Women Should Be Drafted Along With Men : A Judges Thinks So?

Nothing is a simple as just having a judge make a decision on whether women should or shouldn't be include in the draft.

and if they are, the must serve in combat? That this is even being discussed is crazy. This is like the problem now with transgender males competing in women's sports.

This is nuts! Human nature has certain roles for each gender to perform, but one of them does not include have a female being blown to bits on the battle field while serving beside males. It's bad enough that the males are destroyed but watching  a female being destroyed by males in a combat situation is mentally debilitating. 

The combat unit effectiveness will be adversely effected or destroyed. Everyone loses.

What a Judge’s Ruling on Drafting Women Means for Military

Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / February 25, 2019

A federal judge’s ruling that women must be included in a potential military draft is based on incomplete information, an advocate for military readiness says.

The Obama administration rejected a field test by the U.S. Marine Corps that found all-male units performing simulated ground combat tasks outperformed gender-mixed units 69 percent of the time, said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness.

The Marines’ study, which covered 2012 to 2015, also showed that in infantry training, women were injured at a rate six times higher than men, with 13 percent hurt compared with 2 percent.

Congress never considered theMarines’ findings in hearings, and didn’t make them part of the public record, Donnelly told The Daily Signal. This inhibited the Justice Department’s ability to argue the case, she said.

The National Coalition for Men, a San Diego-based group that says it raises awareness about sexual discrimination against men, sued the federal government to require women to sign up with the Selective Service, just as men do.

U.S. District Judge Gray Miller of the Southern District of Texas made the ruling Friday. In it, Miller wrote:

''The average woman could conceivably be better suited physically for some of today’s combat positions than the average man, depending on which skills the position required. Combat roles no longer uniformly require sheer size or muscle.''

The Obama administration, under Defense Secretary Ash Carter, determined in 2015 that women should be in combat just as men are.  President George W. Bush appointed Miller. It’s more likely that Miller made his decision without all the relevant information than that he ruled as an activist judge, Donnelly said.

“That’s what judges do,” she told The Daily Signal. “The merits of the case really were not heard.”

Donnelly called Miller’s ruling “far reaching,” even though at this point it is a declaratory judgment, one that does not impose an injunction on the military. However, it may be appealed.

A military draft hasn’t been in effect in the U.S. since the early 1970s, at the end of the Vietnam War.
Military service is voluntary for both men and women. Still, all males are required to register with the Selective Service after their 18th birthday or risk losing student loans, access to government jobs, and other benefits. Women do not face the same requirement—at least until the matter is fully adjudicated.

If the Selective Service were to change its policy, all men and women would have to register for a military draft upon turning 18.

In the event of a draft during a war or national crisis, the person with the next number drawn would be drafted into the military regardless of gender.  Such a policy poses national security risks, Donnelly said. Congress failed, she said, by not holding hearings on women in combat to highlight the Marine Corps data.

“If you have to call in everybody 50/50, it hurts readiness and does not improve security,” Donnelly said. “Congress is not considering national security. They are looking at the military as another equal opportunity employer.”


Miller cited the 1981 Supreme Court case of Rostker v. Goldberg, which upheld the constitutionality of male-only draft registration.  Miller’s ruling recognized a distinction since the Defense Department lifted the ban on women in combat, another military expert said.

“The judge noted that in 2015, the Defense Department made all service roles available to women,” Charles Stimson, a senior legal fellow for national security law at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “The judge reasoned that since the 1981 Supreme Court case relied in large part on the fact that combat roles were not open to women, and now women are eligible for all roles within the military, the case was distinguishable.”

Stimson continued:

''The judge did not go so far as to require the government to require women to sign up for the draft. Instead, the ruling by the judge is a declaratory judgment, which only affects the two men who claimed that their rights were violated because they, and not women, were required to register for the draft.''

But the case has broader significance, and will likely be appealed, as it is highly likely that other men will make similar challenges. “Women are now allowed in combat, so this decision is long overdue,” Marc Angelucci, a lawyer for the National Coalition for Men, said in a prepared statement, adding:

''After decades of sex discrimination against men in the Selective Service, the courts have finally found it unconstitutional to force only men to register. Even without a draft, men still face prison, fines, and denial of federal loans for not registering or for not updating the government of their whereabouts. Since women will be required to register with the Selective Service, they should face the same repercussions as men for any noncompliance.''

The matter should be decided by Congress, not the courts, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman wrote in a Bloomberg News opinion column.

“The court’s decision only makes sense if women would be obligated to serve in combat,” Feldman wrote. “Yet the district judge didn’t expressly say he was ordering the military to obligate women to serve. This is probably enough reason for a court of appeals to reverse the decision if it wants to do so.”

Feldman continued:

''Seen from the standpoint of 1970s legal feminism, the judge’s decision looks like a win. The case was brought by male plaintiffs, the strategy that [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg often followed in the 1970s to convince the Supreme Court to strike down laws based on sex stereotypes. As we now know, it is a stereotype to say women can’t serve in combat. Of course women can fight.

Yet there remains the question of whether women should be obligated to take combat roles. Some feminists would no doubt say yes. Others might say that true equality would allow women to make that choice for themselves, shaping gender roles as they see fit. It isn’t obvious that being required to fight in wars you may not like expands your equality—or your freedom.

Progressives Move Into Track And Field : Trans. Males Crush The Women

The progressive socialsit liberalisms push for anything that will cause chaos and conflict in our society, as this, they believe will bring them an advantage they would normally have.

But the plan to take power from individuals though regulations and laws that dictate behavior is now being seen as a criminal endeavor. A political stunt just for power.

 The strategy of anything goes has gone off the rails as it was predicated it would. What is not mentioned here is what about all of the other events in track and field where males will dominate. What the Olympics? What about weight lifting? 

Just imagine women being eliminated entirely from sports. 

Make sure when you vote, vote democrat! democrats believe women don't need to be involved in sports. Their place is in the kitchen and the bedroom!

Male Runners Dominate Girls High School Track in Connecticut

Peter Hasson / @peterjhasson / February 25, 2019

Two male runners are continuing to dominate high school girls track in Connecticut.

High school juniors Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood took first and second place in the state open indoor track championships Feb. 16, The Associated Press noted in a report Sunday. Both Miller and Yearwood are biological males who identify as transgender girls.

One of their competitors, high school junior Selina Soule, told The Associated Press it was unfair to force female runners to compete against male runners.

“We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing,” said Soule. “I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.”

Miller is the third-fastest runner in the country in the girls’ 55-meter dash. Yearwood is close behind, tied for seventh nationally.

Miller and Yearwood’s success is just the latest instance of male athletes who identify as transgenderexcelling in women’s sports. Miller and Yearwood easily outpaced female runners in the state in 2018 as well, when both were sophomores.

A sympathetic segment on ABC’s “Good Morning America” in June 2018 described the two runners as “dominating the competition” at the outdoor state championships earlier that month.  In that interview, Miller argued that female runners should work harder, rather than complaining about unfairness, when forced to compete against male athletes who identify as transgender.

Yearwood acknowledged being stronger than female runners to The Associated Press, but compared it to advantages other athletes might have from perfecting their form or doing extra training sessions.

“One high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better,” Yearwood told The Associated Press. “One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

AOC On Climate Change : Stop Having Children

We are going to die in 12 years if we don't do like I say!

The 29 year old knows how the system works.

How this woman become a person that is accepted as rational? She has no ''street cred'' at all, no experience in living among real people other then being a bar tender.

And yet she is leading the progressive socialsit liberal democrat collective over the cliff. And worse of for the better, most of her colleagues are joining her in her rush to destruction.

Can it be that insanity is contagious? Or is it that most of the democrat collective are and always have been mentally ill, it's only now they decided to come out from the shadows and proclaim that illness as an acceptable way of life?

Ocasio-Cortez on Climate Change: ‘Is It OK to Still Have Children?’

Michael Bastasch / @MikeBastasch / February 25, 2019

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posed a question to her supporters during a streaming conversation from her kitchen Sunday night: “Is it OK to still have children” because of global warming?

There is a “[s]cientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question,” Ocasio-Cortez said before going on to ask, “Is it OK to still have children?”

“Not just financially because people are graduating with $20, $30, $100,000 worth of student loan debt, and so they can’t even afford to have kids and a house, but also just this basic moral question, like, ‘What do we do?’” Ocasio-Cortez continued.

