Bad Parenting

Bad parenting is exactly what you get when an entire generation of young parents has been brainwashed into accepting a sick arrangement in which they are stripped of their fundamental rights while the government seizes authority to co-parent their children.

This isn’t some freak accident of modern life. It’s a deliberate, insidious power grab dressed up as compassionate virtue-signaling, even as we watch in horror as kids spiral into anxiety, depression, gender confusion, and outright moral chaos.

It started with the poisonous lie of “It takes a village.” What that really meant was “Here comes the government,” with all efforts designed to sell parents on the fiction that strangers in Washington or the local school district know better than Mom and Dad. Decades of expanding Child Protective Services, mandatory government schooling, and bottomless welfare policies engineered to shatter two-parent homes have done the dirty work of destroying the family quite well.

Today’s young parents were raised inside this bureaucratic beast. From kindergarten onward, they were drilled to trust “the experts” without question, to accept that “tolerance” is demonstrated only by bowing to social pressures regardless of family values, and to follow the Pied Piper that leads them away from their parents until the separation becomes normal and parents’ rights lose out to the state’s agenda. Millions of parents meekly surrendered their kids to the machine and call it “partnership.”

Public schools bombard children day in and day out with gender ideology and early sexualization—explicit library books, sexual orientation events, constant displays, and curricula that normalize confusion and premature sexual knowledge. This is no accident. It serves as a deliberate catalyst, driving a sharp wedge of doubt between children and their own parents while replacing Mom and Dad with “trusted adults” in institutional settings. Teachers, counselors, and activists become the child’s real confidants and moral guides by default.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, schools force-fed this poisonous ideology (never introduced in curricula before the past decade) to kindergartners like toxin in the milk bottle and kept it secret from parents. After the discovery, the institutions refused parents even the courtesy of an opt-out—until the Supreme Court drove a stake through that scheme last year in Mahmoud v. Taylor, affirming parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s religious and moral upbringing. California brazenly tried to let teachers secretly transition children behind their parents’ backs until the Supreme Court crushed that practice in Mirabelli v. Bonta. Ohio, Indiana, and other states are now racing to pass legislation protecting parents from having their children removed by child-welfare agencies simply for refusing to affirm a minor’s gender confusion.

The social contagion has infected schools, libraries, and clinics.

Teachers, guided by unions, are instructed to socially transition children behind parents’ backs. Counselors, guided by NGOs funded by taxpayer dollars, steer kids toward irreversible medical paths while warning them not to tell Mom and Dad until the plan is in full swing. Mental health interventions rely on heavy pharmaceuticals that numb any possibility of reason and growth toward healthy coping skills. Medical providers have succumbed to the social agenda of “gender-affirming care” that has irreversibly damaged thousands of young Americans, convincing parents that their children would kill themselves if they couldn’t switch genders.

The result? Young parents, themselves raised on the enforced premise that their feelings override science, the law, their families, and common sense, inevitably absorb the overarching lesson: give up your parental rights or give up your children. A generation of parents has been conditioned to outsource discipline to institutions, values to social media influencers, and moral formation to the state. When the kids inevitably crash and burn, struggling to make their way in the world, the social regime points the finger and loudly whispers “bad parenting”—demanding even more power over the next generation as the only solution to the societal spiral it itself curated.

Let the parent shaming begin.

This is evil masquerading as compassion. Every time a parent is coerced into silence, intimidated, or punished for daring to say “no,” another young family hears the message loud and clear: your authority is conditional. You are not sovereign over your own children—the government is. Public schools get to change your child’s name and gender identity at will and let boys watch girls in showers, but if you object at all, your child and all their friends are told you are a disgusting phobic bigot. Libraries get to stock graphic novels showing teenage boys giving each other blowjobs in front of children of all ages, and your only option is to keep your kid out of the library or cancel their card—even though libraries could easily restrict children to age-appropriate titles.

They won’t, and they don’t have to. We have to tolerate it because we allow it.

