This brief was researched and developed to provide medical and legal analysis and recommendations with regard to the pending Nagle v. Nagle case in the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
Why RI’s Supreme Court Should Set National Precedent that Healthy Young Children with Naturally Acquired SARS-CoV-2 Immunity Don’t Need the Covid-19 Vaccine
by Andrew Bostom, MD, MS and Gregory Piccirilli, Esq.
On February 9, 2023, the Rhode Island Supreme Court (RISC) granted divorced father Joshua Nagle’s emergency motion for a stay on covid-19 vaccination of his young daughters, as petitioned via a lawsuit filed by his former wife. The RISC case was filed as an appeal to a previous ruling from Rhode Island’s Family Court, which sided with the mother.
When the RISC convenes to hear formal arguments in this case (Nagle v. Nagle), April 13, 2023, it will mark perhaps the first time in the nation that the matter of parental disagreement over childhood covid-19 vaccination is decided by a state’s highest court.
We believe the case of the father, Joshua Nagle, who seeks to avoid triple covid-19 vaccination of his healthy, previously SARS-CoV-2 infected five- and eight-year-old daughters, is firmly rooted in both evidence-based medicine and sound law.
The Evidence-Based Medicine Case Against Covid-19 Vaccination of These Previously SARS-CoV-2-Infected Healthy Five- and Nine-Year-Old Girls
Joshua Nagle’s daughters have been SARS-CoV-2 infected twice in the past ~year during January, and July, of 2022. Each time the girls were infected, they experienced either minimal symptoms, of brief duration, or were entirely asymptomatic. We now know those mild, self-limited SARS-CoV-2 infections confer a natural immunity to the virus that is more robust and enduring vis-à-vis any which might result from covid-19 mRNA vaccination. Key evidence in support of that contention, includes:
–North Carolina data from ~890K children aged 5 to 11 years-old during a period of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant predominance (published in the New England Journal of Medicine) which revealed (see figure, below) the clear superiority of natural immunity in preventing covid-19 hospitalizations. Specifically, at 10-months, prior infection/naturally acquired SARS-CoV-2 immunity conferred 86.9% protection against hospitalization which exceeded the 5-month protection (76.1%) afforded by vaccination, with the gap widening each successive month (i.e., months 1-5) where direct comparisons were available.
–A subsequent Lancet meta-analysis (figure follows) of adult populations confirmed and extended these findings demonstrating that prior infection afforded stronger, longer lasting immunity against “severe disease,” i.e., covid hospitalization and death.
–Subgroup data from Pfizer’s randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of covid-19 mRNA vaccination in 5 to 11 year-olds showed that among those children with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, none even developed mild covid-19 infections in the either the active vaccine, or placebo vaccine groups.
Regardless of immune status, the SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate (covid-19 deaths/total infected) in children has been mercifully trifling, on the order of ~1/335,000 (0.0003%), globally, for those < 19 years-old.
More recent U.K. data evaluating the omicron variant period described a rate of 1/1,000,000 among 5 to 11 year-olds, while in children of all age groups, deaths were largely confined to those “with severe comorbidities, especially neurodisabilities.”
Rhode Island data provide local validation of these trends: there have been zero primary pediatric covid-19 deaths during 3 years of the pandemic
(here; here; The latter source also indicates there were 251 non-covid-19 pediatric deaths in Rhode Island from 1/1/2020-3/1/23). In contrast, three Rhode Island children died during a single pandemic H1N1 influenza season in 2009 to 2010.
Hospitalization rates, certainly for primary covid-19 hospitalizations (here; here), and in particular those with severe illness, have always been extremely low in children, since the advent of the pandemic. Moreover, concordant French and Canadian data reported pediatric influenza hospitalization rates for pandemic and/or select seasonal influenza years, were > 4-times those for covid-19. Again, data from Rhode Island are entirely consistent with these findings:
–During the 16-week period from February 13, 2022 through June 4, 2022 there were a total of only 15 primary covid-19 pediatric hospitalizations (for ages 0 to 17 years-old)—<1 per week—as determined by Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) criteria;
–At the peak of this past “cold-flu season” in Rhode Island, i.e., October through December, 2022, there were 14 pediatric covid-19 hospitalizations, versus 67 pediatric influenza hospitalizations, and (at least) 304 hospitalizations for pediatric respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), per RIDOH (and Hasbro Children’s Hospital)
–For the past year (2/1/22 to 1/31/23), only six 5 to 9 year-old Rhode Island children have been hospitalized for primary Covid-19, irrespective of Covid-19 vaccination status (i.e., 2/ the 30-40% fully vaccinated; 4/ the 60-70% not fully vaccinated).
Rigorously and independently validating all these data, no child in either the placebo or actively vaccinated groups of Pfizer’s RCT of 5 to 11 year-olds was hospitalized.
These trial findings affirmed the very mild nature of covid-19 in children, and highlighted the complete absence of any RCT data—the highest standard of evidence (acknowledged in pediatric medicine as well)—demonstrating covid-19 vaccination of children “prevents” such rare covid-19 hospitalizations! Furthermore, there are literally no extant randomized, controlled trial data whatsoever evaluating “bivalent” covid-19 booster vaccination in children!!
Two peer reviewed assessments of covid-19 vaccination risk/benefit examining RCT data in low (i.e., confined to 18 to 29 year-olds) to moderate risk (i.e., all Pfizer and Moderna trial participants) have each demonstrated the risk of vaccine-associated serious adverse events (SAEs) outweighed any potential vaccine-associated reduction in covid-19 hospitalizations.
Given the extraordinarily low risk for covid-19 hospitalization in the pediatric population, relative to these adult populations, pediatric covid-19 vaccination risk/benefit stands, axiomatically, to be more adverse. Earlier we mentioned the paucity of covid-19 hospitalizations for Rhode Island children aged 5- to 9-years-old in the past year, only 6, divided in equal proportions, between those fully vaccinated and not fully vaccinated.
The Center For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s passive vaccine injury surveillance mechanism, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), notoriously under-reports putative vaccine-associated adverse events (by ~30-fold in this peer reviewed study).
Two covid-19 vaccine-associated SAEs were recorded in VAERS among 5- to 9-year old Rhode Island girls during 2022, both requiring emergent care: a 5- year-old who presented with hives, and then a facial nerve palsy within 5-days of vaccination, and a 9-year-old who developed both chest pain/tightness, and hives, almost immediately after vaccination.
While the 9-year-old’s rapid-onset chest symptoms are clearly not consistent with covid-vaccine-associated myopericarditis (14 cases of which occurred during 2021 among healthy Rhode Island men under 35 years-old, and were published in a peer reviewed journal), we note the Taiwanese government just compensated the family of an unidentified 5- to 11-year-old girl who died from fulminant, autopsy-proven lymphocytic myocarditis 3-days after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 mRNA vaccine.
