
Why mom joined Supreme Court lawsuit over LGBTQ+ books in elementary school: ‘Emphasis on children's romantic emotions'
Controversy erupted in Maryland's largest public school district when it introduced more than 20 inclusivity books, some with LGBTQ+ themes, into its elementary schools.
Most states, including Maryland, have laws in place that allow parents to choose whether their children attend sex education.
However, Montgomery County school district has introduced the 'inclusivity' books in subjects such as Language Arts class, and school leaders said they would not offer the same opt out choices.
Hundreds of parents from multiple faith backgrounds have joined the case which has gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
Advertisement
Grace Morrison is part of the case through the Kids First organization. She explains why her family joined the lawsuit:
5 Grace Morrison pulled her daughter out of school and started homeschooling her when the 'opt-out' option became no more.
Courtesy of Grace Morrison
My husband and I have seven children. Our youngest daughter, who is now 12, we adopted from Ukraine as an infant. She has Down syndrome so she has special needs.
Advertisement
We started her in the Montgomery County school system and she continued there until she was 10 years old. We started homeschooling her in 2023 after our local school board introduced a new set of 'inclusivity' books for pre-K through fifth-grade students.
Instead of teaching universal lessons about kindness and respect, these books push polarizing views on gender and sexuality while placing an unusual emphasis on children's romantic emotions.
I was told one book that would be presented in her classroom was called Pride Puppy where children going to a pride parade get an alphabetical list of things to look for, like the 'intersex flag,' a 'drag queen,' 'leather,' and a controversial LGBTQ activist. They were way too advanced and sensitive for children as young as three.
5 Hundreds of parents are fighting the district's decision to not offer the ability to 'opt-out'.
Becket
Advertisement
Another book they presented [Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope] was about a little boy who decided he was trans and wanted to become a girl and how his whole family supported him and made him a pink wig. It was telling young readers that the decision to transition doesn't need to 'make sense.'
To be presenting those ideas to children, especially those with special needs, I can't imagine what confusion that causes. But the school sent out a notice saying we would no longer have the option to opt out.
I was concerned for two reasons: we are in the Catholic faith and opposed to that; and it was not appropriate to her age or her needs.
Until this point we had a great relationship with the teachers, it was very respectful and we worked very well together. I found out from a teacher these materials would be presented in a Language Arts class. It was not just a simple class – it involved teaching.
5 Jeff and Svitlana Roman are also part of the lawsuit and wanted their son to opt out of certain teachings in the 'inclusivity' books due to their Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox beliefs.
Becket
Advertisement
5 parents claim they should not be placed in a position where their only alternative to instruction which offends their religious values is to take their children out of public school.
Becket
Maryland, like forty-seven other states, mandates parental notification for Family Life and Human Sexuality classes and allows parents to opt their children out of these lessons. But because these books are tucked into a Language Arts program, somehow they believe it doesn't require the parents being notified.
I reached out to the principal and was told they adhere to Montgomery County's policy and if I was not comfortable, this was not a place for my child and to find another school…so we removed our daughter.
I got involved as a board member for Kids First – the organization challenging the school board's policies in federal court. It's a diverse group of parents and teachers from all faith backgrounds including Catholic, Muslim and Jewish.
Today, we take our fight — the case 'Mahmoud v. Taylor' — to the Supreme Court, asking for the restoration of our fundamental right to guide our child's education in alignment with our faith.
5 Another of the parents in the case, Billy Moges, pictured doing homework with her daughters. Moges is the director of Kids First, which argues parents should have more of a choice in what their kids are learning at school.
Becket
Every child deserves to experience the innocence of childhood, with their parents playing a central role in guiding them through such complex and sensitive subjects introduced in the classroom.
Our daughter brings great joy to our family. But this sudden change in our family life and routine was unexpected and has cost us a lot. We've had to adapt both financially and in our day-to-day living. I would hope that someday I could return my daughter to public school so she would have the benefits of being with a lot of other children and the services provided through schools.
Advertisement
It was very confusing to her in the beginning because other children in the neighborhood still get on the school bus that she's no longer getting on. But I think she's adapting fine.
There are ways to teach love and respect and tolerance but not to remove parents from the equation because the school thinks they can do it better.
This is a majority issue — not a transphobic, homophobic or discriminatory issue — and this is about parents being parents and deciding what is best for the children.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
30 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Eight charts that explain the Supreme Court's term
The Supreme Court's just-finished term featured major rulings as varied as nationwide injunctions on President Donald Trump's ban on birthright citizenship, gender-transition care for minors, religious liberties, and a bid to create the nation's first religious public charter school. There were multiple fierce clashes among the justices over Trump's second-term agenda.


Chicago Tribune
42 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling? Here's what to know.
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Coming up on Friday, June 27 edition of 'Special Report'
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: President Trump speaks after Supreme Court ruling