Category: Title IX

Federal Judges Sound the Death Knell on Joe Biden’s ‘Gender Identity’ Experiment

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 13, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Federal Judges Sound the Death Knell on Joe Biden’s ‘Gender Identity’ Experiment

WASHINGTON / July 15, 2024 – Over 50 years ago, Marxist Shulamith Firestone laid out her grand vision for gender equality: “genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.” (1) As far-fetched as her proposal might sound, activists around the world began to take up the challenge, concocting their theory of “transgenderism.”

Accordingly on his first day in office, President Biden issued an Executive Order that decreed, “All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.” (2) On April 19 of this year, the Biden Department of Education issued its final Title IX rule that expanded the meaning of sex to include “gender identity.” (3)

Response to the new policy was resoundingly negative. Numerous governors and state superintendents of education instructed their schools to ignore the rule (4). One editorial ridiculed the policy as a “repulsive attempt to erase biological truth.” (5)

Literally within days, state Attorneys General and others began to file nine lawsuits seeking to overturn the policy (6). To date, five decisions have been handed down. Remarkably, every one of decisions imposed a temporary injunction for their respective states on the “arbitrary and capricious” Title IX rule:

June 13: Judge Terry Doughty for the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho (7).
June 17: Judge Danny Reeves for Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (8).
July 2: Judge John Broomes for Kansas, Alabama, Utah, and Wyoming, plus all schools attended by the children of Moms for Liberty and by members of the Young America’s Foundation (9).
July 11: Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk for the state of Texas. In addition, the judge noted that he is considering extending his injunction to all 50 states in the nation (10).
July 11: Judge Reed O’Connor for the Carroll Independent School District in Texas (11).

In parallel fashion, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a separate regulation in May requiring states to pay for so-called “gender affirming” treatments (12). This rule, which also relies on a bloated definition of sex to include gender identity, was met with several lawsuits as well.

On July 3, two federal judges issued injunctions against the DHHS rule. The first applied to Texas and Montana (13). More devastating to the Washington bureaucrats, the second decision blocked the DHHS rule throughout the entire nation (14).

Topping off this remarkable string of decisions, on June 28 the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine (15). In the past, the Chevron doctrine provided a legal fig leaf to the Department of Education and other federal agencies seeking to escape accountability and issue intrusive regulations.

Seldom in American jurisprudence have judges issued a series of decisions within a period of just four weeks, all with the intended effect of blocking the implementation of ill-conceived and unlawful federal regulations.

As these lawsuits continue to be litigated, the 229 organizational members of the Title IX Network will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action (16). Interested organizations that wish to join the Title IX Network should contact Robert Thompson at rthompson@saveservices.org

Links:

Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

As Second Judge Strikes Down Title IX Regulation, Dept. of Education Resorts to Orwellian Clichés

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 21, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

As Second Judge Strikes Down Title IX Regulation, Department of Education Resorts to Orwellian Logic

WASHINGTON / June 24, 2024 – Federal Judge Danny Reeves handed down a preliminary injunction last Monday against the controversial Title IX regulation for the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (1). Reeves’ decision follows a similar ruling issued on June 13 by District Judge Doughty, who struck down the controversial regulation in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho (2).

Using the phrase “arbitrary and capricious” eight times, Judge Reeves addressed the regulation’s subjective definitions of “gender identity,” women’s sports, student privacy and safety, free speech, parental rights, and more (3). The judge’s 93-page decision did not mince words (4) – the following is just a sampling:

“The Department’s new definition of ‘discrimination on the basis of sex wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended.” – Page 25
“The likely consequences of the Final Rule are virtually limitless…. the Final Rule creates myriad inconsistencies with Title IX’s text and its longstanding regulations.” – Page 27
“the Final Rule authorizes, if not encourages, arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement pursuant to definitions of harassment that are almost entirely fact-dependent.” – Page 55
“officials seemingly failed to seriously account for the possibility that abolishing sex-separated facilities would likely increase the incidence of crime and deter large swaths of the public from using public accommodations altogether.” – Page 75
“Rather than address the evidence provided by the plaintiff-States and others during the commenting period, the Department throws its figurative hands in the air and says, ‘too bad.’” – Page 76

Judge Reeves’ decision also highlighted the plight of a 15-year-old West Virginia biological girl referred to as “A.C.” Alluding to transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson, a biological male, the judge wrote, “A.C. asserts that it is apparent that B.P.J.’s status as a biological male gives B.P.J. an advantage over A.C. and other female athletes.”