Watch the video : https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1099866879814860802

“And even if you don’t have kids, there are still children here in the world and we have a moral obligation to leave a better world for them,” Ocasio-Cortez said. Ocasio-Cortez went on to criticize California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, for not bowing to pressure from young environmental activists who visited Capitol Hill Friday. The activists were there to push a Green New Deal resolution championed by Ocasio-Cortez.

The Sunrise Movement tweeted out the interaction between Feinstein and the group of children and teenagers, framing it as treating the young activists “with smugness [and] disrespect.” However, the Sunrise Movement only promoted one short two-minute clip of the interaction, and reporters quickly noticed the full exchange was much more pleasant than what environmentalists initially claimed.

“We had a spirited discussion and I presented the group with my draft resolution that provides specific responses to the climate change crisis, which I plan to introduce soon,” Feinstein said in a statement released after her exchange with young activists.   “I always welcome the opportunity to hear from Californians who feel passionately about this issue and it remains a top priority of mine,” Feinstein said.

During her exchange with young activists, Feinstein said the Green New Deal had no chance of passing the Senate and that she disagrees with some of the language used in the bill.

However, Ocasio-Cortez criticized Feinstein for dismissing the Green New Deal. Ocasio-Cortez said global warming was “going to kill us” if nothing was done to stop it.  The freshman Democrat joined Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey to introduce Green New Deal resolutions in early February.

The Green New Deal resolution calls for completely overhauling the U.S. economy with “10-year national mobilizations” to get greenhouse gas emissions to “net-zero” while also implementing a series of welfare policies opponents labeled socialist.

Republicans oppose the resolutions and Democrats are divided over the legislation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

OgbjamCare Is A Fraud : The Progressive democrats Knew It

And the real crime in all of this is so many among us believe that the corruption in government is only the highly visible members that are on television, but the corruption is at all levels of government and all agencies and departments.

The  infestation of corruption is total. There are progressive socialist warriors ready and willing to carry the fight for ''transformation'' to the entire country.

All that is needed is the single from their leadership to when and were to attack.

9 Years After Obamacare Passed, Agency Finds Numbers Were Wildly Off

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / February 22, 2019

Democrats defeated Republicans in the Obamacare repeal fight by warning that 22 million Americans would be thrown off their health insurance. They pointed to data leaked from the Congressional Budget Office.

Well, it turns out that data was completely wrong.

According to a report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office wildly overestimated the number of people who would lose their health insurance with the repeal of the individual mandate penalty.

Initial estimates from the Congressional Budget Office said 14 million would drop off their health insurance coverage due to the elimination of the individual mandate. Then, during the height of the 2017 debate over repeal, progressives touted a leaked number from the Congressional Budget Office claiming that 22 million people would “lose” their insurance if Congress repealed the law.

However, as health care analyst Avik Roy pointed out, what made this number so high was the inflated number of people expected to lose their insurance due to repeal of the mandate—about 73 percent to be exact. So, it wouldn’t be 22 million Americans losing their insurance. Most of those in the projection would simply be choosing to opt out of insurance.

And it turns out even that wasn’t true. A far smaller number of Americans appear to be opting out of insurance since the individual mandate’s repeal. Only 2.5 million more people are expected to go without insurance in 2019 due to its repeal, according to the latest report, and that number is expected to decline in the years ahead.

The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein called the Congressional Budget Office “scandalously off in its estimates.” That’s about right, considering all that was riding on its numbers.

As Klein noted, the Congressional Budget Office estimates were a large part of why the individual mandate was adopted in the first place, and a big reason why its repeal didn’t pass. So it’s a wonder why the media isn’t picking this up.

“Given the outsized influence that the CBO has on policymaking in Washington, the CBO’s misfire on the individual mandate should be a major story,” Klein wrote.

The Congressional Budget Office is opaque, to say the least. It does not publish or share the way it comes up with numbers, and some have criticized the organization for its lack of transparency and outsized influence on policymaking.

Doug Badger, a visiting fellow in domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that Congressional Budget Office analysis has been a chronic problem.

“When it comes to the individual mandate, CBO has never let the facts affect their wildly inaccurate estimates. CBO continued to forecast that millions of insured Americans would suddenly become uninsured if the mandate were repealed,” Badger wrote in an email to The Daily Signal. “CBO’s faulty estimates misled the public into believing that repealing Obamacare would lead to a vast increase in the number of uninsured. Bad estimates produced bad policy.”