Perhaps some of these unfavorable risk/benefit data have captured the attention of the vast preponderance of Rhode Island parents, only 36% of whom have chosen to vaccinate their 5-9-year-old children with the primary (2-shot) covid-19 vaccine series, while a mere 10% have “boosted” them with a third injection. Joshua Nagle shares the rational, evidence-based concerns of this super-majority 90% of Rhode Island parents who have decided they do not want their healthy 5- to 9-year-olds to receive three covid-19 vaccine injections.
Finally, the views of Mr. Nagle, and the lion’s share of Rhode Island parents, are externally validated by whole Western European nations, and America’s third largest state, Florida:
—France has just announced it is not recommending further covid vaccination for those under 65-years-old without comorbidity.
—Denmark does not recommend vaccination for any healthy persons under 50-years-old.
—Norway and Sweden do not recommend vaccinating healthy children under 18-years-old.
—The U.K. won’t even offer the vaccine to those < 12-years-old.
—Florida (already in March, 2022) recommended against vaccinating healthy children 5-to 17-years-old.
The Specific Legal Case Against Covid-19 Vaccination of These Previously SARS-CoV-2-Infected Healthy Five- and Nine-Year-Old Girls
We believe examination of the plaintiff’s pediatrician expert witness, Dr. Colleen Ann Powers, elucidated her non-evidence-based justification for vaccinating healthy, previously SARS-CoV-2 infected children, in our case, the Nagle children. We also maintain the Family Court trial judge’s decision in favor of the plaintiff was subject to contradictory legal reasoning.
Dr. Powers, the plaintiff’s pediatrician, recommended that the Nagle children, notwithstanding their naturally acquired immunity, receive the 2-shot original covid-19 vaccine series, and within 3-4-months afterward, also get a bivalent booster (third injection). She conceded that the sole purpose of the vaccine was to benefit the recipient by protecting against severe covid-19 illness, and death.
The only basis for her opinion that the Nagle children should receive the vaccine (X 3) was her incurious, uncritical acceptance of the generic recommendations of the CDC, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). She conducted no independent research; in fact, she was confused about when the Pfizer RCT in 5- to 11-year-old children was conducted, and what it had shown (i.e., no protection against covid-19 hospitalization could be demonstrated because there were no hospitalizations in the entire RCT, regardless of vaccination status, and not even the occurrence of mild infections amongst those children with prior natural immunity, also independent of vaccination status).
Dr. Powers was also unaware that the vaccine was only Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) but conceded that if POTUS Biden declared the emergency over, it might change her recommendation. (Note: On January 30, 2023, President Biden advised Congress that he will end the national emergency for COVID-19 on May 11, 2023. At present, it is unclear how that action will affect covid-19 vaccine availability, subsequently.)
Dr. Powers was further unaware that less than 40% of children in the US have had the vaccine (just 36% in Rhode Island have been vaccinated with 2-shots), even though those data are published in the AAP material she receives. She also did not know how many children in Rhode Island have died because of Covid, and was surprised to learn that number was zero.
As for whether the vaccine is required to attend school, Dr. Powers admitted it is not. She also agreed that in August, 2022, the Rhode Island Department of Education ended any distinction between covid-19 vaccinated or unvaccinated children in school.
Dr. Powers initially asserted that there was scientific consensus recommending the vaccine to children; but was unaware that at least one large state (Florida), and entire Western European countries (France, the U.K., Denmark, Sweden, Norway), did not.
She was unaware that the infection fatality rate for COVID in 0- to 19-year-olds is 0.0003%, or that of those 3 deaths per million, virtually all occurred in children with major, chronic co-morbidities. When confronted with such irrefragable information, Dr. Powers admitted she was “surprised.”
Similarly, Dr. Powers downplayed evidence of potential harm as reported in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). In September of 2021, the RIDOH produced a report (published in The Rhode Island Medical Society Journal) which noted that within the first eight months of VAERS surveillance of Rhode Islanders after the covid-19 vaccine rollout, between January and September of 2021, there were nearly 1,500 reports of vaccine-associated adverse reactions, including 89 hospitalizations, and 16 deaths.
When presented with this information, Dr. Powers tried to minimize it, although she did concede that “they (presumably, RIDOH) should investigate that.” (Unfortunately, despite repeated inquiries, we have not been able to uncover any evidence that RIDOH has followed up on that 2021 report.)
We argue, moreover, the Family Court trial judge, Associate Justice Sandra Lanni erred in two fundamental ways. First, she made a best interests of the child determination after finding that the father acted reasonably in accordance with the final divorce decree.
Second, even if the Family Court were permitted to ignore the language of the final decree, the Court (i.e., via Judge Lanni) failed to articulate how the 8 factors in the best interest of the child standard warranted a change in custody for the mother to make the sole decision regarding COVID-19 vaccination.
In addressing the final divorce decree and the issue of reasonableness, the Family Court found that “there is not uniformity of agreement in the medical community regarding whether children, in general, should receive the COVID vaccine and whether the benefits of the vaccine to children, in general, outweigh the risks or vice versa.” Further, she found that the parents generally agreed to all medical recommendations of the pediatrician, including other vaccines; the sole issue of dispute involved COVID-19. This led inextricably to the Family Court determining that the father had acted reasonably in rejecting the vaccine:
“In light of the evidence before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that the Defendant’s refusal to follow the recommendations of Dr. Powers, in this one instance, is objectively unreasonable.”
But then the Family Court overruled the father’s objection to the vaccine:
“To the extent that the Defendant argues that the language in the marital settlement agreement and in the final judgment means that if one parent has a reasonable objection to a recommendation of the children’s pediatrician, then that parent will automatically prevail, the Court rejects that argument. That language is not stated. It could have been stated, but it was not. Furthermore, the Court always has the jurisdiction to resolve issues relating to the minor children in a divorce if those children — if those issues relate to the children’s healthcare.”
The parties (i.e., the Nagle parents) used the language “neither party shall unreasonably withhold consent” in other sections in the final divorce decree, including, notably,medical and dental treatment. The Court should have ended its consideration of the case once it found the father acted reasonably. To do otherwise in essence rewrites the final divorce decree and overrules what the parties had agreed to.
When a party seeks to modify a custody order, there must be a showing of changed circumstances. Only then does the Court invoke the best interests of the child standard. Olson v. Olson, 701 A.2d 1030, 1031 (R.I. 1997). Since the Court here made no such determination of changed circumstance, Judge Lanni’s decision must be reversed.
Prior to conducting hearings on the matter, the Family Court asked the parties for any case law in other jurisdictions in which the issue here was presented. The parties were only able to find few mostly unpublished trial court cases. One, J.F. v. D.F., 160 N.Y.S.3d 551 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021), is particularly inapt, in that the child there was old enough to express her desire to be vaccinated.
Dismissing the father’s concern as “wait and see what further research demonstrates on both the efficacy of the vaccine and the impact of both short and long-term side effects;” the Court there used hyperbole that the father’s position was, “untenable, when the specter of a killing or incapacitating disease is swirling in the environment surrounding this young girl.” This statement ignores the fact that young people are at practically zero risk of serious illness or death from Covid. The covid-19 vaccines are also non-sterilizing, and do not prevent transmission.