Doctors and insurance companies experiment with one drug regimen after another to manage out-of-control behaviors and depression raging through hundreds of thousands of teenagers, with no real resolution or accountability to children or parents. The brainwashing is complete when parents are grateful to the system for “co-parenting” with them through the wreckage of their own children’s lives.

Parents are supposed to just get over it and watch their child’s life fall into a mental health nightmare. How did we get here?

The answer has been hiding in plain sight: when you strip people of their true role in any setting and call it “partnership,” disastrous levels of dysfunction are the most likely result. It’s the predictable, engineered outcome of parents tricked into surrendering their once-unquestioned rights and responsibilities over their own children.

Parents, do you see yourselves and your families in this drowning pool?

This assault on the family must be exposed, confronted, and defeated. We need ironclad parental-rights laws with real teeth, massive school choice expansion to shatter the state’s monopoly on indoctrination, and a ferocious cultural uprising that refuses to accept the premise that a government department in another state is a better guardian than a fit mother or father. The Supreme Court has begun drawing lines in the sand. States are following. But the deepest work is cultural—re-teaching a generation that the family is the first and most legitimate authority, not a passenger in the back seat while the car drives off the cliff.

Parents must stop apologizing for wanting to raise their own kids and reclaim their God-given authority over the family. Stop asking permission to decide what is best for your child.

A wonderful, caring village is not raising your child. It’s a power-thirsty bureaucracy hiding in the schools, libraries, pharmacies, and clinics—and it is ruining your children on purpose to maintain control.

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/bad-parenting.html



Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

SafeLibraries.org - Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?

Community Standards: The Non-Negotiable Shield Against Sexualizing Our Kids

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged in many American public schools and libraries: parents are increasingly being sidelined from key decisions about their children's education—especially on sensitive topics like sexuality and gender identity.

This erosion of parental authority isn't organic nor is it accidental--it's a deliberate agenda driven systemic shift that exposes young students to explicit materials and certain ideologies without parental knowledge or consent. These efforts are often justified under the banners of “inclusivity” and “education.”

What exactly did you show my kid?

Ironically, parents are not "included" and many materials are being given to children too young to find them "educational" at all.

At the heart of this issue is the longstanding principle of parental rights—a fundamental aspect of society that has been repeatedly affirmed by U.S. courts for more than 100 years. These rights are being undermined by school and library policies that prioritize institutional discretion over family autonomy. Relief from the Courts across the country is being sought by families as schools and public libraries fight to be allowed to continue the practice of open access to sexually explicit materials regardless of age.

This ongoing conflict underscores a core reality: as the Supreme Court has affirmed, parents are the primary protectors of their children's best interests and possess the fundamental constitutional right to direct their upbringing and education without being shut out or overridden by schools or public libraries.

Opponents, however—a powerful vocal minority—have framed parental objections to sexually explicit materials available to children as censorship, successfully influencing policy in many districts and states to effectively override family oversight regarding curriculum, access to sexually explicit materials, and exposure to politically driven agenda initiatives.

Ginsberg v. New York (1968) is interpreted to say that limiting a child's exposure to sexually explicit materials is not censorship, and that obscene materials are not protected speech.

Constitutional Parent's Rights appear to be placed as secondary to a child's "right to read" which is not a right at all, but a suggested library policy by the American Library Association. "Freedom of Information," does not override Parent's Rights, either, also a suggestion from the ALA, however public libraries use both policies to potentially violate Constitutional rights of parents with regard to children's education and development.

Requests to place books in areas accessible to appropriate ages for the materials are met fierce opposition, cumbersome administrative barriers and denials with little recourse. Adults would have access no matter where the book ends up, and no Free Speech Rights are violated by age restricted curation. Many schools and libraries place books based on age and grade levels, and are guided by Community Standards as well as Kansas Law.

Many libraries allow all ages to access all materials

This is not normal for 
a children's section 

     Your little girl is 5 feet away from you looking for her favorite Dora the Explorer book and this page in "It's Perfectly Normal" (Harris, Robie H.) is what she sees in a book on the same shelf.

Can't un-see it, and now you get to explain it whether you like it or not. Even without the illustrations, you can see that the text is not meant for Elementary School children.