But A.C. is not the only person to have been harmed by the Department of Education’s Marxist-inspired Title IX mandate (5):

Three middle school boys in Wisconsin were charged with a Title IX harassment complaint when they refused to refer to a female classmate as “they/them.” (6)
John Abraham of Thomas Jefferson University was seduced and raped by Jessica Phillips at an alcohol-fueled party. When Abraham reported the assault to university Title IX officials, his complaint was ignored because, according to the favored narrative, “women never abuse.” (7)
When Prisha Mosley developed mental health problems, doctors persuaded her undergo “gender-affirming” treatments, including removal of her breasts, at the age of 17. Last month, a North Carolina judge ruled that her lawsuit can move forward (8).

Rather than expressing compassion or remorse, the Department of Education responded to the judges’ recent decisions with a bureaucratic retort (9): “Title IX guarantees that no person experience sex discrimination in a federally-funded educational environment…we will continue to fight for every student.”

“Fight for every student”?

The Department’s tone-deaf dismissal recalls the infamous pronouncement of George Orwell: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was the final, most essential command.”

Links:

Department of Education Due Process Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Sexual Harassment Title IX

Arbitrary and Capricious: Federal Judge Rejects and Ridicules Dept. of Education’s Title IX Rule

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 19, 2024

Arbitrary and Capricious: Federal Judge Rejects and Ridicules Dept. of Education’s Title IX Rule

SAVE

June 19, 2024

In April, the Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX Rule. In response, nine separate lawsuits were filed, seeking to block the new regulation.

On June 17, Judge Danny Reeves issued a preliminary injunction for the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia. Concluding that “the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule,” the judge ordered:

The motions for a preliminary injunction/stay filed by Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia [Record No. 19] and Christian Educators Association International and A.C. [Record No. 63] are GRANTED.
The United States Department of Education and Miguel Cardona, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, along with their secretaries, directors, administrators, and employees, are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from implementing, enacting, enforcing, or taking any action in any manner to enforce the Final Rule, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474 (Apr. 29, 2024), which is scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2024.

Using the words “arbitrary and capricious” eight times, Judge Reeves did not mince words in his 93-page decision, which addressed the subjective definitions of “gender identity,” women’s sports, student privacy and safety, free speech, parental rights, and more.

These are highlights from his strongly worded opinion:

“This case concerns an attempt by the executive branch to dramatically alter the purpose and meaning of Title IX through rulemaking… the new rule contravenes the plain text of Title IX by redefining ‘sex’ to include gender identity, violates government employees’ First Amendment rights, and is the result of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking. If the new rule is allowed to take effect on August 1, 2024, all plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable harm.” – Page 1

“But then came the administrative state, lacking any real power to rewrite a law that Congress duly passed, with its bureaucratic cudgel.” – Page 8

“The Department declined to provide a specific definition of “gender identity,” but understands the term to “describe an individual’s sense of their gender, which may or may not be different from their sex assigned at birth.” – Page 10

Judge Reeves’ decision highlights the plight of a 15-year-old West Virginia girl, A.C., who reportedly “feels uncomfortable dressing and undressing in the presence of biological males.” Referring to transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson, a biological male, the judge wrote, “A.C. asserts that it is apparent that B.P.J.’s status as a biological male gives B.P.J. an advantage over A.C. and other female athletes.” – Page 14

“an agency has no authority to promulgate a regulation that ‘undoes the unambiguous language of the statute.’” – Page 16

“The Department’s new definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended….For example, the new rules provide that recipients may separate students for purposes of fraternities and sororities, but not for purposes of utilizing bathrooms.” – Page 25

“The likely consequences of the Final Rule are virtually limitless…. the Final Rule creates myriad inconsistencies with Title IX’s text and its longstanding regulations.” – Page 27

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as a sentry over one of the Nation’s most indispensable freedoms through a proclamation clear and uncompromising: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, . . . .” – Page 32

“It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto.” – Page 46

“The Department understands gender identity to describe an individual’s sense of their gender, which may or may not be different from their sex assigned at birth.” Id. But the Department’s response offers no guidance whatsoever. Arguably worse, it suggests that this term of vital importance can be subjectively defined by each and every individual based entirely upon his or her own internal sense of self.” – Page 50

“Further, the Final Rule authorizes, if not encourages, arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement pursuant to definitions of harassment that are almost entirely fact-dependent.” – Page 55

“the Final Rule’s text is vague and overbroad in a way that impermissibly chills protected speech” – Page 56

“The plaintiff-States claim that the Department has also failed to account for the impact its Final Rule will have on the constitutional right of parents to influence their children’s education. A longstanding right recognized by the Supreme Court is the right for parents to raise their own children as they see fit.” – Page 63

“But the Final Rule then specifies that schools may no longer apply the regulations’ allowance for sex-separation against males who identify as females or females who identify as males. Id. It seems obvious that the Department simply failed to consider these contradictory aspects when promulgating the Final Rule.” – Page 63

“Indeed, the Final Rule’s provisions seemingly bind administrators to treat such children “consistent with [their] gender ident[ies]” on school grounds, even if that conflicts with parental preferences. Id. at 41571. Therefore, school personnel would be forced to improperly insert themselves into constitutionally protected family affairs not only to act when gender discrimination is claimed but to “prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects.” – Page 64

“it implies that Title IX could supersede parental preferences about a child’s treatment depending on the case.” – Page 65

“The Department asserts that there is not ‘a ‘long-standing construction’ of the term ‘sex’ in Title IX to mean ‘biological sex.’  See 87 Fed. Reg. at 41537. But this argument is severely undermined by the series of congressional amendments and agency regulations since the statute’s enactment that consistently have construed ‘sex’ as a male-female binary. Indeed, past regulations from the Department are direct evidence that a definition has been in place.” – Page 67

“Nonetheless, despite society’s enduring recognition of biological differences between the sexes, as well as an individual’s basic right to bodily privacy, the Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity. This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.” – Page 75

“Ultimately, the Department’s failure to provide any concrete, contradictory data to the concerns raised by the States, parents, and educators renders it is difficult to fathom how it determined that “the benefits” of the new regulations ‘far outweigh [their] estimated costs.’… This miscalculation is underscored by the fact that officials seemingly failed to seriously account for the possibility that abolishing sex-separated facilities would likely increase the incidence of crime and deter large swaths of the public from using public accommodations altogether.” – Page 75

“It is an inescapable conclusion based on the foregoing discussion that the Department has effectively ignored the concerns of parents, teachers, and students who believe that the Final Rule endangers basic privacy and safety interests…. Rather than address the evidence provided by the plaintiff-States and others during the commenting period, the Department throws its figurative hands in the air and says, ‘too bad.’” – Page 76

“The Department predicts that recipients of federal funds will see a ten percent increase in Title IX complaints and investigations under the Final Rule.” – Page 81

“the plaintiff-States contend that the Final Rule would cause their citizens to endure a variety of irremediable harms including violations of their bodily privacy by students of the opposite sex.” – Page 87

“This regulation is arbitrary in the truest sense of the word. As explained above, the Department has failed to demonstrate why recipients are allowed to inflict more than de minimis harm in some situations but not in others when there is no meaningful difference (e.g., living facilities versus showers).” – Page 90

“Each subsection in which these provisions appear contains a severability clause that provides: ‘If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.’ 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.9; 106.16; 106.48. The severability clause has little impact on the Court’s analysis because the impermissible definition of ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ in 34 C.F.R. § 106.10 permeates the remaining regulations.” – Page 90

“the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule that is set to go into effect on August 1, 2024. At bottom, the Department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining “sex” to include “gender identity.” But “sex” and “gender identity” do not mean the same thing. The Department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute.” – Page 91

“A rule that compels speech and engages in such viewpoint discrimination is impermissible.” – Page 92

“Notably, the Department does not provide a sufficient explanation for leaving regulations in place that conflict with the new gender-identity mandate, nor does it meaningfully respond to commentors’ concerns regarding risks posed to student and faculty safety.” – Page 92

Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Federal Judge Blocks Sweeping Title IX Regulation in Four States, Stunning LGBTQ Advocates

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 16, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Federal Judge Blocks Sweeping Title IX Regulation in Four States, Stunning LGBTQ Advocates

WASHINGTON / June 17, 2024 – This past Thursday federal Judge Terry Doughty handed down a temporary injunction against the new Title IX regulation (1). The sweeping federal regulation, issued on April 19, makes numerous changes to the original Title IX law, including expanding the definition of sex to include “gender identity” (2).

Noting that Title IX “was written and intended to protect biological women from discrimination,” Louisiana District Judge Doughty reasoned, “Such purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics. Enacting the changes in the Final Rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX: protecting biological females from discrimination.”

The judge also ruled the new regulation violates the free speech clause of the Constitution, the Spending Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Doughty’s ruling applies to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

The transformative Title IX regulation is encountering strong opposition across the country (3). To date, a total of nine lawsuits have been filed to block the controversial Title IX policy (4):

States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First (5)
States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (6)
States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Louisiana Department of Education, Rapides Parish School Board, and 17 Louisiana School Districts (7)

States of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (8)
States of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, et al. (9)
State of Texas and Two UT-Austin Professors (10)
State of Oklahoma (11)
Oklahoma Department of Education (12)
Carroll Independent School District (Texas) (13)

Decisions on many of these complaints are expected during the upcoming month.

In addition, 68 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have co-sponsored H.J. Resolution 165 that seeks to block the controversial regulation (14).

Advocates for LGBTQ rights were furious over the judge’s decision. Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson charged, “Today’s decision prioritizes anti-LGBTQ+ hate over the safety and well-being of students in the state. This is MAGA theatrics with the dangerous goal of weaving discrimination into law.” (15)

Earlier this month the Pew Research Center reported on the results of a national survey that shows 65% of registered voters believe whether a person is a man or woman is based on their biological sex at birth. In 2017, only 53% of voters believed that sex was biologically based (16).

Links:

Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

SAVE Stands in Support of Resolution 165 That Seeks to Block the New Title IX Regulation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 12, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Stands in Support of Resolution 165 That Seeks to Block the New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / June 12, 2024 – The Department of Education recently issued a new Title IX regulation that redefines sex to include “gender identity” (1). In response, 68 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are co-sponsoring a resolution that seeks to block the new regulation. H.J. Resolution 165 states simply:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance’ (89 Fed. Reg. 33474; published April 29, 2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.” (2)

In support of the Resolution, Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx charged, “The Biden administration’s final rule hacks Title IX into pieces and expunges decades of progress for women and girls across the nation. This is a clear and present threat, and one that cannot go unaddressed.” (3)

To date, nine lawsuits have been filed to block the controversial Title IX policy (4):

States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First (5)
States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (6)
States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Louisiana Department of Education, Rapides Parish School Board, and 17 Louisiana School Districts (7)

States of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (8)
States of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, et al. (9)
State of Texas and Two UT-Austin Professors (10)
State of Oklahoma (11)
Oklahoma Department of Education (12)
Carroll Independent School District (Texas) (13)

The most comprehensive lawsuit, from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina (5), charges the new regulation not only promotes harmful gender transitioning among underage students, but also impairs free speech, parental rights, bathroom privacy, women’s sports, and due process for the falsely accused.

The new Title IX policy affirms the Marxist vision to bring about a “sexless” society. In the words of Shulamith Firestone, the end goal of feminist revolution must be the elimination of the “sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken” (14).

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE – strongly supports H.J. Resolution 165.

Links:

Campus Due Process False Allegations Free Speech Press Release Title IX

Blockbuster Lawsuit Filed Against 15 Women’s Rights Organizations for Defamation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 30, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Lawrence DeMarco, LLM

Telephone: +1 215-901-1930

Email: ldemarco@boysandmen.net

Blockbuster Lawsuit Filed Against 15 Women’s Rights Organizations for Defamation

WASHINGTON / May 31, 2024 — Saifullah Khan, a former Yale University student who was acquitted of rape charges in 2018, has filed a defamation lawsuit against 15 prominent women’s rights organizations. (1) The lawsuit alleges that despite Khan’s acquittal in a court of law, the defendants falsely labeled him a “rapist” in a legal filing, causing severe damage to his reputation. (2)

Khan, an Afghan refugee who came to the United States as a child, was a full scholarship student at Yale University. In 2015, he was accused of sexual assault by a female classmate following a Halloween party. Following a highly publicized trial in 2018, the jury found Khan not guilty on all charges. (3)

Despite the acquittal, Yale University launched an internal disciplinary proceeding, found him responsible for sexual misconduct, and expelled him. Khan then sued Yale in 2019 for $110 million, claiming the university had denied him due process. (4)

Normally, accusers are granted immunity by courts when they testify in a legal proceeding. But in this case, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled last June that Yale’s disciplinary procedures lacked adequate due process protections to provide the accuser immunity for her testimony, allowing Khan’s accuser to be potentially held liable for defamation (5).

Two weeks ago, Khan expanded his legal battle, filing a new defamation suit against 15 women’s rights organizations, including the National Women’s Law Center, Legal Momentum, Jewish Women International, and others. (6) The complaint alleges these groups falsely characterized Khan as a “rapist” and made other defamatory statements in a legal filing, which caused him substantial reputational harm.

“I was acquitted in a court of law, yet trusted and powerful organizations continued to defame me,” stated Khan. He further explained that he doesn’t have a national agenda, but just wants to clear his name. (1)

The defendants, with combined assets exceeding $200 million, have not yet publicly responded to the suit. However, the case is likely to raise important questions about the boundaries of protected speech versus defamation in the context of sexual misconduct allegations during school hearings.

Links:

Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Letter to House Speaker Johnson

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 12, 2024

May 16, 2024

RE: Establishment of a House Task Force to End the Weaponization of the Department of Education

Speaker Mike Johnson

H-232, The Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Johnson:

On April 19, the Department of Education released its new Title IX regulation that changes the definition of “sex.” This new policy will cause harmful, systemic effects on children, schools, families, and ultimately to our entire society.

Response to the new regulation has been extremely negative.[1],[2],[3], [4],

In particular:

Seven lawsuits from 22 states have been filed in federal courts to block the regulation. [5]
Impressively, one of the lawsuits features 17 school districts in Louisiana as plaintiffs. [6]
Numerous states already have declared they will not follow the new policy, including AR, FL, LA, NE, OK, and SC. [7]

The excesses of Title IX have become a bi-partisan concern. A recent poll of 1,600 registered voters revealed a majority of persons now support state laws that would require children to wait until age 18 before they can receive transgender treatments: Republicans: 73%, Democrats: 61%.[8]

On May 9, representatives from several member-organizations of the Title IX Network [9] held meetings with staffers of 18 Members of the House of Representatives. The purpose of the meetings was to recommend the establishment of a Task Force of key House Members to confer on strategies to end the weaponization of the Department of Education.

During these meetings, we recommended that the Task Force consider these three broad options:

Major appropriations reductions
Major reorganization of the Department of Education
Complete abolition of the Department of Education

Staffer response to this recommendation was uniformly and strongly positive.

During the meetings, we urged that the Task Force be established now, before the November elections.

We also highlighted that the House Appropriations Committee had succeeded in approving important budget reductions in its FY24 Labor-HHS-Education bill:

Section 244: Prohibits the implementation of Biden’s Executive Order on “Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.”
Section 311: Prohibits the Department of Education from implementing the proposed Title IX regulations that were issued in July 2022 and in April 2023.
Section 312: Protects religious liberty in schools.
Section 534: Prohibits the use of federal funds for hormone therapy or surgical treatment for “gender-affirming care.”
Section 535: Prohibits the implementation of any other “diversity, equity, inclusion office, program, or training.”

Although these cuts did not survive to the final approved version of the Labor-HHS-Education bill, they represent an important first step of the process of restoring accountability to the Department of Education.

You may be aware that the Heritage Foundation already has developed a roadmap for this process.[10] This document may be a good starting point for the Task Force’s deliberations.

Based on the positive responses during our May 9 meetings, the following member-organizations of the Title IX Network hereby request that you promptly establish a Task Force to end the weaponization of the Department of Education.

We look forward to working with you. If you have further questions, feel free to contact Bob Thompson at rthompson@saveservices.org

Sincerely,

National Groups (31)

SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments)

AFA Action

Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization

AMAC Action

American Association of Evangelicals

American Association of Senior Citizens

American Life & Liberty PAC

America Values

Awake Americans

Catholics Count

Center for Equal Opportunity

Center for Military Readiness

Conservatives of Faith

ConservativeHQ.com

Eagle Forum

Global Strategic Alliance

Katartismos Global

Law Offices of Philip A. Byler

Less Government

Men and Women for a Representative Democracy in America

Mission America

National Association of Scholars

No Left Turn in Education

Palm Beach Freedom Institute

Project 21 Black Leadership Network

Radiance Foundation

60 Plus Association

Strategic Coalitions and Initiatives, LLC

Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

United Against Racism in Education

Women for Democracy in America

State Groups (21):

American Life & Liberty PAC, Virginia

Awake Illinois

Child Protection League Action

Eagle Forum of Alabama

Eagle Forum of Michigan

Independent Women’s Network, Bismarck Chapter

Louisiana Save Our Schools

Middle Resolution

Moms for Liberty Howard County, Maryland

Moms for Liberty Talbot County, Maryland

Ohio Value Voters

Parents on the Level

Protect Ohio Children Coalition

Roughrider Policy Center

Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity

Texas Eagle Forum

Texas Freedom Coalition

Utah Citizens for the Constitution

Utah Eagle Forum

Virginia Association of Scholars

Wisconsin Family Action

Cc: Virginia Foxx, Chairperson, Committee on Education and the Workforce

Cc: Other Republican Members of the House of Representatives

Links:

[1] https://nypost.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bidens-new-title-ix-rules-prove-its-time-for-the-doe-to-be-doa/

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/biden-admin-weaponizing-title-ix-promote-fringe-sexual-politics-opinion-1894635

[3] https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/14/from-title-ix-to-title-none-biden-kills-womens-sports-and-safety/

[4] https://thewordofdamocles.substack.com/p/another-biden-administration-attack

[5] https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/

[6] https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/file-stamped-louisiana-v-u-s-dep-t-of-education-title-ix-662fda6716ff7.pdf

[7] https://www.saveservices.org/2024/05/naked-attempt-to-strong-arm-our-schools-five-lawsuits-seek-to-block-sweeping-title-ix-rule/

