Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has announced he will support an appeal of a federal court decision ordering public schools to open male and female bathrooms to students of the opposite sex. Koster says his office will file a friend-of-the-court brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the decision.
The case involves the Gloucester County School District in eastern Virginia. In April the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that public school students are legally entitled to access the restrooms, locker rooms, and shower rooms “congruent” with their imaginary “gender identity.”
In a split 2-1 decision, the 4th Circuit panel ruled that the school district policy segregating bathrooms according to biological sex violates Title IX of federal education law. The provisions of Title IX prohibit schools that receive federal funding from discriminating against students based on their gender.
The decision is the latest example of federal judges imposing their personal opinions on the people of our nation in contradiction to the express language of the law. Title IX and its regulations specifically state that schools are authorized to have separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls.
Attorney General Koster announced that his office will submit an amicus brief supporting the position of the Gloucester County School District. “We believe Missouri school districts are capable of treating all students with dignity and respect while addressing sincerely held privacy concerns. We intend to support the ability of Missouri school districts to form lawful policy on this issue at the local level…,” Koster said.
The Attorney General also stated his view that “President Obama was wrong to dictate a national mandate so quickly and unilaterally.” Koster is referring to recent renegade actions by federal agencies on the issue of bathroom privacy which are completely unsupported by law, regulation, or precedent.
Early this year, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission issued a “guidance” to school districts insisting that they permit students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that reflected their imaginary “gender identity,” or risk the loss of federal education dollars. In May, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch upped the ante in a bizarre press conference in which she pronounced that “an individual’s sex consists of multiple factors, which may not always be in alignment.”
Lynch announced the release of a joint edict by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education. Under that lawless edict, public school authorities must allow students to invade the restrooms, locker rooms, and shower rooms of the opposite sex, or forfeit federal education funding. Lynch decreed that schools may not adopt “broad generalizations or stereotypes” as to a student’s actual gender, and that failure to conform to the policy would constitute the creation of a “hostile [educational] environment.”
In his dissent in the Gloucester case, Judge Paul Niemeyer took issue with the reasoning of Attorney General Lynch and her completely bogus interpretation of the law. “An individual has a legitimate and important interest in bodily privacy such that his or her nude or partially nude body, genitalia, or other private parts are not exposed to persons of the opposite sex.”
“Courts have consistently recognized that the need for personal privacy is inherent in the nature and dignity of humankind,” Niemeyer continued. “This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect.”
In response to the Obama Administration’s latest exercise of tyranny, an Ohio school district announced last week that it has challenged the unisex bathroom edicts in federal court. The Highland Local School District has filed suit in U.S. District Court in southern Ohio. School district officials object not only to allowing students to access “intimate facilities” of the opposite sex, but also to sharing overnight accommodations.
“The Department of Education is trying to strong-arm Highland into complying with a lawless demand to open its [private facilities] to students of the opposite sex,” says Jim Campbell, senior counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the school district in the case.
“Highland faces an impossible choice: capitulate to the federal government’s demands and sacrifice the dignity and privacy of their students; or protect those rights and be stripped of more than a million dollars each year in federal funds devoted to special education programs, lunches for underprivileged children, and educational advancement,” Campbell explains.
Parents of students have already filed federal lawsuits against the bathroom mandate in U.S. District Courts in Northern Illinois and Eastern North Carolina. Parents in those cases are determined to keep boys out of their daughters’ showers, changing rooms, and bathroom facilities. The Virginia case, on the other hand, involves a 16 year-old girl who insists that she is a boy, and is demanding the right to use the boy’s bathroom.