The State Compared Gender Transition to Lunch Orders—Seriously
Over the past two weeks, more school boards have repealed the Transgender Student Guidelines, commonly known as Policy 5756. Such a policy undermines parental rights and erodes the trust between families and their local schools.
It’s offensive, unethical, and dangerous.
Thankfully, last Tuesday, September 9, I had the opportunity to testify before the Watchung Hills Regional High School Board of Education in Somerset County regarding Policy 5756. While some voiced opposition to our viewpoint, the majority—including myself—advocated for the policy’s repeal. I’m pleased to report that the Board voted to repeal it. This was a clear win for parents. Despite misleading strawman arguments, no students were harmed—only transparency and trust were restored.
Parent vs. Delaware Valley Regional School Board
This positive outcome is tempered by ongoing frustration over the court case in Hunterdon County between the Delaware Valley Regional School Board and Mr. Christin Heaps, along with his daughter from Pittstown, NJ. The New Jersey Family Policy Center has joined the case by filing an Amicus Brief in support of Mr. Heaps.
In this case, Mr. Heaps is pursuing legal action against the Delaware Valley Regional School Board and the State of New Jersey after school personnel allegedly socially transitioned his daughter into identifying as a boy—without his knowledge or consent. I’m grateful to share that his daughter no longer struggles with identity confusion and is now walking confidently in the objective truth of who God created her to be!
Brace yourself: In a court brief, the Office of the Attorney General—an executive agency under the direct authority of the Murphy Administration—argued that the school had no obligation to inform Mr. Heaps about his daughter’s social gender transition. In fact, they claimed that doing so would “destabilize our system of public education.” Yes, you read that correctly.
State attorneys went so far as to compare a child’s gender transition to eating chicken nuggets. These are taxpayer-funded, high-salaried attorneys making arguments that defy both common sense and parental trust.
I wish I was making this up! I really do! But I am not!
Their brief states on page 40, “Some examples underscore the chaos that would result from accepting Heaps’s position. Consider a student who orders chicken nuggets at lunch, but his parents inform the school that they have an ethical objection to eating meat and thus that their high schooler must not do so. Does the Constitution require the cafeteria worker to refuse to honor the student’s order based on the parent’s purported fundamental right to direct the child’s education by controlling the requests the school can accept?”
Update: New Jersey Appellate Court Rules Against Our Legal Motion challenging the NJ State Board of Education rule changes
“Conservative activist Shawn Hyland sued the state Board of Education over amendments that replaced phrases like “male and female students” with “based on gender identity,” claiming that it infringed on free speech, religious freedom and parental rights.
The court has officially ruled the changes were lawful, secular and aligned with New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws.”
Click here to read more from NJ.com – Parents’ rights or discrimination? N.J. court sides with gender-inclusive school rules. – nj.com
