Protests continue over Mont. Co. policy of ‘no opt-out’ for LGBTQ curricula Parents file lawsuit to reverse rule; LGBTQ supporters stage counter protests By LOU CHIBBARO JR. | lchibbaro@washblade.com
Hundreds of parents participated in a demonstration outside the Montgomery County School Board’s office in Rockville, Md., on July 20 to protest a policy by the county’s public school system that doesn’t allow parents to opt-out their children from classes in which lessons or books on LGBTQ related topics are taught.
(Bigstock photo)
The protests against the no opt-out policy, as well as counter protests by LGBTQ supportive students and parents, began in March when the Montgomery County Public Schools announced it had ended a temporary opt-out allowance that it started in October. School system officials said the no opt-out policy is for lessons and books that were part of a plan to diversify
an English language arts curriculum that includes lessons covering LGBTQ related issues as well as other diversity related issues like race, religion, and ethnicity. School officials point out that the LGBTQ lessons are separate from sex education classes taught in the 10th grade for which parents are allowed to opt-out their children on religious grounds or for other reasons. The parents who want the school system to reverse the policy to allow an opt-out on LGBTQ lessons or books say these lessons infringe on their religious rights based on the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion. Several parents filed a lawsuit in May against the Montgomery County Public Schools, on religious rights grounds, asking a judge to issue a temporary injunction to halt the no opt-out policy by Aug. 28, when the first day of school begins for the 2023-2024 school year. The lawsuit calls for a permanent end to the no opt-out policy that is expected to be litigated over the next year or longer. “We are religious; we have rights as Americans,” Adon Gedie, a mother of a kindergarten student, told News 4 Washington. “Our kids have a right to be raised as a kid,” she told the TV news station. “It should be the parents’ right,” Mark Haile, the father of three MCPS students, told News 4 Washington. “Parents should discuss with their kids to decide what they learn,” he said. News 4 Washington also interviewed some of the counter protesters, who expressed support for the no opt-out policy, including the school system’s selection of LGBTQ related books.
“The books geared to younger kids are just showing a diverse range of families,” Christina Celenza, a mother of a Montgomery County student, told the TV news station. “We have a two-mom household, so my wife and I are really proud and out, and, of course, my kid in kindergarten or pre-K is going to probably talk about his family and his two moms.” The Washington Post reported that in a court filing in response to the lawsuit, the school system said the current no opt-out policy is lawful “because it doesn’t coerce [the families] into restraining from raising their children according to their religious values or penalize their efforts to direct their children’s religious upbringing.” The school system response, according to the Post, also points out that school district leaders met with school principals and determined that “individual schools could not accommodate the growing number of opt-out requests without causing significant disruptions.” Christopher Cram, a spokesperson for Montgomery County Public Schools, sent the Washington Blade a copy of the school system’s most recent statement regarding its LGBTQ related curricula and lessons. Among other things, the statement says all lessons and instructional materials “are age and developmentally appropriate” and, “There is no LGBTQ+ curriculum in elementary school.” The statement, called Inclusive and Welcoming Learning in Montgomery County Public Schools, adds, “LGBTQ+ inclusive books benefit all students by promoting acceptance and respect and teaching them more about the diverse people and families in the world.”
D.C. bill would bar insurance discrimination against PrEP users Legislation aimed at ‘removing barriers’ to using HIV prevention medication By LOU CHIBBARO JR. | lchibbaro@washblade.com
D.C. Council member Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) introduced a bill on June 28 calling for prohibiting insurance companies from taking into consideration a person’s use of the HIV prevention medication known as PrEP in decisions related to the issuance of disability, life, or long-term care insurance policies. The bill, called the Removing Barriers and Reducing Stigma to Encourage HIV Prevention Amendment Act of 2023, would amend an existing D.C. law passed in 1986 that, among other things, bans insurance companies from using a person’s age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, area of residence, occupation, or similar factors to predict whether the person in the future may develop AIDS. A statement released by Pinto’s office says her bill is intended to “ensure individuals are not dissuaded from using PrEP because of potential negative consequences on their disability, life, or long-term care insurance” and to curtail stigma associated with PrEP use. “PrEP is a safe, reliable, and crucial medication to prevent the contraction of HIV,” Pinto said in the statement. “We need to be promoting its use – not discriminating against people, including LGBTQQIA+ and people of color who are disproportionately affected by HIV, who
use this important medication,” Pinto says in the statement.
D.C. Council member BROOKE PINTO (D-Ward 2) (Photo courtesy Pinto Campaign)
“I am proud to introduce this legislation to advance public health, reduce stigmas associated with PrEP and HIV, and protect the rights of PrEP users,” Pinto said.
0 6 • WA SHIN GTO N BLADE.COM • JULY 28, 202 3 • LO CA L NE WS
Nine other Council members on the 13-member Council signed on as co-introducers of the bill, including D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large). The bill was assigned by Mendelson to the Council’s Committee on Business and Economic Development, which was expected to hold a public hearing on the bill. Pinto’s three-page bill states, “No life, disability income, or long-term care insurance policy or contract shall contain any exclusion, reduction, or other limitation of benefits related to the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis [PrEP] when taken pursuant to a valid prescriber’s order.” The bill also states, “In reviewing an application for life, disability income, or long-term care insurance, no insurer, or agent, broker, or employee of the insurer shall factor the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis when taken pursuant to a valid prescriber’s order into a decision regarding: (1) whether to issue, renew, or cancel a policy; (2) the rates, premiums, dues, assessments, benefits covered, or expenses reimbursable under the policy; or (3) the duration or terms of the policy.” The bill calls for imposing a fine of “not less than $1,000, and not more than $10,000 for each violation” of the proposed law.