Another case is unpublished: Richmond v. Natanson (No. FD-14-49-15, Superior Court of New Jersey, June 24, 2022). In that case, the Court heard from both parents, as well as expert witnesses for both. The trial judge made extensive findings of fact based upon the relevant 11 factors for the best interests of the child under New Jersey law. First, the Court found that many of the factors did not skew either way; both parents were fit and cooperative and in agreement with all medical decisions except the COVID-19 vaccine. In finding that the child should be vaccinated, the Court relied heavily on the following facts: that the “continuity and quality of the minor child’s education would be disrupted by virtual learning, which would be more likely to occur if the minor child is unvaccinated.” Also, the Court found the minor child’s daily life would be adversely affected if she remained unvaccinated. Most importantly, the Court found that the child had not been previously infected and had no natural immunity. In making that determination, the Court also relied on the testimony of the mother’s expert witness, a professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases, over that of the father’s expert who was in general pediatric practice.
At the close of this case, in Family Court, we noted to the Court that these factors, which led the New Jersey Judge to rule in favor of the vaccine, now skew heavily to the father’s position. First, the Family Court agreed that the father was a fit parent and cooperative and the COVID-19 vaccine issue is the only medical issue on which the parents disagreed. Second, the children here have both had covid and therefore have natural immunity. Moreover, there was no evidence that the children’s unvaccinated status had any effect on their daily living. And finally, the father’s expert demonstrated himself to be far more qualified to opine on the necessity of the vaccine than the children’s rather uninformed pediatrician.
Ultimately, Judge Lanni found none of the cases cited helpful, and ignored them. Yet, she then made no effort to even identify which of the best interests of the child factors favored overruling the father’s reasonable objection to the treatment. While the Rhode Island Supreme Court gives deference to best interests’ determinations made by a trial judge, a parent moving to change custody must, “show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that circumstances had changed such that the placement should be modified in the interest of the children’s welfare and that the change of placement was in the best interests of the children.” Souza v. Souza, 221 A. 3d 371, 377 (R.I. 2019). Where the Family Court fails to make a finding of substantial change in circumstances before considering the best interests of the children, the Supreme Court should reverse.
We maintain the automatic stay granted by the Rhode Island Supreme Court should remain in effect during the appeal where there is no finding that the children will suffer irreparable harm by remaining unvaccinated against COVID-19.
In March of 2022, a Court in Ontario, Canada ruled that a father who had final decision-making authority over medical decisions should not lose that right because he disagreed with the COVID vaccine for his daughter. The Judge noted:
“We are currently in a dynamic and rapidly changing situation in public health advisories concerning the COVID-19 situation, particularly concerning children.” A.M. v. C.D., 2022 ONSC 1516, p. 12 (March 9, 2022).
A year later this statement is truer. The covid-19 pandemic is over. The irrefragable evidence is that these children are at no risk of harm from severe covid-19 illness, that those with natural immunity are at least as protected as those who have had the vaccine, and that there are serious questions as to the harms that the covid-19 vaccine may cause. To the extent the Rhode Island Supreme Court wishes to continue this case to the full briefing calendar, the balancing of risks favors continuing the stay of any administration of the vaccine.
CONCLUSION:
Given the corpus of medico-legal evidence we have amassed, we recommend that the Rhode Island Supreme Court, to rule on behalf of the father, to reverse the decision of the Family Court and dismiss the mother’s motion, or at least place this matter down for full briefing, while maintaining the stay of the lower court decision.
About the authors:
Dr. Andrew Bostom is an academic internist, clinical trialist, & epidemiologist at Brown University Medical School for 24-years (now retired). As an adjunct scholar to the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity Bostom has been at the forefront of the international effort to raise awareness about the truth of the medical data regarding Covid-19 mandates.
Gregory Piccirilli is a private practice attorney, affiliated with the Flanders Legal Center for Freedom, and has served as primary and local attorney for multiple Covid-19 related civil rights cases.
Campaign Launch: Center Encourages Conservatives to Cross-Over & Vote in Democrat Primary
/in Recent Posts/by RI Center for FreedomWhy Conservatives Should Cross-Over & Vote in the September 5 Democrat Primary for RI CD-1
August 6 Deadline to Check or Change Your Eligibility
Cranston, RI – The RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity today announced that it has launched a public awareness campaign to educate and encourage independent and conservative voters, who normally wouldn’t do so, to cross over and vote in the upcoming Democrat primary. Voters have until August 6 to check or change their voter status in order to be eligible for the September 5 primary to replace RI’s former US Congressman, David Cicilline.
“It is your patriotic duty to vote,” said the Center’s CEO, Mike Stenhouse. “Why not be strategic about casting your ballot by crossing-over to help elect a more palatable and common-sense candidate, instead of sending yet another reality-challenged progressive to Congress?”
But registered voters in RI’s 1st Congressional District must take near-term action to ensure they are eligible to vote in the Democrat primary. Voter affiliation & eligibility instructions have been posted and can be accessed at RIFreedom.org/CrossOver.
In believing Ocean Staters deserve representation in Washington, DC that respects their pocketbooks, heritage, and deeply-held traditional values, the Center joins with dozens of coalition member groups in supporting this cross-over voting strategy.
“With 22 announced Democrat candidates splitting the vote, a few thousand cross-over ballots could be the difference in swinging the election away from one of the radically-woke front-runners. Liberals successfully deployed this strategy in voting through a left-leaning candidate in Rhode Island’s 2006 US Senate Republican primary. It’s time for conservatives, likewise, to fully maximize their legal voting power,” Stenhouse added.
The Center’s two-month campaign will include:
The Center also encourages the press and voters of all stripes to demand that every candidate go on record with responses to the biggest hot-button issue of our time … the Marxist & cultural revolution that has infected our society and is being indoctrinated into young students.
Center Resumes its Annual Fundraising Luncheon after Three-Year Hiatus
/in Recent Posts/by RI Center for FreedomKeynote Speaker: National Pundit, Guy Benson
Cranston, RI – The RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity today announced it will hold its annual freedom banquet this November, resuming the event after a three-year hiatus due to the pandemic.
The 2023 Daniel S Harrop Freedom Banquet, presented by Americans For Prosperity (AFP), is a fundraising luncheon that will be held on Friday November 3 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Warwick. The event is named after the Center’s founding chairman, Dr. Daniel Harrop, who unexpectedly passed away last fall.
The keynote speaker, Guy Benson, is Political Editor of Townhall.com, a Fox News Contributor, and host of the nationally syndicated “Guy Benson Show” on Fox News Radio. The event will be emceed by Mike Stenhouse, CEO of the Center, who will share anecdotes from his Boston Red Sox playing days.
“Our freedom luncheon is our state’s premiere event for Rhode Islanders who support limited government, enjoy free market capitalism, and revere the constitutional liberties guaranteed to all Americans,” commented Stenhouse.