Hays Public Library was asked to put it in a Parenting section so you could see it first and decide if you wanted to have that conversation with your child, but they put it in the Children's section anyway.

Your Rights as a Parent just got stomped on.

Good luck with that.

Public schools and public libraries place sexually explicit illustrations and text in front of your children and require you to fight to protect your child from accidentally seeing it.

Over the last 10 years, publishers have increased the production of sexually explicit materials geared toward children, labeling those books as being for “ages 7-10” or “Ages 8+” with no objective criteria or accountability in making that decision. Those designations are a marketing category, not a Child Protective Standard or criteria for curriculum. Books for "ages 7-10" containing words like "clitoris" and "vulva" are clearly not written at the level of a first or second grade child, for example, as seen in Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg, Cory)

By Kansas law, many of these materials, labeled as children's books, would be illegal in any other setting besides the Public Library or School Library. K.S.A. 21-6402 (Harmful to Minors) and K.S.A. 21-6401 (Promotion of Obscenity to Minors) with their shared definitions use the Miller test (Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15 in 1973) both indicate that reasonable adults, being “the average person, applying contemporary community standards" could find thousands of books in public libraries and schools to be obscene. K.S.A. 21-6401 applies to both Public Libraries and public schools, and holds the Board of Directors and School Board responsible for policies that allow children to be exposed to materials that may be obscene, as those books would surely meet the definition of Harmful, according to Kansas law. 

How far into the majority does it take to be a Community Standard?

Several polls have shown strong public (and often parental) support—exceeding 70%—for parents having the right to review or access what their children are exposed to in school curricula, instructional materials, and libraries. This aligns with widespread calls for transparency in education, where parents want visibility into books, lessons, and content without intentionally difficult bureaucratic hurdles. 

Here are some key examples from credible surveys:

• A 2022 poll commissioned by the Goldwater Institute (conducted by Scott Rasmussen) found that 84% of American voters agree parents should be able to see the curriculum plans and materials for their children’s classes. This overwhelming majority underscores support for easy access to what kids are learning in school.
• A related Scott Rasmussen National Survey (referenced in 2024 analyses) showed 82% of voters favor allowing parents full access to all curriculum plans and materials for their children's classes.
• A 2022 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated broad concern about content exposure, with 78% of parents and 84% of grandparents believing it is important for parents to have control over what books are present in public school libraries. Additionally, majorities across parties (including 85% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of independents) viewed it as very important for schools to fully inform parents about classroom teachings.
• In a 2025 Washington State poll by RMG Research (for Napolitan News Service), 96% of respondents believed parents should have access to their children’s school curriculum, reflecting near-universal support for transparency in one state context.

These figures come from polls tied to debates over parental rights, curriculum transparency laws, and concerns about explicit materials in schools/libraries.

Community Standards are on full display in these polls.

The practice of disregarding Community Standards not only violates constitutional protections but fractures the trust between families and educators, turning schools and libraries into ideological battlegrounds rather than neutral learning environments. These and other polls clearly indicate the public feels that parents should know what their children are being shown and what is taught to them. That means before it happens. After the fact when it's too late-- the damage is done and the seed of confusion is planted.

Recent court decisions have begun to push back against this overreach, affirming that parents hold primary authority.

The Court ruled in Mahmoud v. Taylor that a Maryland School Board's denial of parental notice opt-outs for instruction involving LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks unconstitutionally burdens the parents' right to the free exercise of their religion. The Court ordered the school board to provide advance notice and allow opt-outs for the instruction in question while the case proceeds. 

In the landmark case Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to temporarily block California's policies (including AB 1955) that prohibited schools from notifying parents about a child's gender identity changes or social transitions without the student's consent. The conservative majority reinstated a lower court's injunction, stating that such secrecy likely violates parents' rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause (for religious families) and the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process protections to direct the upbringing and education of their children. 

The Court emphasized that these policies "conceal [information about gender dysphoria] from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours," substantially interfering with parental guidance. This emergency ruling, hailed by advocates as one of the most significant parental rights victories in a generation, has placed California schools in legal limbo and could reshape similar secretive policies nationwide. 

