October 2022 — Ed Reporter Monthly Email Edition

A proposed amendment to the Missouri State Constitution would embed Critical Race Theory (CRT) into that document, along with the potential to enshrine other far-left agenda items such as unrestricted abortion and radical LGBTQ+ indoctrination programs, all without the knowledge of the vast majority of citizens.

The alleged purpose of the Marijuana Legalization Initiative (Amendment 3) is to expand the use of medical marijuana — legal in Missouri — to include recreational marijuana. But Dr. Mary Byrne tipped off Education Reporter about the amendment’s hidden agenda during her September 17 presentation at the Phyllis Schlafly Eagles’ annual Eagle Council event and later as a guest on Phyllis Schlafly Eagles President Ed Martin’s September 26 Pro America Report.

Dr. Byrne is an education expert with a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction, and a doctorate in special education. She explained that Amendment 3 has little to do with marijuana and lots to do with pushing a far-left agenda in Missouri communities via the state constitution. She says Amendment 3 presents “a new path” for getting around parents who complain at school board meetings and for bypassing state legislatures that enact laws prohibiting CRT and transgender grooming in schools.

Supporters of Amendment 3

Byrne and others report that there is a cast of left-wing characters behind the creation and promotion of Amendment 3. Dubbed “the Woke Industry Players” by the Missouri Constitutional Conservatives PAC, pushers of Amendment 3 include Karin Chester, a.k.a. Karin Spinks, former vice president of the Missouri Medical Cannabis Trade Association, SWADE cannabis dispensaries, the California-based Jane’s Dispensary, the cannabis products manufacturer Clovr, and GOOD DAY FARM, a marijuana-growing enterprise that operates multiple locations in Arkansas and Missouri.

In addition to promoting the unrestricted use of marijuana, each of these “players” appears steeped in pro-abortion and LGBTQ+ activism. As the Constitutional Conservatives PAC states: “[L]et us be clear — this is not about cannabis (marijuana). It’s about extreme leftists cornering a market that funds their destructive agendas.

“These entities are actively pushing, promoting, and funding the trans narrative that many see as an attempted grooming of adolescents. Many are also on board with defunding the police, as well as fighting to make abortion a constitutional right in Missouri.” The PAC goes on to explain that Chester “is heavily active in the medical marijuana industry and is also working to bring an initiative petition to Missourians that would add abortion to the Missouri Constitution as a protected right.” Last June, following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and using the name Karin Spinks, Chester posted the following on Twitter: “I need a lady lawyer than can help write an initiative petition to constitutionally legalize abortion in Missouri. Who wants to help??? This cannot be allowed to stand. PERIOD.”

Jane’s Dispensary, CLOVR, and SWADE all actively promote the transgender community and its initiatives, and they help in fundraising for “trans causes.” CLOVR and SWADE “sponsored The World Naked Bike Ride which is an excuse for overly sexualized individuals to ‘bare it all’ under the guise of ‘cyclists awareness’ and protest against combustion vehicles because of their supposed detriment to the environment (climate change mixed with sexual deviancy).”

With 25 medical marijuana licenses in Missouri worth $75 million, Good Day Farm not only cultivates cannabis but is a supporter of The Center Project, an organization operating in mid-Missouri that “works strategically to create LGBTQ+ programming for public consumption, along with creating initiatives and outreach programs to indoctrinate communities with the dogma of the Left.”

As Dr. Byrne explains, the strategy of these groups is “buy the ballot with money; bypass the legislature by abusing the petition initiative, and target certain counties” where there is a high likelihood of support. She adds that out-of-state organizations typically orchestrate and finance these types of initiatives, which would otherwise fail.

Joshua Lehman of Missouri RINO Watch bears out Byrne’s contention. He says George Soros “had his hand in the original medical marijuana initiative through his Drug Policy Alliance, and likewise with Amendment 3.” Lehman notes that Kansas City BLM activist, Justice Gatson, of the “Reale Justice Network,” the ACLU, and Empower Missouri, architects of the Defund the Police Movement in Missouri, “are all aligned on the passing of Amendment 3.”

What’s in Amendment 3?

Amendment 3 asks voters to “remove state prohibitions on purchasing, possessing, consuming, using, delivering, manufacturing, and selling marijuana for personal use for adults over the age of 21.” It will require a license for “personal cultivation with prescribed limits” and “allow persons with certain marijuana-related non-violent offenses to petition for release from incarceration or parole and probation, and have records expunged.” It will “impose a six percent tax on the retail price of [recreational] marijuana.”

The entire amendment is 38 pages long and suggests an agenda that won’t appear on the November ballot. The Missouri Constitutional Conservatives PAC points out that “page 27 of Amendment 3 establishes a ‘chief equity officer’ to establish public education programming.”

Dr. Byrne, the Missouri Constitutional Conservatives PAC, RINO Watch, and other observers caution that the equity officer position “is not appointed by the governor with advice and consent of the Missouri Senate and therefore offers no representative oversight.” They note that this individual would be constitutionally mandated to produce CRT-aligned programming “that will perpetuate the false and divisive narrative that parents have fought so hard to remove from the schools, under the guise of helping minorities get into this very limited and restricted industry.”

As these concerned groups and individuals point out “why create a constitutional prohibition on our conservative lawmakers” in Missouri, who should rightly be able to exercise oversight of any actions or activities conducted by the state’s executive branch? The above-quoted section of the full amendment also states: “No elected official shall interfere directly or indirectly with the department’s obligations and activities under this section,” and that the chief equity officer cannot be fired without “cause,” nor can his or her “lawful official activities” be interfered with “by the department.”

New strategy by the Left?

Missouri’s Amendment 3 may not be the only example of an attempt to modify a state constitution to further leftist goals that most citizens and elected officials would not support through legislative means. Conservative citizens and political leaders should take heed and examine the full text of any ballot initiatives that appear through the signature-gathering process. Legitimate signers of such petitions are often only informed of the portion that is likely to garner widespread appeal, without disclosure of the initiative’s actual and/or hidden intent.

Citizens must be especially alert if, as some observers believe, this is a new strategy by the Left to achieve their goals. Once these initiatives are embedded in state constitutions, they could be very difficult if not impossible to remove.

The harmful effects of pot

Aside from its hidden intent, the premise of Amendment 3 that the recreational use of marijuana is a good thing, is gravely flawed. Volumes have been written about the dangers of cannabis use, from the well-documented negative effects in Colorado and California following legalization of the drug in those states in 2014 and 2015 respectively, to Alex Berenson’s compelling 2019 book, Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence, which Education Reporter reviewed.

In February 2019, Education Reporter provided details of a report by Colorado Christian University which showed that “taxpayers in that state spent $4.57 for every dollar” the drug generated due to the costs associated with marijuana use. In separate reports following Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana, researchers found an increase in traffic accidents caused by drivers operating under the influence, an increase in emergency room visits, and increases in violent behavior and mental illness among users.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that marijuana has both short- and long-term effects on the brain, and that the active ingredient THC “acts on numerous areas in the brain.” These effects include altered senses and sense of time, mood swings, and impairments in body movement, thinking, and memory. Additionally, hallucinations, delusions, and psychoses occur with higher doses. In young people, studies show ongoing marijuana use can cause “an average loss of eight IQ points between ages 13 and 38. The lost mental abilities didn’t fully return in those who quit marijuana as adults.”

The physical effects of marijuana smoke include lung irritation and breathing problems similar to those of cigarette smokers, and users may experience elevated heart rate levels for up to three hours after smoking. Other physical effects include nausea and vomiting.

The unborn children of pregnant women who smoke marijuana also experience negative effects. After birth, levels of THC have been found in the breast milk of smoking mothers that are high enough to negatively impact the brain development of their infants.

The solution: Educated Voters

With so many obvious negatives, why would voters support Amendment 3? One answer is that they are not getting the whole story, and the news media is unlikely to offer an unbiased, in-depth assessment of this initiative.

