Parental Rights Just Made Jamie Raskin See Red… and Then Green

Let’s all take a moment of silence for Rep. Jamie Raskin. Not because anything bad happened—unless you count a Supreme Court ruling in favor of parental rights as some kind of national tragedy—but because he’s clearly having a rough time. The man is so distraught, you’d think SCOTUS banned rainbow flags and drag queens from Whole Foods.

On Friday, the Supreme Court handed down a 6–3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case out of Montgomery County, Maryland (home of latte liberals and passive-aggressive lawn signs), ruling that parents—yes, those people who house, feed, and clothe the children—can opt out of school lessons that conflict with their religious beliefs. Shocking stuff, I know. The horror.

Raskin, Maryland congressman, former constitutional law professor, and now full-time drama queen, was appalled. He called the decision “breathtaking.” (To be fair, so is trying to read “Pride Puppy!” without wondering if the alphabet is now a pride float.)

Let’s back up. This isn’t about banning books. It’s not even about preventing schools from teaching what they want. It’s about giving parents a choice. The nerve! Imagine a parent thinking they have a say in their kid’s education, especially in a state where taxpayers fund everything from education to biodegradable pronoun badges.

Here’s what happened: Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) introduced books like Pride Puppy! and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding for pre-K students. That’s right—kids who still think unicorns are real and eat paste are now expected to understand drag culture, gender theory, and leather daddies. One book, Pride Puppy!, is an A-to-Z guide of a gay pride parade featuring gems like:

• “L” is for “Lip ring”
• “G” is for “Green glitter beard”
• “Q” is for “Queen” (drag, naturally)
• “I” is for “Intersex”
• “Y” is for “You need to stop pretending this is just about inclusion.”

Parents—many from diverse religious backgrounds—politely said, “Hey, maybe my toddler doesn’t need this right now.” MCPS responded the way bureaucracies often do when faced with dissent: by eliminating the opt-out policy altogether. So, off to court it went. And in the end, the Supreme Court ruled that, no, public schools don’t get to steamroll religious liberty just because someone in central office has a TikTok account.

Enter Jamie Raskin, CNN’s go-to for hand-wringing and misplaced moral outrage. In an interview after the decision, he lamented that if parents can opt out for religious reasons, then what’s next? Political reasons? Philosophical reasons? Moral reasons? You can almost hear the audible gasp through the screen.

According to Raskin, “You’re going to have a lot more cases where people are saying, ‘Our family doesn’t believe in evolution. So we don’t want our kid to be in class when evolution is taught.’”

To which I say: okay? What’s wrong with letting parents make that call? Just because some guy in a Montgomery County office building got a DEI certificate doesn’t mean he gets veto power over the First Amendment.

Now, to be fair, Raskin didn’t just go on CNN to moan. He also issued a full statement worthy of the next season of The West Wing. He said:

“Donald Trump and his Administration have continued to target and attack LGBTQ+ Americans in the most scandalous fashion. … I stand with every young person, parent and family member who feels vulnerable in the face of these chill winds.”

Chill winds? Sir, it’s summer. Relax.

Raskin went on to warn that this decision “opens a gigantic Pandora’s box.” Now there’s some hyperbole. According to Raskin, if parents can opt out of LGBTQ-themed books, soon they’ll be skipping science classes, opposing surgery, rejecting interracial marriage, maybe even questioning monogamy. You know, the logical progression from “No Pride Puppy for my 4-year-old” to full-on anti-medicine polygamy cult.

Let’s talk about that slippery slope. It’s not real. The case—like Wisconsin v. Yoder before it—deals specifically with discrete instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs. That’s not the same as saying, “I don’t like this book because the illustrations are ugly.” It’s a constitutional protection. You’d think Raskin would know this, being a guy who used to teach constitutional law. Then again, maybe he’s been too busy writing stern letters to Whole Foods about restocking non-organic kale.

And let’s be honest here: Nobody is teaching “Pride Puppy!” alongside Leviticus in Montgomery County classrooms. This isn’t about balance. It’s about control. It’s about an ideological agenda that says “your family values stop at the school door.”

The kicker? Raskin and the other progressives melting down over this decision always use the same language: “inclusion,” “equity,” “welcoming.” But what they really mean is: You are welcome, so long as you agree with us. If you don’t, the door’s over there—and please take your outdated notions of religious liberty with you.

But the First Amendment doesn’t disappear just because someone gets hired as an Equity Compliance Facilitator. Parents do have rights. The state is not your co-parent. And the Supreme Court reminded everyone of that.

Now, Raskin’s pearl-clutching is likely to continue for a while. Expect more interviews. Maybe a town hall. Possibly even a “Community Healing Drag Storytime” hosted in a yoga studio with kombucha samples. But here’s the reality: This ruling isn’t about discrimination. It’s about boundaries. It’s about saying: we can teach kindness and respect without teaching four-year-olds the difference between a drag queen and a drag king.

Montgomery County has long claimed to be a place that values “diversity.” Well, this is what real diversity looks like: not just skin deep or political—but ideological and religious. That means sometimes people disagree. That means sometimes parents say no. That’s not “chilling,” Congressman—it’s freedom.

So here’s some advice for Rep. Raskin and friends: Next time you read a SCOTUS ruling you don’t like, take a deep breath. Maybe sip some oat milk. Recycle your compostable rage into something more productive—like finally fixing the potholes on Rockville Pike.

Because if the scariest thing in your life right now is that a kid might miss a drag parade alphabet book in pre-K, maybe you’re not fighting oppression. Maybe you’re just bored.

---

ENDNOTES

1. Mahmoud v. Taylor, Supreme Court of the United States, 2025 Term.
2. Alito, Samuel. Majority Opinion, Mahmoud v. Taylor. SCOTUS.
3. CBS News, “Montgomery County School Board Responds to SCOTUS Ruling,” June 27, 2025.
4. CNN Interview, Rep. Jamie Raskin, June 27, 2025.
5. “Pride Puppy!” by Robin Stevenson – LGBTQ Alphabet Book.
6. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
7. Raskin Press Statement, Office of Congressman Jamie Raskin, June 27, 2025.

Trent Anderson is a Contributor for Direct Line News.  Contact Trent at Trent.Anderson@mcopclub.com

About The Author