Parents are the authors of the standards of the communities in which they live. Both court cases are related to violations of parent's rights due to the active (not passive) attempts to circumvent parental authority. Passive attempts to go around a parent's rights would include putting an sexually explicit book in the children's section, and then blame the parent for not supervising well enough when their child picks it up. 

If public libraries and schools
would consider Community Standards, 
much of the turmoil today
could have been prevented

Community Standards have been left outside the gate as if they don't exist

The surge in litigation —and the avalanche of resulting legislation—is precisely what happens when Community Standards are ignored, while parental rights, women's rights, and children's rights are systematically trampled upon.

Over the past decade, we've seen a relentless push to expose young children to sexually explicit materials and ideologies that promote gender confusion, often without meaningful parental input or consent. The result has been widespread parental outrage, eroded trust in public institutions, and a flood of lawsuits challenging school policies, library practices, and state laws. Courts and lawmakers are now forced to step in and restore the natural balance because basic constitutional protections—long recognized as fundamental to family autonomy—have been overridden using public schools and libraries as launching pad, causing societal chaos.

When fundamental rights are ignored at scale, the legal system becomes the only recourse left to protect children, safeguard women's spaces and opportunities, and reaffirm that parents—not schools, libraries, or distant bureaucracies—are the primary guardians of their children's well-being and upbringing.

Gender ideology has taken over education and dominated the conversation in practically every industry and social setting. Policies regarding what children read and materials used for education have been co-opted by non-governmental organizations with no accountability to voters or families into every public school and public library across the country.

Parents are told that it is their responsibility to monitor what their child sees while policies and legally maneuvered defenses undermine any true empowerment to exercise that responsibility. Libraries and schools are not telling parents what's actually in the books they are giving to the children. What happens when trusted adults over a period of years repeatedly tell an entire generation of children that they or a bunch of their friends are in the "wrong body" and that their parents are wrong about it they don't agree?

The beginning of the end buried in the pages of books for kids

Example:

Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg), a book in the Children's section in many libraries including the Hays Public Library, has the following quotes:

"But having a penis isn't what makes you a boy. Having a vulva isn't what makes you a girl" p. 71.

"I think this is the part where they tell us about the difference between boys and girls." "Only boys and girls? What about the rest of us?" "Excellent question, Zai. If everybody is different, how could there be only two kinds of people?" p. 72-73.

"Sometimes the people looking see a big clitoris and think it's a penis. Sometimes they see a small penis and think it's a clitoris. Sometimes they aren't sure." p. 77

So if the adults in the room can't be sure if a baby is a boy or a girl, how can the child ever be really sure what sex they are?

They can't, and that's the point of books like this.

This book teaches little kids about
masturbation and points out that
children can't really be sure of their sex

Editors have dropped hints throughout thousands of books that children might be in the "wrong body." Public schools and libraries have put those books in front of millions of children, defending the practice by saying the publisher says the book is for children and somebody somewhere gave the book a good review.

Community Standards be damned.

So here we are...

Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort or mental tension that arises when a person holds two or more conflicting beliefs, values, attitudes, or ideas. Children manifest conflicting messages about gender/sexuality (e.g., family teachings vs. school/media content) with confusion, anxiety, depression, or giving in to alignment with one side or the other if only to resolve unbearable tension.

Schools and Libraries have been used as tools, a means to an end, an insidious garden to deeply plant the seeds of gender dysphoria in the most vulnerable, impressionable young minds, advanced and guarded by an aggressive political agenda that should have absolutely nothing to do with children.

Why are children being exposed to sexually explicit materials only in public schools and libraries?

K.S.A. 21-6401 
and K.S.A. 21-6402 
 prohibit display 
of obscene materials
to minors

Because it would be illegal in literally any other setting. Public schools and libraries are institutions where Community Standards are supposed to be a factor.

Children from pre-school on up are bombarded with messaging about sexual orientation, gender ideology, confusing mixed messages, and are divided from their parents and communities by all of it.

The resulting generational cognitive dissonance has caused societal upheaval

States are passing laws that prohibit boys from entering girls private spaces, competing in girls sports, listing anything but the biological sex on a Driver's License, and more; all to relieve the cognitive dissonance and legal entanglements that have been created by it.

In the Kansas Senate Bill 244 (SB 244), enacted in February 2026, "Sex" is defined as biological sex at birth (male or female, based on reproductive biology/genetics).

Settled biology now requires a law to enforce it, because little boys have been told for years that they can be girls and vice versa, just by saying it is so, in thousands of books and classrooms across the country.

27 states have laws explicitly banning male students from participating in female sports, requiring participation based on sex identified at birth. This covers K-12 schools (and often higher education). An additional 2 states (Alaska and Virginia) use regulations or agency policies to achieve similar restrictions.

• Key states include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming.
• Recent additions strengthening laws in 2025 included Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Utah.
• The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in January 2026 on challenges to Idaho and West Virginia laws (cases like Hecox v. Little and B.P.J. v. West Virginia), with indications the conservative majority may uphold such bans under Title IX and equal protection grounds. A federal executive order (2025) and NCAA policy changes have also aligned with restricting women's categories to those assigned female at birth.

This man was told he could 
be a woman if that's what he
wanted to be

Pending legislation in 2026 includes dozens of sports-related bills (96 tracked so far) in various states, often seeking to codify or expand these restrictions, including definitions of sex/gender.

Around 21 states have laws or policies expressly prohibiting males from using female bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, or changing facilities in K-12 schools and/or government-owned buildings (e.g., public facilities). Some extend to private settings or add criminal penalties.

Explicit bans (often in schools/government buildings):

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming and others with variations in the laws.

Pending legislation in 2026 includes 44+ bathroom-related bills, with some expanding to private businesses or adding enforcement mechanisms.

Drag queens roll around
on the floor
with children
while parents are
shamed for objecting

All of this because Community Standards are not only ignored, but condemned

How much of a majority does it take to make a Community Standard?

Rasmussen Reports / Capitol Resource Institute Poll (September 2025): An overwhelming majority opposes sexually explicit books in public school libraries.

• 70% of voters are concerned (50% very concerned) that school-age children are exposed to sexual material that is not age-appropriate.
• 62% believe books with explicit sexual depictions of sex acts (including homosexual sex) should not be in public high school libraries.
• Opposition rises to 74% for middle schools and 81% for elementary schools.
• Majorities across parties (78% Republicans, 51% Democrats, 58% independents) say it's very important for schools to fully inform parents about classroom teachings. Source: Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,212 likely voters (margin ±3%).

Earlier Rasmussen Reports Poll (September 2022): Similar findings with high concern.

• 77% concerned about exposure to sexually age-inappropriate material (55% very concerned).
• 78% of parents and 84% of grandparents believe parents should have control over books in public school libraries.
• 70% of parents and 86% of grandparents oppose schools teaching how to perform sex acts. These results show broad bipartisan agreement on parental control and opposition to explicit content.

EveryLibrary Institute / Book Riot Parent Perceptions Survey (2023, updated context in 2025 reports):

• 60% believe school libraries should restrict access by age or require parental permission for certain books.
• 76% think parents should decide if their child accesses info on challenging topics like sex ed.
• 85% believe some books are inappropriate for all children.
• 95% want school libraries, but with safeguards.          

Parents' rights should not face a barrage of legal challenges, it should be the other way around. Parents don't have to prove they have rights, the Supreme Court already did that. Schools and Libraries should have to prove that they are upholding those rights and are in compliance with the law.

Community Standards should be the prevailing wind of common sense

It is the legal and moral responsibility of all adults to protect all children, Parents have the Constitutional right to decide what is best for their child without deception or barriers from schools, public libraries, or politicians with an agenda.

Having a sense of community means knowing your neighbor’s child is as precious as your own—and acting like it. Parents want to protect all children, no one is asking for anything that doesn't accomplish that goal. That's the Community Standard everywhere, for all children are to be protected.

Parents should be able to trust that their Community IS the Standard.