[8] https://www.dailywire.com/news/majority-of-voters-support-state-laws-protecting-children-from-trans-procedures-poll

[9] https://www.saveservices.org/2022-Policy/

[10] https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-11.pdf

Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Legal Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

‘Naked attempt to strong-arm our schools:’ Five Lawsuits Seek to Block Sweeping Title IX Rule

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 5, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘Naked attempt to strong-arm our schools:’ Five Lawsuits Seek to Block Sweeping Title IX Rule

WASHINGTON / May 6, 2024 – It’s not often that a new federal regulation triggers such revulsion that five lawsuits are filed within days of its release. On April 19 the Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX regulation, which redefines sex to include “gender identity” (1). Within 11 days, five complaints against the new policy had been filed in federal courts by the following groups:

States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First (2)
States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (3)
States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho (4)
State of Texas (5)
Rapides Parish (Louisiana) School Board (6)

All of the lawsuits contend the new regulation exceeds the Department of Education’s legal authority, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act because its provisions are arbitrary and capricious.

The lawsuit from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, the most comprehensive of the five, charges the new regulation not only promotes harmful gender transitioning among underage students, but also impairs free speech, parental rights, bathroom privacy, women’s sports, and due process for the falsely accused.

The lawsuit from the Attorneys General of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho charges the Title IX rule is a “naked attempt to strong-arm our schools into molding our children … in the government’s preferred image of how a child should think, act, and speak” (3) — an accusation that recalls the Communist Party’s earlier crusade to mold an obedient “New Soviet Man” (7).

The lawsuit from the Rapides Parish School Board documents the myriad policy changes that schools would be required to make. The complaint states defiantly, “The school board does not have and does not intend to adopt a policy mandating that staff or students use pronouns that reflect students’ perceived gender identity when doing so is inconsistent with a student’s sex.”

Indeed, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill commented, “This is all for a political agenda, ignoring significant safety concerns for young women students in preschools, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges and universities across Louisiana and the entire country” (8).

The new – some would say, revolutionary – Title IX policy accords with the Marxist vision to bring about a “sexless” society. In the words of Shulamith Firestone, the end goal of feminist revolution must be the elimination of the “sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken” (9).

In addition, the governors of Arkansas (10) and Nebraska (11) ordered their schools to ignore the new Title IX policy. The previous week, similar directives had been issued in Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina (12).

The new regulation will impose sweeping changes on our nation’s schools. Brett Sokolow, head of the Association for Title IX Administrators, predicts that “60-70% of what we have in place now will need to change in some way to comply with the new Rule” (13).

Which means dramatically increased budgets and institutional clout for the highly politicized Title IX offices across the nation.

Links:

Campus Department of Education Due Process Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

‘DO NOT COMPLY. FIGHT.’ Americans Revolt Against New Title IX Rule

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 26, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘DO NOT COMPLY. FIGHT.’ Americans Revolt Against New Title IX Rule

WASHINGTON / April 29, 2024 – Release of the final Title IX regulation on April 19 has triggered a wave of protests against the policy, which seeks to transform our schools, reshape the family, and redefine the Constitution (1). That same day, media personality Megyn Kelly captured the national mood with this social media post: “DO NOT COMPLY. FIGHT.” (2)

In response to the new rule, state superintendents of education around the country issued directives to their schools:

Florida: Noting that the “Biden Administration maims the [Title IX] statute beyond recognition in an attempt to gaslight the country,” Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz instructed Florida schools, “At Governor Ron DeSantis’ direction, no educational institution should begin implementing any changes.” [bolding in the original] (3)

Louisiana: Superintendent Cade Brumley wrote to all school boards in the state, “The Title IX rule changes recklessly endanger students and seek to dismantle equal opportunities for females….Further, it remains my position that schools should not alter policies or procedures at this time.” (4)

Oklahoma: Charging the new rule would turn “not using preferred pronouns into a Title IX violation,” instructed schools, Superintendent Ryan Walters advised Oklahoma schools, “Please do not make any district policy changes based on the new Title IX regulations. These federal rule changes are illegal.” (5)

South Carolina: Superintendent Ellen Weaver warned schools, “By redefining the class of people that Title IX intends to protect, the Biden administration’s rule seeks to change the meaning and purpose of the underlying law.” Weaver then advised, “Therefore, we recommend districts not implement the new rule at this time. It is possible—even likely—that a court will enjoin the rule prior to its effective date.” [underlining in the original] (6)

Wyoming: State Superintendent Megan Degenfelder promised, “I will fight back against this federal overreach… and work to partner with my counterparts across the country to stand up to the Biden administration’s harmful regulations.” (7)

Within days of the release of the new regulation, denunciations were issued by organizations such as the Heritage Foundation (8), Defense of Freedom Institute (9), and the National Association of Scholars (10). Attorney Justin Dillon catalogued 16 ways that the new policy will decimate fairness and due process for falsely accused male students (11).