Over 300 guests are expected. The Middendorf Pillar of Freedom Award will also be presented to this year’s honoree by Dr. Stephen Skoly, the Center’s Chairman.
“We are happy to partner with the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity to present this year’s annual banquet as an opportunity for like-minded individuals to gather on the principles that unite us,” said Americans For Prosperity Northeast Director, Ross Connolly. “We at AFP are dedicated to advancing our shared goals of economic freedom and individual prosperity for all Americans and to reignite the American Dream in Rhode Island.”
Tables of eight can be sponsored with a donation of $1200, while individual seats can be reserved with a $175 gift. More information, as well as online registration for all guests and table sponsors, can be accessed at RIFreedom.org/Banquet
Stenhouse submits testimony in support of (H5498) to repeal RIDE’s curricula mandate powers
/in Recent Posts/by LarryStenhouse Testimony Includes Remarks from Over 100 Citizens
H5498 Would Repeal RIDE’s Curricula Mandate Powers
Providence, RI – Mike Stenhouse, CEO of the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, today submitted testimony to the RI House Committee on Education in support of House bill H5498, which will be heard today in committee at 4:00PM in Room 101 at the State House.
The legislation would repeal the 2019 law that empowered the RI Department of Education to mandate standardized curricula to every school district and public school student in the state.
“It is the view of many parents in our state, and mine, that RIDE and its Commissioner, Angelica Infante-Green, have proven to be wholly ineffective, irresponsible, and unworthy of the authority granted to it by state lawmakers in 2019,” said Stenhouse. “RIDE continually infuses controversial political theories and age-inappropriate content into K-12 curricula … advancing political agendas instead of academic achievement … and to infringe on parental rights and on the authority of locally-elected school committee members. It’s clear that it’s time to reverse course.”
Stenhouse’s testimony, which can be accessed here, includes the personal remarks of over 100 citizens who submitted written testimony to the committee via email via an online tool provided by the Center. In just the past three days, over 125 Rhode Islanders utilized the tool to submit written testimony “for” H5498, while over 250 people had previously signed on online petition in support of the legislation.
As an example of RIDE’s politicized approach to education, the Center published a 54-page report in February, titled, “Taken for a RIDE; How Rhode Island’s Social Studies Standards Shortchange Students.” The report highlighted RIDE’s historically inaccurate and divisive social studies standards, which were rubber-stamped by the Board of Education. The report also made an argument for substantially modifying or entirely replacing the Standards with a more historically accurate and widely acceptable set of standards.
Bi-partisan companion legislation (S0187) has also been submitted in the RI Senate, although a hearing date has not yet been set.
CEO Stenhouse Testimony In Support of H5498
/in Recent Posts/by LarryExcerpt from CEO Mike Stenhouse’s testimony: “In my view, RIDE and its Commissioner, Angelica Infante-Green, have proven to be wholly ineffective, irresponsible, and unworthy of the authority granted to it by state lawmakers. RIDE has continually sought to infuse agenda-driven and controversial political theories into K-12 curricula … and to infringe on parental rights and on the authority of locally-elected school committee members.
RIDE should develop and recommend curricula standards, but they should not be able to mandate, force, or coerce local school districts to adopt them.”
Legal & Medical Brief: Why RI Courts Should Affirm that Natural Immunity in Youths Pre-empts Need for Vaccines
/in Covid, Legal/by Mike StenhouseThis brief was researched and developed to provide medical and legal analysis and recommendations with regard to the pending Nagle v. Nagle case in the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
Why RI’s Supreme Court Should Set National Precedent that Healthy Young Children with Naturally Acquired SARS-CoV-2 Immunity Don’t Need the Covid-19 Vaccine
by Andrew Bostom, MD, MS and Gregory Piccirilli, Esq.
On February 9, 2023, the Rhode Island Supreme Court (RISC) granted divorced father Joshua Nagle’s emergency motion for a stay on covid-19 vaccination of his young daughters, as petitioned via a lawsuit filed by his former wife. The RISC case was filed as an appeal to a previous ruling from Rhode Island’s Family Court, which sided with the mother.
When the RISC convenes to hear formal arguments in this case (Nagle v. Nagle), April 13, 2023, it will mark perhaps the first time in the nation that the matter of parental disagreement over childhood covid-19 vaccination is decided by a state’s highest court.
We believe the case of the father, Joshua Nagle, who seeks to avoid triple covid-19 vaccination of his healthy, previously SARS-CoV-2 infected five- and eight-year-old daughters, is firmly rooted in both evidence-based medicine and sound law.
The Evidence-Based Medicine Case Against Covid-19 Vaccination of These Previously SARS-CoV-2-Infected Healthy Five- and Nine-Year-Old Girls
Joshua Nagle’s daughters have been SARS-CoV-2 infected twice in the past ~year during January, and July, of 2022. Each time the girls were infected, they experienced either minimal symptoms, of brief duration, or were entirely asymptomatic. We now know those mild, self-limited SARS-CoV-2 infections confer a natural immunity to the virus that is more robust and enduring vis-à-vis any which might result from covid-19 mRNA vaccination. Key evidence in support of that contention, includes:
–North Carolina data from ~890K children aged 5 to 11 years-old during a period of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant predominance (published in the New England Journal of Medicine) which revealed (see figure, below) the clear superiority of natural immunity in preventing covid-19 hospitalizations. Specifically, at 10-months, prior infection/naturally acquired SARS-CoV-2 immunity conferred 86.9% protection against hospitalization which exceeded the 5-month protection (76.1%) afforded by vaccination, with the gap widening each successive month (i.e., months 1-5) where direct comparisons were available.
–A subsequent Lancet meta-analysis (figure follows) of adult populations confirmed and extended these findings demonstrating that prior infection afforded stronger, longer lasting immunity against “severe disease,” i.e., covid hospitalization and death.
–Subgroup data from Pfizer’s randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of covid-19 mRNA vaccination in 5 to 11 year-olds showed that among those children with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, none even developed mild covid-19 infections in the either the active vaccine, or placebo vaccine groups.
Regardless of immune status, the SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate (covid-19 deaths/total infected) in children has been mercifully trifling, on the order of ~1/335,000 (0.0003%), globally, for those < 19 years-old.
More recent U.K. data evaluating the omicron variant period described a rate of 1/1,000,000 among 5 to 11 year-olds, while in children of all age groups, deaths were largely confined to those “with severe comorbidities, especially neurodisabilities.”
Rhode Island data provide local validation of these trends: there have been zero primary pediatric covid-19 deaths during 3 years of the pandemic
(here; here; The latter source also indicates there were 251 non-covid-19 pediatric deaths in Rhode Island from 1/1/2020-3/1/23). In contrast, three Rhode Island children died during a single pandemic H1N1 influenza season in 2009 to 2010.
Hospitalization rates, certainly for primary covid-19 hospitalizations (here; here), and in particular those with severe illness, have always been extremely low in children, since the advent of the pandemic. Moreover, concordant French and Canadian data reported pediatric influenza hospitalization rates for pandemic and/or select seasonal influenza years, were > 4-times those for covid-19. Again, data from Rhode Island are entirely consistent with these findings:
–During the 16-week period from February 13, 2022 through June 4, 2022 there were a total of only 15 primary covid-19 pediatric hospitalizations (for ages 0 to 17 years-old)—<1 per week—as determined by Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) criteria;
–At the peak of this past “cold-flu season” in Rhode Island, i.e., October through December, 2022, there were 14 pediatric covid-19 hospitalizations, versus 67 pediatric influenza hospitalizations, and (at least) 304 hospitalizations for pediatric respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), per RIDOH (and Hasbro Children’s Hospital)
–For the past year (2/1/22 to 1/31/23), only six 5 to 9 year-old Rhode Island children have been hospitalized for primary Covid-19, irrespective of Covid-19 vaccination status (i.e., 2/ the 30-40% fully vaccinated; 4/ the 60-70% not fully vaccinated).
Rigorously and independently validating all these data, no child in either the placebo or actively vaccinated groups of Pfizer’s RCT of 5 to 11 year-olds was hospitalized.
These trial findings affirmed the very mild nature of covid-19 in children, and highlighted the complete absence of any RCT data—the highest standard of evidence (acknowledged in pediatric medicine as well)—demonstrating covid-19 vaccination of children “prevents” such rare covid-19 hospitalizations! Furthermore, there are literally no extant randomized, controlled trial data whatsoever evaluating “bivalent” covid-19 booster vaccination in children!!
Two peer reviewed assessments of covid-19 vaccination risk/benefit examining RCT data in low (i.e., confined to 18 to 29 year-olds) to moderate risk (i.e., all Pfizer and Moderna trial participants) have each demonstrated the risk of vaccine-associated serious adverse events (SAEs) outweighed any potential vaccine-associated reduction in covid-19 hospitalizations.
Given the extraordinarily low risk for covid-19 hospitalization in the pediatric population, relative to these adult populations, pediatric covid-19 vaccination risk/benefit stands, axiomatically, to be more adverse. Earlier we mentioned the paucity of covid-19 hospitalizations for Rhode Island children aged 5- to 9-years-old in the past year, only 6, divided in equal proportions, between those fully vaccinated and not fully vaccinated.
The Center For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s passive vaccine injury surveillance mechanism, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), notoriously under-reports putative vaccine-associated adverse events (by ~30-fold in this peer reviewed study).
Two covid-19 vaccine-associated SAEs were recorded in VAERS among 5- to 9-year old Rhode Island girls during 2022, both requiring emergent care: a 5- year-old who presented with hives, and then a facial nerve palsy within 5-days of vaccination, and a 9-year-old who developed both chest pain/tightness, and hives, almost immediately after vaccination.
While the 9-year-old’s rapid-onset chest symptoms are clearly not consistent with covid-vaccine-associated myopericarditis (14 cases of which occurred during 2021 among healthy Rhode Island men under 35 years-old, and were published in a peer reviewed journal), we note the Taiwanese government just compensated the family of an unidentified 5- to 11-year-old girl who died from fulminant, autopsy-proven lymphocytic myocarditis 3-days after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 mRNA vaccine.
Perhaps some of these unfavorable risk/benefit data have captured the attention of the vast preponderance of Rhode Island parents, only 36% of whom have chosen to vaccinate their 5-9-year-old children with the primary (2-shot) covid-19 vaccine series, while a mere 10% have “boosted” them with a third injection. Joshua Nagle shares the rational, evidence-based concerns of this super-majority 90% of Rhode Island parents who have decided they do not want their healthy 5- to 9-year-olds to receive three covid-19 vaccine injections.
Finally, the views of Mr. Nagle, and the lion’s share of Rhode Island parents, are externally validated by whole Western European nations, and America’s third largest state, Florida:
—France has just announced it is not recommending further covid vaccination for those under 65-years-old without comorbidity.
—Denmark does not recommend vaccination for any healthy persons under 50-years-old.
—Norway and Sweden do not recommend vaccinating healthy children under 18-years-old.
—The U.K. won’t even offer the vaccine to those < 12-years-old.
—Florida (already in March, 2022) recommended against vaccinating healthy children 5-to 17-years-old.
The Specific Legal Case Against Covid-19 Vaccination of These Previously SARS-CoV-2-Infected Healthy Five- and Nine-Year-Old Girls
We believe examination of the plaintiff’s pediatrician expert witness, Dr. Colleen Ann Powers, elucidated her non-evidence-based justification for vaccinating healthy, previously SARS-CoV-2 infected children, in our case, the Nagle children. We also maintain the Family Court trial judge’s decision in favor of the plaintiff was subject to contradictory legal reasoning.
Dr. Powers, the plaintiff’s pediatrician, recommended that the Nagle children, notwithstanding their naturally acquired immunity, receive the 2-shot original covid-19 vaccine series, and within 3-4-months afterward, also get a bivalent booster (third injection). She conceded that the sole purpose of the vaccine was to benefit the recipient by protecting against severe covid-19 illness, and death.
The only basis for her opinion that the Nagle children should receive the vaccine (X 3) was her incurious, uncritical acceptance of the generic recommendations of the CDC, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). She conducted no independent research; in fact, she was confused about when the Pfizer RCT in 5- to 11-year-old children was conducted, and what it had shown (i.e., no protection against covid-19 hospitalization could be demonstrated because there were no hospitalizations in the entire RCT, regardless of vaccination status, and not even the occurrence of mild infections amongst those children with prior natural immunity, also independent of vaccination status).
Dr. Powers was also unaware that the vaccine was only Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) but conceded that if POTUS Biden declared the emergency over, it might change her recommendation. (Note: On January 30, 2023, President Biden advised Congress that he will end the national emergency for COVID-19 on May 11, 2023. At present, it is unclear how that action will affect covid-19 vaccine availability, subsequently.)
Dr. Powers was further unaware that less than 40% of children in the US have had the vaccine (just 36% in Rhode Island have been vaccinated with 2-shots), even though those data are published in the AAP material she receives. She also did not know how many children in Rhode Island have died because of Covid, and was surprised to learn that number was zero.
As for whether the vaccine is required to attend school, Dr. Powers admitted it is not. She also agreed that in August, 2022, the Rhode Island Department of Education ended any distinction between covid-19 vaccinated or unvaccinated children in school.
Dr. Powers initially asserted that there was scientific consensus recommending the vaccine to children; but was unaware that at least one large state (Florida), and entire Western European countries (France, the U.K., Denmark, Sweden, Norway), did not.
She was unaware that the infection fatality rate for COVID in 0- to 19-year-olds is 0.0003%, or that of those 3 deaths per million, virtually all occurred in children with major, chronic co-morbidities. When confronted with such irrefragable information, Dr. Powers admitted she was “surprised.”
