We are gathering co-sponsors for the bills described below:

1. Parents' Rights Opt-In Bill - "The David Parker Bill"
An Act Regarding Parental Notification and Consent
Docket #: HD01944

2. Eliminate the "Commission for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth"
An Act Protecting Children and Parents
Docket #: HD01939

3. Repeal the "Buffer Zone" Law
Official title: An Act restoring free speech and public access.
Docket #: HD02043

4. Remove exemption of schools from anti-pornography laws
An Act Relative to Protecting Children from Harm in Schools
Docket #: HD01927

5. Remove exemption of Legislature and its committees from open meeting laws
An Act relative to open meetings
Docket #: HD02073

1. Parents' Rights Opt In Bill - "The David Parker Bill".

Official title: An Act Regarding Parental Notification and Consent.
Docket #: HD01944

This bill will give parents the right to decide what their children are introduced to regarding sexuality, homosexuality, transgenderism, and and similar behaviors which are now being presented to children in schools across the state. The current notification law does not work and makes it difficult, intimidating, and embarrassing for parents and kids in the areas where it applies. This bill is specific rather than vague, and changes the current "opt out" to "opt-in". (Currently, "sexuality" is the only opt-out subject in school curriculums.  Every other elective is "opt-in.")

Another problem for parents has been psychologically intrusive surveys given to kids at achools, which radical groups use to soften kids' perceptions of dangerous activities. And by using leading questions, the surveys also create misleading "statistics" to persuade politicians to give them more taxpayer money.

What it does: This bill amends the current parental notification law, Ch. 71 Sec. 32A, expanding upon it and modernizing it to address current conditions. This includes: (1) expanding the range of subjects covered from merely "human sexuality issues" which is poorly defined, to include specific issues actually introduced to kids in Massachusetts schools; (2) granting parents the "opt-in" option (similar to other curricula in the schools) instead of "opt-out", which has proven unworkable; and (3) removes the Department of Education as the arbiter of disputes. In addition, (4) it covers surveys given in the schools to children, which have become increasingly sexually explicit and psychologically intrusive, but which parents had no control over.

Why it's needed: The current law, passed in 1996, has loopholes, unworkable sections, and limitations that have rendered it ineffective. The vagueness of the current law has been cited in court cases as giving schools the leeway to expose a broad range of sexual, homosexual, and transgender subjects to kids -- even in elementary school -- without parents' consent, or knowledge. This situation has become extremely frustrating to parents.

This bill is named after a Lexington parent who made a big financial sacrifice fighting for parents' rights. In 2006 David Parker, father of a kindergartner, brought a federal civil rights case against the Town of Lexington regarding teaching of homosexuality and transgenderism to their 6-year-old son without their knowledge or consent. After nearly three years, the federal judge ruled against them because of the limitations of the current law. Schools have used that ruling to accelerate the homosexual and transgender programs in K-12, free to ignore parents' wishes and religious beliefs.

Also in the current law, the Department of Education is the arbiter of disputes; that has proven to be a complete disaster because the bureaucrats in the DOE invariably always side with the schools over parents. Thus, parents across the state have demanded more rights and protections.
 

2. Eliminate the "Commission for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth".

Official title: An Act Protecting Children and Parents.
Docket #: HD01939

This Commission includes homosexual and transgender activists from across the state who work unsupervised with public school children K-12 leading homosexual and transgender related programs events in schools and off campus. The horrible things this commission had done with children is almost beyond description.

What it does: It repeals the law which created the "Commission for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth". That law was passed in a particularly dishonest manner -- as a budget item in 2006, in order to avoid having to hold a public hearing and normal debate -- because of the extremely offensive and controversial nature of this commission.

Why it's needed: Many of these "Commission" activities are extremely graphic, explicit, and dangerous, and often include other homosexual, transgender, and even sadomasochist activists mingling with kids. There is no oversight to this commission, and their activities over the last few years have outraged parents and even public officials.

In addition, last summer one adult commission member was arrested for soliciting homosexual sex from a minor. Others connected to the commission have also faced accusations of similar unsavory activities with children. In 2009, the Commission even had "Mr. Boston Leather" (homosexual sadomasochist) greet teens (and hand out his "business card") at the BAGLY prom ending Youth Pride Day. Incredibly, this commission has been given millions of taxpayer dollars thanks to the powerful homosexual lobby and their allies in the Legislature. No other state has such a commission, and Massachusetts shouldn't, either. Other examples of the many events with children by Commission members include "Youth Pride" parades and the distribution of an offensive and dangerous flyer, along with homosexual condoms.
 

3. Repeal the "Buffer Zone" Law.

Official title: An Act restoring free speech and public access.
Docket #: HD02043

What it does: It amends the law which created the "buffer zone" around abortion clinics.

Why it's needed: This outrageous law was passed specifically to stop pro-life speech and dissemination of information to women considering abortions. It restricts people with a pro-life message from using public streets and sidewalks around abortion clinics and provides fines and jail time to violators. Among other problems, the law is widely reviled as an unconstitutional restriction of the First Amendment's free speech protections in public places. And it sets a dangerous precedent for the curtailing of speech related to a specific issue.
 

4. Remove exemption of schools from anti-pornography laws.

Official title: An Act Relative to Protecting Children from Harm in Schools.
Docket #: HD01927

What it does: It removes the exemption of public schools from laws regarding obscenity and "materials harmful to minors."

Why it's needed: In recent years public schools across Massachusetts have been distributing (and assigning) materials to children that are graphic, explicit depictions of sexual and homosexual activities which would legally be considered pornography. If a parent gave these to his child he would face arrest and prosecution.

One well-known example is the book The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky which has been assigned in a number of schools across the state. The book contains graphic descriptions of children engaging in, among other things: Sexual acts between teenagers, anal sex between two boys, male masturbation, oral sex, homosexual acts between men and boys, sex between a boy and a dog, female masturbation using an object. This is one of many such books assigned to kids and put into school libraries. Parents have demanded that their children be protected from such material in the public schools.
 

5. Remove exemption of Legislature and its committees from open meeting laws.

Official title: An Act relative to open meetings.
Docket #: HD02073

The legislature excludes itself and its committees, bodies and commissions from the state's open meeting laws, primarily discussed in Section 11A and Section 11A5 of Chapter 30 of the Mass. General Laws.

What it does: It removes the exemption of the Legislature and its committees, bodies, and commissions from the state's open meeting laws.

Why it's needed: This has been a source of outrage and frustration over the years to citizens who want open and transparent government. There is no logical reason that all local and county government bodies should be held to these standards, but not the state bodies. Thus, state bodies do not have to post notice of their meetings, and they can ban taping of their meetings by the public -- unlike local and county government bodies. In particular, one government commission regularly bans recording of its public meetings, does not sufficiently provide notice, and holds its meetings in places inconvenient to the general public.