And strongly worded articles were published by the American Spectator (12), Get Bright (13), Reason (14), New York Post (15), The Free Press (16), and elsewhere.

Two organizations announced their plans to challenge the regulation in court: Independent Women’s Forum (17) and Alliance Defending Freedom (18), with a raft of additional lawsuits currently being drafted.

Such developments recall the mood that preceded the Boston Tea Party in 1773.

Citations:

Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Release of Controversial Title IX Regulation Revives Calls to Abolish Dept. of Education

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 23, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Release of Controversial Title IX Regulation Revives Calls to Abolish Dept. of Education

WASHINGTON / April 24, 2024 – The Department of Education released its final Title IX regulation last Friday (1). Slated to go into effect on August 1, 2024, the controversial rule changes the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” The policy is expected to have far-reaching effects on campus due process, free speech, gender transitioning of youth, parental rights, and women’s sports (2).

Within hours of the federal announcement, persons voiced strong opposition:

House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx commented, “This final rule dumps kerosene on the already raging fire that is Democrats’ contemptuous culture war that aims to radically redefine sex and gender. The rule also undermines existing due process rights, placing students and institutions in legal jeopardy and again undermining the protections Title IX is intended to provide” (3).

Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos stated, “The Biden Administration’s radical rewrite of Title IX guts the half century of protections and opportunities for women and callously replaces them with radical gender theory, as Biden’s far-left political base demanded. This regulation is an assault on women and girls” (4).

Numerous individuals have called for the abolition of the Department of Education, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and former candidates Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy. H.R. 899, introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie, likewise calls for the abolition of the Department (5).

The Heritage Foundation has released a detailed plan for the elimination of the Department of Education (6).

In response to the release of the final rule, the following 43 members of the Title IX Network issued the following statements:

AFA Action: “Force and fraud are necessary to convince a people to believe lies, and the Biden administration has doubled down on both with this Title IX rewrite that will hurt real women and undermine the basic and natural distinctions between the sexes.”
Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization: “President Biden’s changes to Title IX is a road map to confusion and injustice. DOE, in its current incarnation, has outlived its usefulness and needs to be abolished.”
Alliance Defending Freedom: “The Biden administration’s radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women, threatens student safety and privacy, and undermines fairness in women’s sports.”
AMAC Action: “Title IX’s protection of women and girls to participate in female athletic programs would in effect ‘be denied the benefits’ of such programs by allowing a person whose sex is male to participate in athletic programs or activities that are designated for women or girls.”
American Association of Christian Schools: “We are disappointed but not surprised that the radical Biden administration ignored the legitimate concerns of millions of American citizens regarding the politically driven rewrite of Title IX and the dangerous reinterpretation of the natural distinctions between men and women.”
American Association of Evangelicals: “The Biden Administration’s deceptive assault on truth and Title IX harms women, families, and our nation.”
Americans for Limited Government: “The Department of Education’s newest regulation is a direct attack on Title IX which is directly responsible for the opportunity provided to Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese and Riley Gaines among hundreds of thousands of other women to get a college education with an athletic scholarship.”
American Life & Liberty: “American Life & Liberty stands against the deliberate, abhorrent actions by both Biden and Department of Education’s Title IX decision that places the children they are obliged to protect into direct danger.”
American Values: “With this extreme redefinition of Title IX, the Biden/Harris administration has just declared war on women, threatening their privacy and safety.”
Awake Americans: “The Title IX amendments will nullify the protections of female students and athletes and it’s clear that our daughters aren’t safe in Biden’s America.”
Awake Illinois: “As tragic as it is to battle against some of the most anti-child, anti-parent policies in Illinois, it’s even more devastating to see the war on female students and athletes being waged now at the federal level.”
Center for Equal Opportunity: “The Center for Equal Opportunity opposes the inclusion of ‘gender identity’ as a prohibited category of sex discrimination under Title IX, one never intended by the legislation’s original meaning and outside the authority of the Department of Education to modify without action by Congress.”
Center for Military Readiness: “Violations of personal privacy in environments involving forced intimacy are disruptive and demoralizing for women in any environment, but especially in the military.”
Child Protection League: “State legislatures, Governors, and Attorneys General must refuse the federal dictates that assault children with false, dangerous, and radical gender ideology and that rob women and girls of their right to safety and privacy, completely gutting the congressional purpose of the Title IX law.”
Citizens for Renewing America: “The Biden administration is weaponizing woke critical gender theory to erase women from existence and to compel speech from an increasingly larger segment of society, soon to include even our nation’s troops.”
Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee: “Female students are being assaulted in school restrooms; female athletes are forced to surrender their privacy in the locker rooms and have their opportunities and achievements stolen in their own sports.”
ConservativeHQ: “Biden’s latest assault on America’s women and girls will not stand unchallenged. We have no intention of being told by Democrats that we must indulge the fantasies of mentally ill people who think that they can force us to call them by their ‘preferred pronouns.’”
Defense of Freedom Institute: “President Biden’s new Title IX rule is a textbook example of how extremists in the administration have hijacked the law to force radical changes in American society through its schools, colleges, and universities.”
Eagle Forum: “While the Biden Administration has punted on clarifying the impact of their redefinition of sex to sports, there is no doubt these regulations will undermine women’s and girls’ privacy rights, athletic prospects, and educational opportunities.”
Eagle Forum of Alabama: “While saying out of one side of its mouth that it must follow science, this administration with its new Title IX Regulation redefines the scientific definition of male and female to suit its radical agenda.”
Families Advocating for Campus Equality: “FACE is deeply disheartened to see this Administration roll back crucial due process protections that Americans believe everyone is entitled to, and that will inevitably lead to more false accusations, more unjust findings of responsibility, and more lawsuits.”
First Liberty Institute: “The Biden administration’s new rule puts thousands of students and teachers with religious beliefs that disagree with the Left’s definitions of sex and gender at risk.”
Girls Deserve Privacy: “The revised Title IX regulations threaten the safety of girls and women who will be forced to share private spaces with biological males.”
Greenwich Patriots: “All of the battles women have fought to achieve equality with men are being erased by the Biden Administration, which apparently thinks men make better women than women.”
Heritage Foundation: “It’s an exceptional feat for an executive agency to publish a rule that simultaneously manages to violate constitutional law, civil rights law, and administrative law, but the Department of Education has managed to do it with its patently illegal Title IX.”
Independent Women’s Forum: IWF is “preparing to sue the Biden administration to enjoin this unlawful action.”
Katartismos Global: “Katartismos Global is anchored in reality – the reality of men and women – and as a Christian ministry, we denounce these devastating changes to Title IX, dangerous to the identity bestowed upon every girl and boy by a loving and all-wise God.”
Law Offices of Barry S. Jacobson: “These proposed revisions are a testament to a process not only devoid of any concept of fundamental fairness and due process protections afforded to the accused, but of a systematic program that is an attack and an affront to the principles of American jurisprudence.”
Law Offices of Philip A. Blyer: “The Biden Administration’s omnibus Title IX regulation is an alarming unconstitutional abuse of executive power aimed at enforcing by bureaucratic fiat, totally alien to our constitutional republic, a radical re-definition of Title IX without congressional legislation.”
Less Government: “Title IX will now mandate that men can dominate women and this seems fair like just what its authors had in mind.”
Middle Resolution: “The changes made by the President to Title IX are designed to eliminate the differences between men and women, which is effectively a direct blow to women’s rights.”
Mission America: “The Biden administration’s unauthorized invention of law will have far-reaching, harmful effects in the lives of America’s children.”
Moms for Liberty, Harford County, MD: “Biden hates girls, women, parents, free speech, due process, and America.”
National Association of Scholars: “Congress never intended Title IX to become a weapon of fringe sexual politics and a due process disaster. But that’s what the Biden Administration is making it.”
Palm Beach Freedom Institute: “These intrusive new rules are so absurd that the time has come to abolish the wasteful Department of Education, which has from its unconstitutional inception done nothing but harm students and learning in America.”
Parents on the Level: “Protecting the family worldview in regard to our Creator is our highest priority.”
Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity: “The Left’s assault on American families continues and every candidate this year must be asked to go on record to log their support or opposition to this egregious destruction of Title IX.”
Salt & Light Council: “Biological women have a right to demand respect, privacy, and autonomy for their God-given birthright.”
60 Plus Association: “Women sports are important to universities and young women in general, and they should not be worried about young men playing against them as so-called girls, or using their locker rooms and showers.”
Tennessee Eagle Forum: “The proposed Title IX regulation contributes to the transformation of America’s families, including the blurring of the important distinction between male and female, husband and wife.”
Texas Eagle Forum: “The Biden Administration’s Title IX rewrite not only erases equal opportunity for women in education, it is the unconstitutional taking of free speech, due process, and parental rights, among other constitutionally guaranteed rights.”
Texas Values: “We will fight this re-write of Title IX every step of the way in Texas.”

Utah Citizens for the Constitution: “The Constitution delegates no power to the federal government in regard to education; in light of these radical changes to Title IX, it is time for states to take control of their education systems.”

Citations: