Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act

What is this bill?

• HR 2616, sponsored by Tim Walberg (R-MI-5)

HR 2616 is a combination of two bills:

• the original version of HR 2616, the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their (PROTECT) Kids Act

• HR 2617, the Say No to Indoctrination Act, sponsored by Burgess Owens (R-UT-4)

This combination, two-page bill would do two things if passed:

• require elementary and middle schools (K-8th grade) that accept federal funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent before changing a student’s “gender markers, pronouns, and preferred names” on schools forms or providing sex-based accommodations.

• prohibit elementary, middle, and high schools that accept federal funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 from teaching or advancing concepts related to gender ideology. The proposed law uses the definition of gender ideology outlined in Executive Order 14168 in section 2(f).

  • “(f)  “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true.  Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex.  Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.”

What makes this bill fascist?

It is unsurprising that this bill is receiving its first vote one week after the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Foote, et al v. Ludlow School Committee. In 2022, Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri (along with two others) sued Ludlow Public Schools due to teachers & staff at Baird Middle School using the name and pronouns that their child requested. To quote from Jack Walker’s previously linked article from Advocate, “The student asked teachers to use a different name and pronouns at school while keeping that information from their parents. The student, who identified as genderqueer, said they were not ready to come out at home.” This reticence to come out at home makes sense considering the student’s parents sued to school for violating their constitutional rights, parental rights, and “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

An article by James Factora from Them also notes that the middle school’s librarian, Jordan Funke (who is non-binary), was included in the suit for giving guidance & advice to the student. The article also notes that the filings misgender Funke through the whole suit and claim that Funke “encouraged children to experiment with alternate gender identities without notifying parents or obtaining parental consent.”

Since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the decision of the lower court that found the school did nothing wrong stands. Hence the timing to bring this bill to a vote, especially when the bill would directly effect the student at the center of this lawsuit, feels very pointed.

Also, if you need stats as to why this is bad, I’d recommend looking over this handy fact sheet compiled by GLAAD.

As for the ban on teaching ‘gender ideology,’ that definition comes from an Executive Order that is nothing more than an anti-trans screed and putting any of it into law is nothing but pure fascism.

Which Dems voted for it?

In the House I would keep an eye on Henry Cuellar (TX), Don Davis (NC), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), and Marie Glusenkamp Perez (WA) due to their reliable yea votes on a recent anti-trans bill that was aimed at minors.

That said, if it passes the House, I have heavy doubts that this bill will even receive a vote in the Senate.