Many conservatives are fed up with the deference shown to the agency, given it’s poor track record and track of transparency. Reps. Mark Walker, R-N.C., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, suggested in 2017 that it’s time to stop “blindly” following the agency’s predictions.

“The value of having outside experts review legislation cannot be understated,” they wrote for the Washington Examiner. “But continuing to hinge congressional actions on the projections of an agency that has proven to be so consistently wrong does a disservice to not only members trying to represent their constituents, it primarily does a disservice to the public.”

I wrote in 2017 that perhaps we should be more skeptical toward the findings of independent agencies like the Congressional Budget Office. It seems those doubts were valid.

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. These faulty numbers have had their decisive effect on policy debates, and we are living with the consequences.

We can expect nothing more until we all begin to take such “expert” predictions with a little less certainty.

A Love Story : A Guy and A Gosling(Video)

It's time for a good story of friendship born of love for one another. It just that the two involved, one is not human. But no mind, this is long over due to replace the insanity of progressive democratic politics.

This really is a good feeling story about a gosling that was raised by a human and then he imprinted on the guy and now they are buds for life. It really is a love story.

Single Payer Health Care : Medicare For All. What Works and What Doesn't

What the liberal democrats advocate requires

them to be mentally diseased. They lie with impunity.

The bottom line in all this talk about ''Medicare for all'' is no more the babbling of lunatics. Liars, unethical and immoral demigods.

First of all, please have the advocates describe which government organization, department or agency that is now organized and dedicated to bring success and clarity to the people that is actually do that? 

Which government department isn't totally difunctionally corrupt? And now establishing a department to administer health care to 200 million people?

Competition, Not Government Control, Can Make Health Care Cheaper

Star Parker / @UrbanCURE / February 22, 2019

In a new Gallup poll, 35 percent say government is the worst problem facing the U.S. In the 55 years that Gallup has asked the question—”What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”—this is the highest percentage of people who have identified the government as the nation’s worst problem.

Given how many Americans see the government as a large problem, you have to wonder about so many Democratic politicians’ ambitions to give government increasing power over our lives—particularly in an area as important as health care.

“Medicare for All” is the new rage among Democrats, and each of the announced Democrat presidential contenders favors some version of this.

However, as Democrats surge to the left, the enthusiasm of the nation as a whole for government-run health care is more muted. A December Gallup poll shows just 40 percent in favor of a government-run health care system.

Given what we should be looking for in a quality health care system—the best quality health care at the lowest possible prices, making sure that those who are economically challenged get care, too—the answer is less government, not more.

University of Michigan economist and blogger Mark Perry makes a strong case for why we would be better off with open, competitive health care markets.

According to Perry, in the 20 years between 1998 and 2017, the nation’s overall consumer price index increased 50.3 percent. Over this same period, the cost of medical services increased by 105.3 percent and hospital services by 189.3 percent.

Perry—and many other economists with a free-market bent—argue that it is lack of competition in health care that drives up prices far more than general price escalation.

Health care is defined as having a “third-party” payer. That is, someone else pays your bill—your employer, your insurance company, or the government.

Just think about a typical visit to the doctor. Your health plan gets you in the door, but you have no idea what the doctor is being paid or the cost of anything he or she prescribes you—whether various procedures, tests, or drugs. Even the doctor has no idea the costs of what he or she prescribes.

How can a market possibly function this way?

Can you imagine going to the supermarket and seeing the shelves filled but no prices displayed? How could you decide what and how much to buy?

Could you imagine buying a house and having a third party represent you and negotiate what you will pay?

Perry shows, practically, the implications of a third-party payer in terms of costs. He brings the example of the cosmetic surgery market, in which procedures are overwhelmingly elective and individuals pay for them on their own.

Looking at a basket of 20 cosmetic surgery procedures, the average price increase between 1998 and 2017 was 34.2 percent—less than the consumer price index and about one-third the increase of general medical services.

From 1970 to 2017, the portion of U.S. health care expenses made by a third party—insurance or government—went from 65 percent to 89 percent. The portion of expenses made out-of-pocket by consumers went from 35 percent to 11 percent. Over this same period, per capita health care spending increased by at least a factor of six.

The government is involved in the health care of just about every American. About 130 million Americans get health care through Medicare or Medicaid. Another 156 million get it through their employer; they still have the government involved because employers provide health coverage as a tax-deductible business expense.

The best thing we can do for the country is get health care back to a real market with real transparent costs and competition. For those that need help, provide subsidies, but don’t distort prices.

In other words, we need to go in the opposite direction of “Medicare for All.”

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

The ''New'' Progressives, Now Socialists : New Name - Still dangerous!

The word illegal means special status to accept tax dollars

for life. But the words ignorant and dangerous

are still workable.

Good one Victor! The progressive socialist liberal democrat party is no longer a ''party'' at all, but the disciples sitting in the pews are better known and admittedly accepting their new status as members of a "collective" as a good thing.

As the ''party'' morphed into a group of warriors, waiting shoulder to shoulder for instructions, it just didn't seem clear path to their collective intentions to bring about ''fundamental change''  to the civil society. 

So being ''members'' of a party fell short describing who and what they are, and represent, as well as the ideological message that they bring to the nation.

Changing Reality With Words

Victor Davis Hanson / @VDHanson / February 21, 2019

The reinvention of vocabulary can often be more effective than any social protest movement. Malarial swamps can become healthy “wetlands.” Fetid “dumps” are often rebranded as green “landfills.”

Global warming was once a worry about too much heat. It implied that man-made carbon emissions had so warmed the planet that life as we knew it would soon be imperiled without radical changes in consumer lifestyles.  Yet in the last 30 years, record cold spells, inordinate snow levels, and devastating rains have been common. How to square that circle?

Substitute “climate change” for “global warming.” Presto! Any radical change in weather could be perceived as symptomatic of too much climate-changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Suddenly, blizzards, deluges, and subzero temperatures meant that typically unpredictable weather was “haywire” because of affluent Westernized lifestyles.

Affirmative action originated as a means of making up for past prejudices against the African-American community, which comprised about 12 percent of the population.  By the late 1960s, slavery, Jim Crow, and institutionalized segregation were finally considered unique stains on the American past, to be redeemed in the present by set-aside programs in college admissions and hiring predicated on racial considerations.

The problem with affirmative action is that the very name implies redress for historical wrongs that could be “affirmed” by compensatory action for a particular minority of the population. But lots of other groups wished to be included in an ever-expanding catalog of the oppressed.

Mexican-Americans were soon added on the basis on past biases. Yet weren’t Asian-Americans discriminated against in the past as well, especially during the construction of the railroads in the 19th century and during the Japanese-American internments of World War II?

Then, a host of other nonwhite groups—especially newly arriving immigrants with no prior experience of supposed American racism—sought inclusion in set-aside categories. By the 1980s, a new and vaguer term, “diversity,” had increasingly replaced “affirmative action.”

Diversity meant that it was no longer incumbent upon job or college applicants to claim historical grievances or prove that they were still victims of ongoing and demonstrable discrimination from the white-majority population. Diversity also meant that members of any group that declared itself nonwhite—from Arab-Americans to Chilean-Americans—were eligible for advantages in hiring and college admissions.

Unlike affirmative action, diversity meant that approximately 30 percent of the country—in theory, more than 100 million Americans—were suffering as aggrieved minorities, regardless of income or class.

If united simply by shared nonwhite victim status, the resulting new pan-minority group could prove a far more formidable catalyst for particular political agendas.

“Illegal alien”—a term still used by official government agencies—described any foreign national residing in the U.S. without government sanction. But when the numbers of those who fit the old classification grew, and the number of people invested in relaxed immigration policies expanded across the political spectrum, the term gradually metamorphosed.

If “alien,” a Latinate word deriving from the idea of “other” or “different,” sounds too outer space-like, why not substitute “immigrant”? Yet “illegal immigrant” still sounded as if breaking federal immigration laws was somehow a serious legal matter. So the vague “undocumented immigrant” superseded the old term.

As the numbers of those crossing the southern border grew and the power of those invested in expanded immigration—employers, identity politics activists, Democratic operatives, the Mexican government—peaked, even more euphemisms emerged to downplay illegality.

Often, “undocumented” was dropped, leaving just “immigrants”—conflating applicants who waited years for legal entry with those who swarmed the border illegally.  Increasingly we now hear just “migrants”—a vague term that further divorces illegal immigration from reality by conflating the acts of leaving and entering the country.

Democrats used to self-identify as “liberals.” The Latin etymology means “free,” as in the context of “free” thinkers not burdened by oppressive traditions, ideological straitjackets, and unworkable norms. But the problem with “liberal” is that even conservatives occasionally used the term, as in “classical liberals” who judged issues by facts and reason rather than rigid orthodoxy.

Moreover, “liberal” included little notion of evolution and advancement. So gradually, “progressive” has eclipsed the stuffy “liberal.” “Progressive” infers an activist, not a neutral, ideology—one that is always moving the country in the supposedly correct direction.  After all, who favors “regression” in any field over “progression,” an inherently positive noun implying beneficial advancement?

A liberal Democrat was once someone seen as a free thinker. But “progressive” implies that one is more action-orientated and has an evolutionary agenda, not just a methodology.

Beware of euphemisms. Radical changes in vocabulary are usually admissions that reality is unwelcome or indefensible.

California's School System Run-A-Muck : Sex Ed. Tortured by Politics

California's school system is completely dominated by

ignorance and political ideology. There is no hope for success.

Truly here is another indication that California is not main stream state but a state controlled by people that are not civil and not rational.

The people in charge of sex education in these and other schools discussed here are not acting in the best interests of the students and especially the parents that must take responsibility for their education and safety. 

And of course, in California if the parents are found to be irresponsible they will be arrested.

Who will arrest the government officials that are endangering the students with this immoral and unethical political and ideology programs to do harm and in some cases destory the student lives?

Where is the common sense? The Logic? The human decency for life itself? But wait, this is a one party state so debate is not allowed. The only alternative is to sacrifice your children on the alter of progressive socialist liberal democrat insanity.

Who could possibility know what's best for your child other then the progressive socialist liberal bureaucrat.

California Parents Object to New Sex Ed Program in Public Schools

Courtney Joyner / February 21, 2019

Fed-up California parents participated in a “Sexxx Ed Sit Out” Tuesday morning to protest the state’s sex education curriculum, calling it “pornographic,” “age-inappropriate,” “highly biased and medically inaccurate instruction.”

In an open letter to principals, lawmakers, and state Department of Education officials, the grassroots effort organized by Informed Parents of California rebuked what’s being taught under the 2016 California Healthy Youth Act and the proposed California Health Education Framework.

“Children are taught negotiation skills for consent to sex,” the letter says, adding:

''They are instructed in their rights to confidential reproductive health services and directed to local Planned Parenthood clinics for abortion, birth control and STI [sexualy transmitted infections] testing without parental notice. Some children have even been prescribed puberty blockers for gender transition, and sadly, parents have been so bullied by social workers they are afraid to speak publicly about it.''

Under the California Healthy Youth Act, sex education would be expanded to include topics such as gender and sexual orientation, bullying and abuse, and birth control, including emergency contraception.

“The reason parents and teachers and school board members are protesting is the way this law is being implemented,” former California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “Children are being instructed at school against the parents’ will and behind their back to do things that are ethically risky and life-altering.”

Friedrichs, author of the book “Standing Up to Goliath,” has been featured by The Daily Signal in reports such as this and this for her Supreme Court battle against teachers unions.

Friedrichs said the new curriculum educates students in junior high and high school on how to use insertive condoms and dental dams for anal and oral sex. Friedrichs warns that schools may introduce the curriculum at any grade.

In coordinating the protest, Informed Parents of California instructed parents to take their kids out of school and gather in front of their local school district offices as a show of solidarity against the state-mandated curriculum. Parents were to submit a letter to the principal to explain their child’s absence.

America Figueroa, a mother of five who serves as the Hispanic spokeswoman for Informed Parents of California, said about 100 families from the three Desert Ridge Academy school districts in Indio, California, signed up to participate in the protest.

The proposed Health Education Framework, set to be adopted in May by the State Board of Education, says high school students “will explore and discover their identities, gender expression, and sexuality throughout their education and into and beyond their high school years.”

According to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, parents may opt out only from topics such as “human development, pregnancy, family planning, and sexually transmitted diseases and not topics like sexual orientation and gender identity lessons.”

The public comment period for the Health Education Framework closed in January.

Although parents have written letters to lawmakers and attended school boards meetings, “parents are feeling completely ignored,” Friedrichs said.

She said some parents “are being harassed and bullied” by sex ed proponents at school board meetings.