For example, the St. Louis Post Dispatch on October 5 decried the Missouri Constitutional Conservatives PAC as “falsely” claiming that Missouri’s “marijuana measure advances ‘critical race theory.’” They say the amendment “doesn’t mention any race as a criteria to qualify for a marijuana microbusiness license.” However, the very title of “chief equity officer” indicates, per the rhetoric of the progressive left itself, that the amendment will mandate a focus on race.

The qualifications listed for microbusiness applicants speak for themselves, and each applicant must meet at least one. These include “a net worth of less than $250,000 and meeting lower-income requirements; having a service-connected disability card from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; being arrested or prosecuted, or having a close relative arrested or prosecuted, for certain nonviolent marijuana offenses; residing in a ZIP code or census tract that meets certain conditions; graduating from an unaccredited school district, or living in a ZIP code with an unaccredited school district for three of the last five years.”

According to Front Line magazine’s October 1 voter’s guide edition, Secretary of State John R. (Jay) Ashcroft suggested that voters take care when deciding the fate of Amendment 3. “I encourage Missourians to study and educate themselves on any ballot initiative … Amendment 3 is particularly lengthy and should be given careful consideration.” [Emphasis in the original.] Voters would be wise to heed his advice before the November election.

On September 29, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 107 making California a “sanctuary state” for the provision of “gender-affirming care” for children and teens experiencing gender dysphoria. The new law offers protection for a wide range of “care,” including prescriptions for sex hormones, puberty blockers, and life-changing gender transition surgeries. Newsom openly welcomed children and families from states that restrict or prohibit such procedures for minors.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported that the bill’s sponsor, California Democrat Senator Scott Wiener, bragged that the new law will “offer refuge to trans kids and their families if they’re being criminalized in their home states.” He continued: “States like Texas and Alabama are seeking to tear these families apart. California won’t be party to it. We have your backs.”

But Newsom and Wiener may be on shaky legal ground despite the rhetoric. California Family Council (CFC) President Jonathan Keller issued a statement charging that “SB 107 endangers every young person in the nation who experiences gender dysphoria. By signing this extreme bill, Gavin Newsom is telling all parents across the country that he knows what’s best for their children. Mothers and fathers in every state should demand their elected representatives push back against this unconstitutional assault on parental rights. Governors and legislators must defend their citizens from this out-of-control government in Sacramento.”

The CFC pointed out that while the law is being characterized as “a bill to make California a safe haven for parents who want to transition their children medically but are forbidden to by their home states, Newsom, Wiener, and the mainstream media are ignoring the section of the bill that enables children to be kidnapped and enticed to the state against their parents’ wishes and against the court custody determinations and laws of other states.”

In other words, the official position in typical far-left California fashion is that the new law permits the state to “protect” beleaguered families of trans kids trapped in restrictive red states. The CFC, however, charges that the law empowers California courts “to remove out-of-state children from their parent’s custody if those children come to California because they can’t get sterilizing transgender drugs and mutilating surgeries in their home states or because their parents object to these experimental treatments for gender dysphoria.”

Text of SB 107

Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit legal organization that advocates for religious liberty, free speech, and pro-family issues, performed a legal analysis of SB 107 in August and found it fraught with danger for parental rights. Examples include:

• SEC. 5. Section 3424 of the Family Code is amended by the new law to include giving California courts temporary “emergency” jurisdiction of a child present in the state who “has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined by Section 16010.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.”
• SEC. 7. Section 3428 of the Family Code, as summarized by the non-partisan Legislative Counsel’s Digest was amended to enable SB 107 to “additionally prohibit a court from considering the taking or retention of a child from a person who has legal custody of the child, if the taking or retention was for obtaining gender-affirming health care or mental health care.”

Even the Los Angeles Times concedes that the new law may be on less than solid constitutional ground. The Times wrote on September 29: “Last-minute amendments to the bill include a severability clause because ‘it is unclear whether this bill will run afoul of the Constitution,’ according to a legislative analysis of the measure. Severability allows parts of a law to remain in effect even if other provisions are struck down.”

State legislatures taking action

On September 20, Bloomberglaw.com reported in its Health Law & Business section that “at least 40” bills have been introduced in approximately 24 states that are similar to the Alabama law prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to minors under the potential penalty of felony charges. Although a federal judge has issued an injunction against Alabama’s medication ban, and an Arkansas law has suffered a similar fate, the push to limit such destructive and often irreversible treatments is moving forward in many states across the country.

While mainstream media articles often blame “conservative legislators” as though they operate in a vacuum without input from constituents, the reality is that more and more parents and citizens are demanding an end to the radical transgender agenda.

According to Bloomberg, a Georgia legislative proposal would penalize doctors who prescribe puberty blockers to minors with prison sentences of up to 10 years, and another in North Carolina “would fine physicians $1,000 per occurrence for doing the same.” A bill introduced in Mississippi would limit health insurance coverage for so-called “transgender health-care services.”

Predictably, the Bloomberglaw.com article favors the LGBTQ position, but it also demonstrates the extent of the nationwide legislative efforts that reflect the increasingly evident and widespread parental outrage.

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt publicly decried SB 107 before Newsom signed it, saying: “We certainly don’t need leaders passing laws specifically designed to undermine parents. Particularly egregious is a bill on Governor Newsom’s desk that would allow for young children with gender dysphoria in other states to come to California to undergo life-changing procedures without their parents’ consent… Imagine your young son or daughter, a minor, running away from home seeking life-altering medicine or surgery, and some government not only enables your child, but keeps them from their parents. This is simply wrong, we know it inherently, and Americans agree with that. Parents should be in charge of their children, not politicians in California or Washington, DC.”

Stitt made his comments in conjunction with a letter signed by more than 45 local and national organizations asking the governor of California to veto the bill, a request he obviously ignored. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis is pushing for a ban on child “sex changes”, citing a report by the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration that shows there is insufficient research to determine whether such procedures are either safe or effective.

The battle lines appear to be drawn throughout the nation, but perhaps SB 107 will be ruled unconstitutional before a full-scale war breaks out.

If California Governor Gavin Newsom thought his state cornered the market on radical pro-transgender legislation, he was mistaken. He was actually beaten to the punch two years ago by Virginia House of Delegates Member, Democrat Elizabeth Guzman, when she introduced Virginia’s controversial House Bill 580. Recently, Guzman publicly stated her intent to reintroduce the bill, which expands the definition of child abuse to include “physical or mental injury on the basis of the child’s gender identity or sexual orientation.” [Emphasis added.]

Guzman’s saber-rattling about the bill caught the attention of Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who ripped it to shreds during his October 15 Tucker Carlson Tonight program. Carlson said Guzman’s new offering “will charge parents with a felony, strip them of their employment, and imprison them if they don’t go along with their minor children’s sex changes.” He continued: “If your 12-year-old daughter wants a mastectomy and you object in any way — if you raise questions, Elizabeth Guzman will send you to jail.”

Carlson backed up these charges by showing a news clip of a reporter summarizing the content of Guzman’s new bill: “Her bill would expand the state’s definition of child abuse and neglect,” he said, “to include parents who do not affirm their child’s gender identity or sexual orientation.” The news report then included a clip of Guzman explaining that the legislation would not only require an investigation by a social worker “but also a police investigation before a decision is made that there is going to be a CPS (Child Protective Services) charge.”

The reporter asked Guzman what the consequences might be for parents who fail to affirm their LGBTQ child, to which Guzman replied that it would depend on what the investigations showed. “It could be a felony, it could be a misdemeanor, but we do know that a CPS charge could harm [a parent’s] employment, education …”

The Washington Stand also tackled the subject of Guzman’s bill. The Stand quoted Guzman as telling local media that the measure “is designed to ‘help’ parents go by what the Bible says about gender ideology and homosexuality,” making the casual observer wonder if she has ever actually read the Bible.

The article observed that the lawmaker “seemed delighted by the possibility of ruining the future career prospects of parents who oppose transgender ideology… She said her bill’s goal is ‘educating parents, because the law tells you the do’s and don’ts’ of raising your own children. So, this law is telling you do not abuse your children because they are LGBTQ.”

Carlson pointed out that Guzman is a recent immigrant from Peru (she speaks in heavily accented English) and that it might be a good idea for her to “wait a few generations” before telling American parents how to raise their children, particularly when what she is proposing to force on them “would never be tolerated in the country from which she comes.”

But even if Guzman’s bill advances and eventually makes it to Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s desk, it’s unlikely he would be willing to sign it, and it’s questionable whether the legislature could muster sufficient votes to override a veto. Nonetheless, this is an ominous attempt to further strip parents of their right to raise their own children as they see fit.

Gender dysphoria exploding

Recent studies show an explosion in gender dysphoria among American schoolchildren; in fact, it has nearly doubled in just a few years. A report by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law shows that approximately “1.6 million people ages 13+ identify as transgender in the U.S.,” with nearly one in five between the ages of 13-17. The study used data obtained from the CDC’s “Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,” a survey given nationally to adults, and the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, which is administered to high school students, and advanced statistical modeling.

In one example described by the Family Research Council, students claiming to be transgender has increased “almost 11-fold” in Montgomery County, Maryland Public Schools (MCPS) since 2019, when the district introduced an Intake Form: Supporting Student Gender Identity. The school district is Maryland’s largest district, located in a wealthy suburb of Washington, DC. FRC author Joshua Arnold wrote: “Here in this wealthy suburb of the nation’s capital, it seems the Left’s fixation on gender anarchy is troubling the youth.”

Arnold relates that reports of gender nonconformity are accelerating among students in Montgomery County district schools:

• In school year 2019-2020, 35 students filled out the form (four in elementary school, 19 in middle, 12 in high). In school year 2020-2021, 108 students filled out the form (15 elementary, 40 middle, 53 high) for a cumulative total of 143. In school year 2021-2022, 239 students filled out the form (18 elementary, 129 middle, 92 high) for a cumulative total of 382. In (the current, incomplete) school year 2022-2023, 41 students have filled out the form (four elementary, 15 middle, 22 high) for a cumulative total of 423 students.

He explained that the number of forms “tripled from 2019-2020 and then doubled again from 2020-2021.”

An October 11 article by the Daily Caller reported a 582 percent increase in the number of students identifying as gender nonconforming in just two years in Montgomery County Public Schools, “according to internal data posted to an educator’s Twitter page.” The Caller revealed that the data was not publicly available to parents or taxpayers, but that it was posted on Twitter October 6 “when educator Elicia Eberhart-Bliss shared an image of a slide show presented at a meeting of the district’s ‘Pride ALLiance.’” That post has since been taken down.

The article also described the MCPS “guidelines for dealing with students who identify as gender nonconforming: Kids have a ‘right’to keep their in-school gender identities private. The form used to collect data on which students identify as gender nonconforming states that parents can be involved only ‘if the student states that [the parents] are aware of and supportive of the student’s gender identity.’” This is yet another example of a public school district promoting gender ideology behind the backs of parents.

What’s fueling the explosion?

For years, many if not most schools have incorporated pro-LGBTQ curricula in health and sex education classes, and this instruction has trickled down to include kindergarten and even preschool classrooms. More recently, teachers and administrators — on little more than the child’s whim — refer to students by names and pronouns of the opposite gender, typically without parental knowledge or permission. Still more recently, some schools have created secret transgender transition closets in which children can change into clothing of the opposite sex for the school day, and which Education Reporter described last June. Observers might logically wonder what kids wouldn’t enjoy playing dress-up at school. The “secret” part about theses closets of course is keeping them secret from parents.

Also in vogue are written “gender support plans” that school administrators across the nation use “to help young children transition into the gender identity of their choice, without the knowledge or consent of their parents.” Similar to the MCPS “Intake Form,” the Gender Spectrum Education and Training Gender Support Plan form specifically states that its purpose is “to create shared understandings of how the student’s authentic gender will be accounted for and supported at school,” as though such matters are routine business of the public school.

On August 30, Catholic News Agency (CNA) reported that these “gender support plans include procedures for the child to socially transition while at school with a new name, clothing, pronouns, and referrals to gender clinics for counseling and treatment, such as prescriptions for puberty blockers. Frequently missing from the picture? Parents.”

CNA asserted that it’s not always easy for parents to know if their child has a gender support plan. “Parents have to start by looking in the right places — often embedded in school district websites or under a school’s ‘counseling resources’ tab.”

Parents also need to listen to their children and look for signs that something is going on, such as emotional distress, although experts concede this may not be enough, and that further digging may be needed. If educational alternatives are not possible, such as homeschooling, parents “need to try their best to be actively involved in their children’s schools.”

Is it any wonder students are failing to learn basic skills and that schools are hiding the results of standardized tests because the scores are so bad, as one New York mom charged on Twitter. For some time now, schools have shown they are indoctrination centers rather than sources of genuine learning.

CHOP training videos

As if all the above weren’t enough, a grassroots parent activist who identifies herself on Twitter as Megan Eileen, posted eye-opening videos about the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s Gender and Sexuality Development Program, known incredibly by its acronym CHOP. The clips reveal the level of manipulation the gender-dysphoric child or teen and his or her parents are exposed to by “professional resources” at this clinic, which partners with schools and community organizations, and is unfortunately not the only one of its kind in the country.

The videos Megan Eileen shared on Twitter can no longer be found on the CHOP website, but remain posted on her Twitter feed. The first clip shows a teenage boy, Jacob, being interviewed in an exam room by a sympathetic “professional” who affirms that the teen wants to identify as a girl named Amanda, and elicits information from him about his mom’s attitude. She then asks whether or not the teen wants “some help from us to help your mom understand what’s going on with you.” The young man confirms that his mom “won’t listen to me or my therapist,” opening the door wider, but the piece of information these “professionals” ultimately latch onto — the “hook” so to speak, is that the teen claims he isn’t eating because he wants to stay “skinny” in order to look “more like a girl.”

The second clip shows three of the staff collaborating on how to “help mom get on board, so we can get Amanda the help she needs.”

The third clip shows mom in the exam room with the professional and the teen, where mom displays her unhappiness with the situation. The examiner sends her to get some coffee and after she leaves, conspires with the teen by commenting that “the most helpful thing we can do today is really to start a conversation with your mom.” Jacob responds: “Yeah, she’s just really unhappy about this.”

The final clip shows the three medical “professionals” ganging up on the obviously distraught mother, focusing on the fact that the boy is refusing to eat and that “we just want the best for Jacob, and I think we all want his health to be in a better place.” In the end, they tell her the boy is called “Amanda” at school, and ask if she can consider doing the same at home. She at first says she doesn’t think she can do it but later concedes that she “will try.” And thus, the stage is set for a gender transition just as these activist “professionals” intended.

Whether these videos are entirely fictional or reflect actual interviews that were recreated for training purposes is anyone’s guess. Regardless, they shine an eye-opening light on the tactics that are used to lead confused and questioning young people down a dangerous road from which there is often no return.

Ryan Girdusky’s 1776 Project PAC hopes to extend its successful record of electing conservative school board candidates in the November elections. Dozens of conservative candidates have been campaigning across the country in the wake of the successful ouster of many liberal school board members during the past year. The Washington Examiner recently reported that with the midterm elections looming, Girdusky “sees more [victories] on the horizon.” Despite its limited resources, the PAC is supporting candidates currently running in more than a half dozen states. The activist told the Examiner that “many Republican voters are parents and grandparents, and they are concerned with the state of public education and where it’s going. The politicization of education is serving as a motivator to voters.” Laura Zorc, director of education for the FreedomWorks organization, which, among other pro-parent activities, offers a training program for school board candidates, joined Girdusky in praising Governor Ron DeSantis’ endorsement of a cohort of school board candidates in Florida in August. Most of them were also supported by the 1776 PAC and all won their races. “It would really be great if Arizona Gov. [Doug] Ducey and [Virginia] Gov. Youngkin recognize that we have some quality candidates that are running and give them an endorsement,” Zorc told the Examiner. “It would give them credibility and a boost.” She added: “We can no longer afford to elect people on our school boards that have never had children in our schools and all of a sudden decided that this is now important to them. We have done that for too long, and I think our communities are ready for different representation and leadership.”

U.S. public school students showed historically dismal math and reading scores on the 2022 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) for fourth- and eighth-graders. Fox News reported on the results of the “Nation’s Report Card” on October 24, noting that fourth- and eighth-grade scores were lower than any recorded on the NAEP since 1992, with just 31 percent of eighth graders testing proficient in reading, and only 26 percent proficient in math. “Math scores were worst among eighth graders, with 38% earning scores deemed ‘below basic’ — a cutoff that measures, for example, whether students can find the third angle of a triangle if they’re given the other two…” Most officials quoted in the mainstream media blamed the poor student performance on the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that nearly all schools were closed for at least a year, with some closed for two years. But not all laid the failure entirely at the feet of the pandemic. Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said: “Don’t be misled into believing this is a pandemic story. Every data point shows academic achievement trending downward over the last decade. The conclusion could not be clearer: Our education system is broken. It continues to fail generation after generation of kids…” Jonathan Butcher, a senior fellow in education at The Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that “if policymakers are serious about helping disadvantaged students then they need to refocus classroom time and taxpayers’ money away from ‘equity audits’ and lessons about ‘gender identity’ and focus on the core skills of math and reading.” The late Phyllis Schlafly often lamented the poor performance of American students on the NAEP. For example, in 2003 she wrote: “On June 19 the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), reported that 36 percent of 4th graders canNOT read at what the test defined as a ‘basic’ level… The NAEP report also revealed the consistent and dramatic decline of all reading skills in the upper grades. One in four 12th graders canNOT read at a ‘basic’ level…” Obviously, the situation has only gotten worse and illiteracy among U.S. students has deteriorated from a critical level to languishing on life support.

The online retail giant, Amazon, stands accused of selling “suicide kits” to children in a new lawsuit brought by the families of 16-year-old Kristine Jónsson of Ohio and 17-year-old Ethan McCarthy of West Virginia, who died using the kits. The complaint charges that the teens, who did not know each other, were able to order the food preservative sodium nitrite which, “when mixed with water and drunk can render a person unconscious within twenty minutes.” Along with sodium nitrite, “Amazon recommends that customers also purchase a small scale to measure the right dose, Tagamet to prevent vomiting up the liquid, and the ‘Amazon edition’ of the Peaceful Pill Handbook which contains a chapter with instructions on how to administer these ingredients together to die.” The suit’s preliminary statement reads: “Even after parents and regulators warned Amazon that Sodium Nitrite had no household use, Amazon continued to sell it to households for under twenty dollars, and with two-day delivery.” The teens were allegedly able to buy the chemical, even though Amazon’s policy requires that “people under the age of 18 can only use the service with the involvement of a parent or guardian.” The suit claims Jónsson created her own account, which Amazon failed to question or even ask for her age, and McCarthy used his mother’s account without her knowledge. The mother said that when she received Amazon’s email receipt for the order, she immediately contacted customer service to dispute it and was told the order was canceled. Instead, her son received the product four days later. The GatewayPundit.com quoted the plaintiffs’ legal team as saying: “This is different from [Amazon] selling rope, knives, or other implements that can be used for death because there is no household use for [sodium nitrite] at the level of purity (98-99%) it sells it.” An Amazon spokesman countered that the product is “legal, not intended for consumption, and unfortunately, like many products, it can be misused.” Perhaps the moral of these tragic cases is that parents should more closely monitor their children’s access the the internet.