gender) to the list of discriminationprohibited in California's public schools. In the spring of 2000, Superintendentof Public Instruction Delaine Eastin established the AB 537 Advisory Task Forceto identify, research, and recommend guidelines for implementing the SSVPA. Thegoal was to ensure that "AB 537 did not become another law that sat on abookshelf."

AB 606 is an effort to codify (make mandatory) some of the more outrageous AB537 Task Force recommendations.

The AB 537 Task Force recommended that resources are used to "createpositive, grade-appropriate visual images that include all sexual orientationsand gender identities for use in school common areas throughout the schoolyear."

The Task Force also recommended that public schools "acknowledge lesbian,gay, bisexual, and transgender historical figures and related events, concepts,and issues in the revisions of content standards and curriculum frameworks, whenappropriate."

Additionally, it recommended that public schools "identify and expand theavailable lesbian, gay, bisesxual, and transgender resources for school librarymaterials."

These specific goals are satisfied by AB 606.

AB 606 would repeal current provisions in the law that keep curriculum frombeing forced on school districts in order to advance SSVPA objectives. In otherwords, AB 606 would mandate that curriculum and classroom time be used to teachchildren to embrace homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

AB 606 would require all public schools to do what is currently being done atSan Leandro High School in the Bay Area.

At San Leandro High School, a rainbow-flag poster, with pink triangles and othersymbols of homosexual pride, and containing a pro-homosexual message, has beenordered to be posted in all classrooms. Five teachers have protested, based ontheir religious convictions. This has resulted in a standoff between theseteachers and the school administration.

Pushing homosexual indoctrination on young children is being packaged and soldin the name of "preventing violence." No one wants incidences ofviolence to occur on school campus. Violence is never acceptable on publicschool grounds. AB 606, however, goes beyond addressing violence on schoolcampus.

If the goal were simply to prevent violence, legislation could be enacted toensure that public school administrators promptly address all incidences ofviolence when they occur, regardless of what they are about.

AB 606 is not about safe schools, it's about molding and shaping the minds ofyoung children to accept various forms of sexuality regardless of what theirparents or religious beliefs tell them.

AB 606 will surely conflict with parental rights and the religious beliefs ofboth parents and students.

Information sharing advice for safeguarding …


From Article 8 in Massachusetts,
:

against Brian Camenker, Scott Whiteman, and Parents Rights Coalition [ofMassachusetts] for exposing "Fistgate" in Apl 2, 2002

The homosexual movement continues to use whatever methods it can to"punish" and destroy anyone who gets in its way, and to intimidateanyone else from exposing their activities with children.

On Monday, July 10, [2006] the trial is scheduled to begin against BrianCamenker, Scott Whiteman, and Parents Rights Coalition in the lawsuit beingbrought against them by Margot Abels, lesbian activist and former state employeewho was fired for her involvement in a workshop where children were taught abouthard-core homosexual sex.

Abels is claiming that her "free speech rights" were violated and saysshe is seeking "injunctive relief, compensatory damages including damagesfor emotional distress," as well as attorneys' fees.

The American Family Association Center for Law and Policy has taken the casefree of charge. AFA attorneys Stephen Crampton and Michael DePrimo were inBoston this week for the hearing. In addition, Michael Williams of the Centerfor Constitutional Law is representing Scott Whiteman.

"This is an incredible miscarriage of justice, and the law they are usingis clearly unconstitutional," said Crampton. "We will appeal this caseuntil we obtain justice, up to and including the US Supreme Court."

At the hearing, Abels' lawyer reiterated that one of her objectives is to keepCamenker, Whiteman, and PRC from being able to disseminate information to anyoneabout this incident.

Click here for photos from the hearing:


The judge also set June 6 for a final preliminary hearing, to discuss witnessesand other issues pertaining to the trial.

Click here for the Mass News article describing how depraved this "Fistgate"conference was. You will see why the homosexual movement will do anything tokeep us from talking about it.


Click here for more background. This is the SECOND lawsuit that the homosexualmovement has attempted against us on the "Fistgate" incident.

The homosexual movement is very serious about changing society, andproselytizing children in the public schools with their behavior. But we are notbacking down! If this is to remain a free country, then we ALL need to be justas serious about stopping them! If we allow them to win this, then they willhave succeeded in spreading fear across Massachusetts -- and across the country-- to anyone who would confront their activities in the public schools.

There will be a lot more on this coming up!

 

Legitimacy (family law) - Wikipedia


Take Action> As more of the details arebeing worked out regarding how this settlement will affect the education system,now is the time to express your concerns to the B.C. government. ContactMinister of Education , Attorney-General or your . Remind them that parents have ultimate responsibility for theeducation of their children and there should be no restrictions on parents whowish to exempt their children from any teaching on sexual orientation.


So, the question then is: What rights do parents have todetermine what parts of the provincially mandated curriculum their children willlearn and how they will learn it? Many teachers may be surprised to learn thatthose boundaries are very restricted and, have, for years, been clearly definedby the Ministry of Education. The policy, currently described as the AlternativeDelivery Policy, clearly defines the areas of the curriculum where students andtheir parents or guardians may arrange for alternative delivery of instruction;namely, the Health curriculum organizer of Health and Career Education K to 7,Health and Career Education 8 and 9, and Planning 10, and the PersonalDevelopment curriculum organizer of Personal Planning K to 7. The policy doesnot apply to any other prescribed learning outcomes in those IRPs. Nor does itapply to any other BC provincial curriculum.

In a letter from the deputy minister sent to all the education partner groups inSeptember 2006, this policy was, once again, reiterated "in order toclarify some common misunderstandings" with regard to its application."The policy does not permit schools to omit addressing or assessing any ofthe prescribed learning outcomes within the health and career educationcurriculum," the letter states, and goes on to say, "Neither does itallow students to be excused from meeting the expectations of any prescribedlearning outcomes related to health. It is expected that students who arrangefor alternative delivery will address the learning outcomes and will be able todemonstrate that they have done so."

Just so that we are all clear, the Alternative Delivery policy applies only tothe health organizers of the above-named IRPs and to no others. What this meansis that there are no other areas of the curriculum that students have the optionof not being in attendance or accessing alternative means by which to achievethe required learning outcomes. So, when a student says he or she can’tparticipate in lessons, other than those of the health organizers, for whateverreason, our response needs to be that they are required to be in attendance andare not exempted from meeting the prescribed learning outcomes.

This brings us back to the examples described earlier where teachers haveallowed parental pressure to determine what and how we teach to meet therequirements of the curriculum. As professionals, we have a duty to address thelearning needs of all our students by ensuring that they be exposed to ideas,materials, and knowledge that informs and educates them about the world in whichthey live. When we relinquish our right to professional autonomy and bend to thedictates of a small segment of the parent population, we do a disservice to ourstudents as a whole.

So, when a parent declares that a teacher’s choice of a novel to be used inclass must be vetted by the parent first; when, in social studies, children arelearning about the different family models, a parent objects to the inclusion ofsame-sex parented families; or when a child is not permitted to attend music orphysical education classes because of the religious beliefs of the family, weneed to take a stand. Our response should be, "This is the public educationsystem and I am required to follow the mandated provincial curriculum. Ifyou are not happy about that, there are other educational options available toyou and to your child."
[From