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/community-standards-non-negotiable.html

Follow On X: @patriotesse

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Object to this book in the Children’s section? You're out of luck

ALA inspired policy effectively blocks any meaningful challenge by Parents for materials they don't want their children to see at the public library, even though the law requires it. 

Teenagers in sexual positions in

"It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie H. Harris

with illustrations by Michael Emberley.

Many public libraries in Kansas and most other states have adopted a new policy, guided by the American Library Association (ALA), that limits citizens' and parents' rights to challenge books and materials accessible to minors in libraries and via online downloads.

At Hays Public Library (HPL), key policy elements include:

"A Citizen’s Request for Reconsideration of a Library Material may only be submitted by residents of Ellis County." However, HPL materials are shared via interlibrary loan, resource sharing, rural outreach, and school support through the Central Kansas Library System (CKLS), serving 17 counties. Citizens and parents in the other 16 counties cannot request reconsideration, despite most checkouts originating outside Ellis County (per the latest Library Board meeting). This restricts parents' rights to guide their children's education when using public libraries.
"An item reviewed through the reconsideration process is not eligible for review again until 5 years after the date the review is completed." The Library Director does not publicize titles under consideration and can reject new requests by claiming prior objections (even if unresolved).
"Due to the nature of a consortium and digital collections, content on Sunflower eLibrary cannot be reconsidered if it was purchased and shared by another library. Content on other online resources may also be ineligible for reconsideration depending on how the library subscribes to content on each online resource." Minors can download sexually explicit books unrestricted, eliminating parents' ability to challenge shared digital materials—comprising nearly all titles.

HPL refuses to limit juvenile cardholders to juvenile titles or shield children as young as 5 from viewing sexually explicit print books. All ages access all materials freely, burdening parents to prove obscenity rather than requiring the library to demonstrate child protection.

Librarians, per ALA's Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement, consider no materials obscene for children, ensuring that all ages have access to all materials. Public libraries and the Kansas State Library Handbook follow ALA guidelines, overriding and blocking parental objections.

A key passage from Justice Brennan's majority opinion in

Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)

, explains parental responsibility: "First of all, constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society. 'It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.' Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166. The legislature could properly conclude that parents and others, teachers for example, who have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility."

This affirms:

Parents hold a fundamental, constitutionally recognized role as primary directors of their children's upbringing and moral development.
The state can enact laws (e.g., age restrictions) to support parents' responsibilities, not undermine them.
Government has a legitimate interest in child welfare, especially limiting third-party exposure to harmful content without parental consent.

Drawing on precedents like

Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)

and

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925

), the Court emphasized parental primacy in child-rearing, permitting aligned state intervention.

Troxel v. Granville (2000)

reaffirmed that fit parents presumptively act in their children's best interests, curbing state interference in family decisions like education.

The interpretation supports parents' primary responsibility for children's moral and developmental "education" (child-rearing), allowing laws to restrict unsuitable materials without overriding parental choices. This has influenced later parental rights cases in education and upbringing.

HPL's policy protects the library from repeated requests. While reasonable policies are lawful, a 5-year blackout is unreasonable—spanning from 8th grade to adulthood—prioritizing library convenience over parental rights. It fails to uphold laws supporting parents' guidance of children's education.

Thousands of libraries use this policy, treating reconsideration requests as censorship. At HPL, all such requests sought only to relocate sexually explicit books to the adult section for parental review before checkout; none demanded removal (though the director removed low-circulation titles voluntarily).

Adapted from Sunflower eLibrary and ALA policies, it's nationwide, restricting parental rights and exposing millions of elementary-aged children to sexually explicit materials (defended as educational regardless of age) without parental knowledge or recourse (if prior objections exist).

The Library Director suggested another option: forgo a library card or accept the policy.

So either deal with it or get out and stay out.

Yet, taxpayers fund these public institutions.

Does it sound like this policy will withstand legal scrutiny?

"It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie H. Harris

with illustrations by Michael Emberley.

Does this look like a perfectly normal

children's book to you?

 —

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/02/object-to-this-book-youre-out-of-luck.html

On X:@patriotesse

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

SafeLibraries.org - Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?