Similarly, Dr. Powers downplayed evidence of potential harm as reported in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). In September of 2021, the RIDOH produced a report (published in The Rhode Island Medical Society Journal) which noted that within the first eight months of VAERS surveillance of Rhode Islanders after the covid-19 vaccine rollout, between January and September of 2021, there were nearly 1,500 reports of vaccine-associated adverse reactions, including 89 hospitalizations, and 16 deaths.
When presented with this information, Dr. Powers tried to minimize it, although she did concede that “they (presumably, RIDOH) should investigate that.” (Unfortunately, despite repeated inquiries, we have not been able to uncover any evidence that RIDOH has followed up on that 2021 report.)
We argue, moreover, the Family Court trial judge, Associate Justice Sandra Lanni erred in two fundamental ways. First, she made a best interests of the child determination after finding that the father acted reasonably in accordance with the final divorce decree.
Second, even if the Family Court were permitted to ignore the language of the final decree, the Court (i.e., via Judge Lanni) failed to articulate how the 8 factors in the best interest of the child standard warranted a change in custody for the mother to make the sole decision regarding COVID-19 vaccination.
In addressing the final divorce decree and the issue of reasonableness, the Family Court found that “there is not uniformity of agreement in the medical community regarding whether children, in general, should receive the COVID vaccine and whether the benefits of the vaccine to children, in general, outweigh the risks or vice versa.” Further, she found that the parents generally agreed to all medical recommendations of the pediatrician, including other vaccines; the sole issue of dispute involved COVID-19. This led inextricably to the Family Court determining that the father had acted reasonably in rejecting the vaccine:
“In light of the evidence before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that the Defendant’s refusal to follow the recommendations of Dr. Powers, in this one instance, is objectively unreasonable.”
But then the Family Court overruled the father’s objection to the vaccine:
“To the extent that the Defendant argues that the language in the marital settlement agreement and in the final judgment means that if one parent has a reasonable objection to a recommendation of the children’s pediatrician, then that parent will automatically prevail, the Court rejects that argument. That language is not stated. It could have been stated, but it was not. Furthermore, the Court always has the jurisdiction to resolve issues relating to the minor children in a divorce if those children — if those issues relate to the children’s healthcare.”
The parties (i.e., the Nagle parents) used the language “neither party shall unreasonably withhold consent” in other sections in the final divorce decree, including, notably,medical and dental treatment. The Court should have ended its consideration of the case once it found the father acted reasonably. To do otherwise in essence rewrites the final divorce decree and overrules what the parties had agreed to.
When a party seeks to modify a custody order, there must be a showing of changed circumstances. Only then does the Court invoke the best interests of the child standard. Olson v. Olson, 701 A.2d 1030, 1031 (R.I. 1997). Since the Court here made no such determination of changed circumstance, Judge Lanni’s decision must be reversed.
Prior to conducting hearings on the matter, the Family Court asked the parties for any case law in other jurisdictions in which the issue here was presented. The parties were only able to find few mostly unpublished trial court cases. One, J.F. v. D.F., 160 N.Y.S.3d 551 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021), is particularly inapt, in that the child there was old enough to express her desire to be vaccinated.
Dismissing the father’s concern as “wait and see what further research demonstrates on both the efficacy of the vaccine and the impact of both short and long-term side effects;” the Court there used hyperbole that the father’s position was, “untenable, when the specter of a killing or incapacitating disease is swirling in the environment surrounding this young girl.” This statement ignores the fact that young people are at practically zero risk of serious illness or death from Covid. The covid-19 vaccines are also non-sterilizing, and do not prevent transmission.
Another case is unpublished: Richmond v. Natanson (No. FD-14-49-15, Superior Court of New Jersey, June 24, 2022). In that case, the Court heard from both parents, as well as expert witnesses for both. The trial judge made extensive findings of fact based upon the relevant 11 factors for the best interests of the child under New Jersey law. First, the Court found that many of the factors did not skew either way; both parents were fit and cooperative and in agreement with all medical decisions except the COVID-19 vaccine. In finding that the child should be vaccinated, the Court relied heavily on the following facts: that the “continuity and quality of the minor child’s education would be disrupted by virtual learning, which would be more likely to occur if the minor child is unvaccinated.” Also, the Court found the minor child’s daily life would be adversely affected if she remained unvaccinated. Most importantly, the Court found that the child had not been previously infected and had no natural immunity. In making that determination, the Court also relied on the testimony of the mother’s expert witness, a professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases, over that of the father’s expert who was in general pediatric practice.
At the close of this case, in Family Court, we noted to the Court that these factors, which led the New Jersey Judge to rule in favor of the vaccine, now skew heavily to the father’s position. First, the Family Court agreed that the father was a fit parent and cooperative and the COVID-19 vaccine issue is the only medical issue on which the parents disagreed. Second, the children here have both had covid and therefore have natural immunity. Moreover, there was no evidence that the children’s unvaccinated status had any effect on their daily living. And finally, the father’s expert demonstrated himself to be far more qualified to opine on the necessity of the vaccine than the children’s rather uninformed pediatrician.
Ultimately, Judge Lanni found none of the cases cited helpful, and ignored them. Yet, she then made no effort to even identify which of the best interests of the child factors favored overruling the father’s reasonable objection to the treatment. While the Rhode Island Supreme Court gives deference to best interests’ determinations made by a trial judge, a parent moving to change custody must, “show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that circumstances had changed such that the placement should be modified in the interest of the children’s welfare and that the change of placement was in the best interests of the children.” Souza v. Souza, 221 A. 3d 371, 377 (R.I. 2019). Where the Family Court fails to make a finding of substantial change in circumstances before considering the best interests of the children, the Supreme Court should reverse.
We maintain the automatic stay granted by the Rhode Island Supreme Court should remain in effect during the appeal where there is no finding that the children will suffer irreparable harm by remaining unvaccinated against COVID-19.
In March of 2022, a Court in Ontario, Canada ruled that a father who had final decision-making authority over medical decisions should not lose that right because he disagreed with the COVID vaccine for his daughter. The Judge noted:
“We are currently in a dynamic and rapidly changing situation in public health advisories concerning the COVID-19 situation, particularly concerning children.” A.M. v. C.D., 2022 ONSC 1516, p. 12 (March 9, 2022).
A year later this statement is truer. The covid-19 pandemic is over. The irrefragable evidence is that these children are at no risk of harm from severe covid-19 illness, that those with natural immunity are at least as protected as those who have had the vaccine, and that there are serious questions as to the harms that the covid-19 vaccine may cause. To the extent the Rhode Island Supreme Court wishes to continue this case to the full briefing calendar, the balancing of risks favors continuing the stay of any administration of the vaccine.
CONCLUSION:
Given the corpus of medico-legal evidence we have amassed, we recommend that the Rhode Island Supreme Court, to rule on behalf of the father, to reverse the decision of the Family Court and dismiss the mother’s motion, or at least place this matter down for full briefing, while maintaining the stay of the lower court decision.
About the authors:
Dr. Andrew Bostom is an academic internist, clinical trialist, & epidemiologist at Brown University Medical School for 24-years (now retired). As an adjunct scholar to the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity Bostom has been at the forefront of the international effort to raise awareness about the truth of the medical data regarding Covid-19 mandates.
Gregory Piccirilli is a private practice attorney, affiliated with the Flanders Legal Center for Freedom, and has served as primary and local attorney for multiple Covid-19 related civil rights cases.
New Report Blasts Social Studies Standards Proposed by RI Department of Education
/in Blog, Featured, Recent Posts/by RI Center for FreedomHow Rhode Island’s Social Studies Standards Teach Radical Activism Instead of America’s Birthright of Liberty
Providence, RI – The Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity, in partnership with the Civics Alliance, today released a report entitled, “Taken For a RIDE”, which presents a detailed critique of Rhode Island’s Social Studies Standards (Standards) as proposed this past December by the RI Department of Education (RIDE).
The 54-page report, subtitled, “How Rhode Island’s Social Studies Standards Shortchange Students,” documents in detail how Rhode Island’s educational establishment plans to systematically “teach students to hate their country, its history, and its ideals, and to know only distorted tatters of the history of the world,” while also making an argument for substantially modifying or entirely replacing the Standards with a more historically accurate and widely acceptable set of standards.
“The Standards is neither by the people of Rhode Island, nor of the people of Rhode Island—but it nevertheless will be imposed on the people of Rhode Island.”
Released just one day after the Center exposed how RIDE is also pushing an age-inappropriate and over-sexualized K-12 student health curricula, “these incompetent and misguided social studies standards are further evidence that RIDE has proven itself wholly irresponsible and unworthy of the authority granted to it by the General Assembly in 2019,” said the Center’s CEO, Mike Stenhouse. “Lawmakers must repeal that statute, which has been grossly exploited by commissioner Angelica Infante-Greene and her staff.”
The well-documented report, which can be viewed at RIFreedom.org/RIDE, includes dozens of source footnotes, appendices, and links to source documents.
Taken For a RIDE contends that the Standards being proposed to establish Social Studies curriculum for all K-12 public schools in RI improperly de-emphasize historical truths about the founding and development of our country and emphasize instead radical, negative aspects of our history, which could result in students having an incomplete and distorted perception of the United States.
“In the long run, of course, Rhode Island will suffer most because its children will have been educated to hate their country. But the Standards will be quite effective in the short run in degrading every aspect of Rhode Island’s K-12 social studies instruction.”
The report is critical of the content, methodology, and process used by RIDE to create the proposed curriculum guidelines, stating “they have produced a document that is bloated, vague, riddled with errors, distortions, and absences” without the legally required public comment or legislative review.
“Rhode Island’s citizens deserve excellent social studies standards,” said David Randall, report author and Executive Director of the Civics Alliance. “Rhode Island citizens and policymakers should work at once to make all the statutory and administrative changes necessary to make sure that RIDE crafts proper social studies standards for their children – standards that educate Rhode Island’s children to know and to love their American birthright of liberty.”
Alternately, Randall and the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity advise that an already established set of curriculum guidelines created and vetted by the Civics Alliance and the National Association of Scholars – American Birthright – should be used as the basis for Social Studies curricula in Rhode Island.
Stenhouse calls upon state legislators to repeal the 2019 law; upon school districts to reject the Standards; and for Rhode Island citizens to insist that RIDE overhaul the guidelines in compliance with the legislation that mandates how the process must be done, including a proper period for public review and comment, before it’s too late.
“Rhode Island parents are encouraged to pressure their local school districts to find a legal way to reject RIDE’s bogus social studies standards and, instead, adopt the well-balanced and historically accurate American Birthright standards, which will appeal to a broad majority of parents and Americans,” concluded Stenhouse.
Joint Publication: The Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity and the Civics Alliance have issued this report jointly. The Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, which is a member of the American Birthright coalition, works to forward the best public policy within the state of Rhode Island. The Civics Alliance works to improve K-12 social studies education nationwide, especially along the model of American Birthright: The Civics’ Alliance’s Model K-12 Social Studies Standards. The two organizations have joined together to produce this report, both to improve social studies standards in Rhode Island and as part of a larger campaign to improve American K-12 social studies education.
Author Biography: David Randall is Director of Research at the National Association of Scholars and Executive Director of the Civics Alliance. He served as Publication Coordinator for American Birthright: The Civics Alliance’s Model K-12 Social Studies Standards (2022). His academic publications include The Concept of Conversation: From Cicero’s Sermo to the Grand Siècle’s Conversation (2018) and The Conversational Enlightenment: The Reconception of Rhetoric in Eighteenth-Century Thought (2019).
Taken For a RIDE
/in Featured/by LarryCenter To Attend Regional Summit on Approaches to Educating the Public and Holding State Government Accountable
/in Blog, Recent Posts/by RI Center for FreedomCenter to Attend Regional Summit on Approaches to Educating the Public and Holding State Government Accountable Hosted by MassFiscal
Press Conference with Other New England States Scheduled for Tuesday
BOSTON – On Tuesday, January 17, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance will host an in person press conference in Boston with Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, Dan Winslow of the New England Legal Foundation, Greg Moore of Americans for Prosperity in New Hampshire, Drew Cline of the Josiah Bartlett Center, Nick Murray of Maine Heritage Policy, Rob Roper and Meg Hanson of the Ethan Allen Institute in Vermont, Mike Stenhouse of Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, and Bryce Chinault of the Yankee Institute in Connecticut. Although each of the New England states are very different, the non-partisan organizations are coming together to discuss what unites them, and how they can work together
to advocate for their members and the public.
“After successfully defeating the TCI Gas Tax, which, like the covid vaccine and mask mandates, was a destructive prescription for an over-hyped problem, our regional coalition is set to take on the next agenda-driven, government-contrived, and media-advanced false narrative,” said Mike Stenhouse, CEO of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity. “In Rhode Island, expanding natural gas pipeline capacity, and decoupling our state from RGGI and from California’s coslty and harsh CARB regulations are our Center’s number one energy-related priorities.”
The press conference will begin on Tuesday, January 17 at 11:30 a.m. at a location on Beacon Hill. If you wish to attend, please email pfgangi@massfiscal.org and the location will be provided.
The MassFiscal Alliance advocates for fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability in state government and increased economic opportunity for the people of the Commonwealth.
RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity Signs Letter to US House Judiciary to Oppose Title IX Rule Changes
/in Featured/by RI Center for FreedomThe national coalition letter below, which was emailed yesterday to Rep. Jim Jordan, was co-signed by the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity along with 69 other national and state organizations.
The letter requests that Report Language be added to the Department of Education Appropriations Bill that would bar the DOE from making proposed changes to the 2020 Title IX regulation.
***
Sent via Fax and Email
RE: Request for Report Language in Department of Education Appropriations Bill
December 5, 2022
Representative Jim Jordan
Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee
2056 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Jordan,
The undersigned organizations are writing in support of your letter of November 18, 2022 to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), requesting that the DOE provide “information and documents concerning the Biden Administration’s misuse of federal criminal and counterterrorism resources to target concerned parents at school board meetings.”
But the misconduct of the Department of Education goes far beyond its efforts to stifle parental involvement in school board meetings.
On June 23, 2022 the DOE issued its proposed Title IX regulation.[1] Among other changes, the DOE seeks to remove numerous due process protections for students accused of Title IX infractions, to curtail free speech on college campuses, to change the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity,” and other changes. In response, 202 organizations, collectively referred to as the Title IX Network, have gone on record in opposition to these changes.[2]
Numerous elected officials have expressed their strong opposition to the proposed regulation, including 21 Representatives and 13 Senators,[3] Senators Roger Wicker, Cindy Hyde-Smith, and 19 others,[4] Rep. Virginia Foxx,[5] Representatives Steve Scalise and Debbie Lesko,[6] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard,[7] 15 Republican governors,[8] and other members of Congress.[9] In addition, the House Republican leadership has gone on record to “Advance the Parents’ Bill of Rights” and “Defend fairness by ensuring that only women can compete in women’s sports.”[10]
The Attorneys General from various states have submitted letters opposing the proposed Title IX regulation, as well:
In addition, the Attorneys General of AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, and WV have filed an amended lawsuit against the Department of Education to impose a Preliminary Injunction on the draft Title IX regulation.[14]
Because these legal challenges may require several years for complete resolution, Congress needs to restrict the funding for the development of any new Title IX regulation. Therefore, the undersigned 70 organizations are requesting your support to assure that the Appropriations bill for the remainder of the FY2023, as well as the Appropriations bill for FY2024, include this Report Language:
“No funds shall be used for the development or implementation of alterations to the 2020 Title IX regulation, except as necessary to implement court orders.”
We will be happy to meet with you further to discuss our concerns.
Sincerely,
SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments)
Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization
AMAC Action
American Association of Evangelicals (AAE)
American Council for Health Care Reform
American Family Association (AFA)
Americans for Limited Government
America’s Black Robe Regiment
Army of Parents
Awake IL
California Association of Scholars
Catholics Count
Center for Military Readiness
Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
Child Protection League
Children First Foundation
Christian Leadership Council
Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP)
Conservative Caucus
Conservatives of Faith
Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee
ConservativeHQ.com
Delaware Family Policy Council
Dr. James Dobson Family Institute
Eagle Forum
Eagle Forum of Georgia
Equality for Boys and Men
Family Action Council of Tennessee, Inc.
Fed Up PAC
Frontline Policy Action
Girls Deserve Privacy
Greenwich Patriots
Heritage Action
Katartismos Global
Law Firm of Barry S. Jacobson, Esq
Less Government
Louisiana Family Forum
Louisiana Save Our Schools
Men and Women for a Representative Democracy
Mission America
Moms for Liberty, Loudoun County, Virginia
National Association of Scholars
Nationsnet.org
Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA)
Ohio Value Voters
Palm Beach Freedom Institute
Project 21 Black Leadership Network
Protect Ohio Children
Push Back Idaho
Radiance Foundation
Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Roughrider Policy Center
Rule of Law Committee
60 Plus Association
Southwest Policy Group
Speech First
Tennessee Eagle Forum
Texas Eagle Forum
Texas Freedom Coalition
Thin Blue Line Caucus
Tradition, Family and Property, Inc
United Against Racism in Education (UARE)
United Families International
Utah Eagle Forum
Utah Freedom Coalition
Virginia Eagle Forum
Wisconsin Family Action
Women for Democracy in America
Worldwide Organization for Women (WOW)
***
CC: House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy
Republican Whip Steve Scalise
Rep. Kay Granger, Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee
Rep. Tom Cole, Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies
[1] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9nprm.pdf
[2] https://www.saveservices.org/2022-Policy/
[3]https://www.lankford.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Lankford%20Title%20IX%20Comment%20Letter.pdf
[4] https://www.wicker.senate.gov/2022/7/wicker-hyde-smith-oppose-biden-s-flawed-title-ix-proposal-urge-extension-of-public-comment-period
[5] https://republicans-edlabor.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408384
[6] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/fifty-years-title-ix-protect-womens-sports
[7] https://www.iwf.org/2022/06/23/tulsi-gabbard-congress-must-stop-biden-from-undermining-title-ix/
[8] https://www.rga.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Joint-Letter-to-President-Biden-opposing-reinterpretation-of-Title-IX-7.27.2022-new.pdf
[9] https://www.saveservices.org/2022-Policy/
[10] https://www.republicanleader.gov/commitment/a-future-thats-built-on-freedom/#reveal_education
[11] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Montana%20Coalition%20Title%20IX%20Comment%20FINAL%209.12.22.pdf
[12] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Title%20IX%20NPRM%20Indiana%20Comment%20Letter%20FINAL.pdf
[13] https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AG-Dave-Yost-Comment-Letter-Title-IX-Proposed-Rule.pdf
[14] https://www.k12dive.com/news/20-states-again-ask-court-to-block-ed-depts-policy-that-title-ix-protects/626257/
SAVE TITLE IX: Center Joins National Movement to Protest Biden’s Proposed Rule Changes
/in Featured, Recent Posts/by RI Center for FreedomCenter Joins 130+ Orgs Across America to SAVE Title IX
National movement protests Biden administration’s attempt to re-write federal regulations to punish schools and people that do not affirmatively further transgender ideologies
Cranston, RI – The Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity has joined with over 130 organizations across the United States in support of the SAVE Title IX national movement to protest new and unpopular mandates on K-12 schools and colleges.
“The Biden Administration’s Proposed Title IX Rule Undermines the Rights of Parents,” said Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the Center. “The Biden Education Department is rewriting federal regulations to require any school that receives federal funds to affirm a child’s gender identity without the approval or knowledge of his or her parents. We believe that parents, not school officials, have the right to teach their children about issues of sex and gender identity.”
For parents and citizens who agree, there is an easy way to make your voices heard by sending an official comment to the US Department of Education; the link to this simple “Title IX Comment Form” can be accessed at the Center’s Action Center, (click here).
The Biden Administration’s Department of Education released on June 23, 2022, their new Title IX regulations which expand its long-standing definition of sex to include “gender identity,” making obsolete the gains made during the Trump Administration.
“The new Title IX policy proposes to expand the biological definition of “sex” to also include “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity, said Edward Bartlett, founder of the national SAVE organization, which is leading the national movement. “The proposed Biden Title IX plan also violates many provisions found in state-level campus due process laws.”
PROGRAMMING NOTE: Ed Bartlett was the featured guest Wednesday, July 27, on the video podcast, #InTheDugout with Mike Stenhouse; and can be viewed here on The Ocean State Current website.
A rally will be held in Washington, DC on August 11 to highlight these concerns, and to call on the Department of Education to not move forward with its Title IX proposal.
According to SAVE, there are 6 major areas where the proposed new rules would violate rights or moral norms: