News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: Jessica_Rose on September 29, 2025, 12:44:44 PM Return to Full Version
Title: 16 states sue RFK Jr. over funding threats to sex ed programs...
Post by: Jessica_Rose on September 29, 2025, 12:44:44 PM
Post by: Jessica_Rose on September 29, 2025, 12:44:44 PM
16 states sue RFK Jr. over funding threats to sex ed programs that acknowledge trans people exist
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/09/16-states-sue-rfk-jr-over-funding-threats-to-ed-programs-that-aknowledge-trans-people-exist/
Molly Sprayregen (29 Sep 2025)
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia are suing the current administration over its threats to revoke funding for sexual education programs that acknowledge trans and nonbinary gender identities.
Led by Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon, the lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claims that the administration has violated federal law and is encroaching on Congress's spending authority.
The states are concerned with the Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) program and the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), the latter of which supports states in teaching about both contraception and abstinence and focuses on places with high teen birth rates, as well as on kids who are homeless or in foster care.
The administration has threatened to defund the programs in states that refuse to remove all references to trans identities from the curricula. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff states will lose at least $35 million in funding if the government follows through on its threats.
"Suddenly forcing Plaintiff States to remove medically supported, complete, and culturally appropriate content in the materials for PREP and SRAE is contrary to the laws that Congress adopted and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act," the lawsuit states.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/09/16-states-sue-rfk-jr-over-funding-threats-to-ed-programs-that-aknowledge-trans-people-exist/
Molly Sprayregen (29 Sep 2025)
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia are suing the current administration over its threats to revoke funding for sexual education programs that acknowledge trans and nonbinary gender identities.
Led by Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon, the lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claims that the administration has violated federal law and is encroaching on Congress's spending authority.
The states are concerned with the Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) program and the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), the latter of which supports states in teaching about both contraception and abstinence and focuses on places with high teen birth rates, as well as on kids who are homeless or in foster care.
The administration has threatened to defund the programs in states that refuse to remove all references to trans identities from the curricula. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff states will lose at least $35 million in funding if the government follows through on its threats.
"Suddenly forcing Plaintiff States to remove medically supported, complete, and culturally appropriate content in the materials for PREP and SRAE is contrary to the laws that Congress adopted and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act," the lawsuit states.
Title: Re: 16 states sue RFK Jr. over funding threats to sex ed programs...
Post by: Sarah B on September 29, 2025, 04:57:13 PM
Post by: Sarah B on September 29, 2025, 04:57:13 PM
Hi Everyone
Consider the policy as the government telling educators, "You can have these dollars only if you teach the message they prefer." This affects speech rights. The main issue is that HHS goes beyond setting neutral rules about federal money. It is asking recipients to leave out medically important content so the classroom shows the government's view. When funding conditions force you to follow a specific view, it raises a First Amendment concern.
Courts allow the government to define its programs. It can decide to fund abstinence programs, set age groups, or require certain materials. But it cannot force recipients to promote or hide an idea to get funding. That is unconstitutional. You should be able to accept a grant to teach health skills without giving up your right to share accurate information that does not match the government's views.
This relates to viewpoint discrimination. The rule goes beyond to teach a subject. It is to teach the subject but only if you ignore some students' identities. You can talk about puberty, contraceptives, relationships and consent. But you lose funding if you mention identities the agency opposes. Punishing one side of a discussion based on its view is a clear example of viewpoint discrimination.
HHS may say this is government speech, like a public health ad promoting quitting smoking. But this situation is different. It does not just set the message scope. It creates silence that makes the curriculum incomplete. It then threatens schools and nonprofits that do not stay silent. When the restriction changes what teachers can say or prevents grantees from speaking freely, it looks more like coercion than program rules.
The fear is real. When agencies threaten broadly, teachers cancel lessons, trainers cancel classes and administrators remove guidance. They do this not because the law says the material is illegal, but because they fear losing funding. This self-censorship shows that the government's conditions are limiting speech even before courts decide if they are legal.
Then, if following these rules becomes almost the same as making a promise to avoid certain content, it resembles past court rulings. Courts have overturned policies that require grantees to follow specific ideological tests. You can accept money to provide services but cannot be forced to accept a certain belief system. These points show that the policy forces speech, creates unconstitutional conditions, favors one view over others and chills free expression. This is not allowed by the First Amendment.
Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator
Consider the policy as the government telling educators, "You can have these dollars only if you teach the message they prefer." This affects speech rights. The main issue is that HHS goes beyond setting neutral rules about federal money. It is asking recipients to leave out medically important content so the classroom shows the government's view. When funding conditions force you to follow a specific view, it raises a First Amendment concern.
Courts allow the government to define its programs. It can decide to fund abstinence programs, set age groups, or require certain materials. But it cannot force recipients to promote or hide an idea to get funding. That is unconstitutional. You should be able to accept a grant to teach health skills without giving up your right to share accurate information that does not match the government's views.
This relates to viewpoint discrimination. The rule goes beyond to teach a subject. It is to teach the subject but only if you ignore some students' identities. You can talk about puberty, contraceptives, relationships and consent. But you lose funding if you mention identities the agency opposes. Punishing one side of a discussion based on its view is a clear example of viewpoint discrimination.
HHS may say this is government speech, like a public health ad promoting quitting smoking. But this situation is different. It does not just set the message scope. It creates silence that makes the curriculum incomplete. It then threatens schools and nonprofits that do not stay silent. When the restriction changes what teachers can say or prevents grantees from speaking freely, it looks more like coercion than program rules.
The fear is real. When agencies threaten broadly, teachers cancel lessons, trainers cancel classes and administrators remove guidance. They do this not because the law says the material is illegal, but because they fear losing funding. This self-censorship shows that the government's conditions are limiting speech even before courts decide if they are legal.
Then, if following these rules becomes almost the same as making a promise to avoid certain content, it resembles past court rulings. Courts have overturned policies that require grantees to follow specific ideological tests. You can accept money to provide services but cannot be forced to accept a certain belief system. These points show that the policy forces speech, creates unconstitutional conditions, favors one view over others and chills free expression. This is not allowed by the First Amendment.
Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator