Featured Image

July 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — An Arizona school district is backtracking after raising the ire of parents with controversial language in a parental consent form authorizing student health screenings. The district says the wording was “a complete mistake.”

In a notification requesting parental sign-off for student emotional health and wellness screenings, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) appeared to suggest it would ask children to reveal private family information including “quality of home and interpersonal relationships, student biometric information,” and the family’s “gun/ammunition ownership.”


The private nature of the information apparently susceptible to collection in the original permissions document had sparked immediate backlash from parents and others concerned about potential overreach from the school district. The district lated modified the document.

SUSD mom Amanda Wray wrote, “Scottsdale USD wants to evaluate my family’s income, medical and mental health history, my child’s ‘biometric’ info, as well as our gun and ammo ownership. No thanks!”

According to Wray, the wording of the notification indicated that personal questions regarding a family’s income or firearms ownership would be part of the wellness screening.

“It basically said, here’s a consent form, and part of this screening is that we will collect information from your student in regards to your family’s income, your medical health, your mental health history, your gun and ammunition ownership and any illegal or relationship problems in the family,” Wray said.

Similarly Jason Bedrick, director of policy at EdChoice, a nonprofit group which advocates for school choice, said, “This parental consent form from Scottsdale Unified School District is like something from a dystopian novel.”

In a phone interview July 26, SUSD Acting Public Information & Marketing Officer Nancy Norman told LifeSiteNews the inclusion of the controversial wording “was a complete mistake on our part.”

Norman said the screening permissions document was included along with many other permissions documents in an app used by parents and staff to process annual sign-offs for such items as directory information and photo releases.

The health screening notification, sent out to parents last week, stated that “[t]he electronic signature attached to this Annual Verification packet authorizes SUSD to complete an emotional health and wellness screening of my child.”

A parent’s signature, the notice stated, would also grant the district permission to collect a long list of very specific private information.

Parents who signed the annual verification packet were, according to the notification, granting SUSD permission “to collect personal information including but not limited to income or other family information, medical history or medical information, mental health history or mental health information, and quality of home and interpersonal relationships, student biometric information, or illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior critical appraisal of individuals within a close relationship and gun/ammunition ownership.”

The language in the permissions document was derived from state law which requires school districts to obtain parental approval before administering student surveys.

The legislation in question is 15-117 and its companion, HB 2088, passed in 2016. It forbids public schools “from administering specified assessments or surveys to students without notifying and obtaining written informed consent from parents.”

The law requires schools to “provide written notice and obtain written informed consent from parents” in order to gather “[d]ata collected through predictive modeling to be used to detect behaviors, beliefs or value systems or to forecast student outcomes.”

The measure requires parental sign-off to collect all the personal information listed in the original parental permissions form sent out by SUSD, as well as “Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships,” “Political affiliations, opinions or beliefs,” “Religious practices, affiliations or beliefs,” “Self-sufficiency,” “Sexual behavior or attitudes,” and “Voting history.”

The screening tool administered by the school, designed by Minnesota-based company FastBridge, does not appear to ask such questions. Instead, the screener consists of 19 questions, including whether the child argues, gets distracted in class, or experiences fearfulness or sadness.

Norman said that the screening is opt-in, adding that “opt-in also implies that you can opt out,” and there are “no retributions” for parents who choose not to sign the form.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Support Texas Dad risking everything to save his son from being "transitioned" into a girl
  Show Petition Text
9811 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 10000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

In 2019, LifePetitions launched a similar petition on behalf of Jeff Younger (the father) and his son James, asking for support and for the Texas state authorities to intervene in a unbelievable case in which the Dallas courts keep flip-flopping over which parent has parental rights and, ultimately, whether or not James must be forced to live as a girl and suffer the trauma of so-called gender "transitioning," as his mom believes he is a girl.

Incredibly, we now seem to be back at square one.

Jeff Younger currently has a gag order put on him, which prohibits him to speak out in defense of his son. But, because he has recently decided to ignore that order, to save his son from irreversible surgery, this brave Dad now faces possible arrest.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which does two things: 1) Supports Jeff Younger (again, the Dad) in his fight to save his son, James, from so-called gender "transitioning;" and, 2) Calls on Texas' Attorney General to intervene in this case and quash the gag order against Mr. Younger.

CLICK HERE to WATCH the latest LifeSite interview with Jeff Younger. Hear about the latest developments with his son, as well as the real dangers of gender reassignment surgery and other “transititioning” methods.

Currently, even though he shares 50/50 parental rights to James, which has allowed him to stop the chemical castration of his son, Jeff’s ex-wife recently sued to have full parental rights and to "give her sole medical and psychological decision making."

Jeff is also being threatened with jail time from the gag order, which he believes was intentionally done to stop him from helping pass legislation in Texas to ban sex-change surgeries for minors.

Jeff says that the gag order "prohibits me from speaking on all manner of political topics. And I’m not even allowed to tell you in that gag order whether my son’s a boy or girl."

But Jeff is speaking out, no matter what, because of the real danger that his son is in if he undergoes "transition" surgery.

Indeed, so-called gender "transitions" present many unsafe effects, some desired, some undesired, though all dangerous for one's physical and mental health.

Puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones have not been proven safe. For example, the FDA has NOT approved Lupron and GnRH analogues for use in blocking puberty.

Risks associated with these pharmaceuticals include: low bone density, high blood pressure, weight gain, abnormal glucose tolerance, breast cancer, liver disease, thrombosis, and cardiovascular disease.

And, additional risks and potential harms include: 

For Males: Stunting of penile and testicular growth, sexual dysfunction, prevention of spermatogenesis, and disruption of normal brain and bone development.

For Females: A menopause-like state, blockade of normal breast development, decreased blood flow to vagina and vulva, sexual dysfunction, thinning of vaginal epithelium, vaginal atrophy, prevention of menses/ovulation, and disruption of normal brain and bone development.

In other words, these medications can sterilize and cause medical harm to vulnerable, confused children.

And, the stunning part about this: studies show that 85% of gender confused children eventually become comfortable with the sex of their bodies.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which supports Jeff Younger, a Texas Dad, who is fighting to prevent his son, James, from being "turned into a girl." At the same time, we appeal to Texas State Attorney General, to intervene in this case and quash the gag order against Jeff.

Thank you!


'Save James: Father risks arrest to save 9-year-old son from forced gender-transition':


Many eminent psychiatrists are now speaking against the faulty notion that sex is fluid and a matter of choice. In particular, they are concerned about the welfare of children and young people in this regard.

Dr Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins University, who has researched the occurrence of gender dysphoria for 40 years, has stated that the notion of gender fluidity "is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges". [See more below.]

And, the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is definite about the promotion of transgenderism as being harmful public policy:

"Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: 'XY' and 'XX' are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived, either male or female…Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents…” [Read more below.]

Here is what Dr Paul McHugh said on this topic:

This is the ACP statement on Gender Ideology:

About the medical risks associated with medical interventions to attempt to change the sex of the body:

About some of the unconscionable practices some medical professionals are engaged in:

  Hide Petition Text

While the sensitive data described in the original wording of the document does not appear to be asked for in the screening tool, under Arizona state law school districts may collect such information with parental approval.

Norman told LifeSite she does not know under what criteria a school district might ask such questions.

“I don’t see any context in which a school district would do that,” she said. “That’s all extremely — they were asking [about] income, information about weapons in homes, or something like that. Those are the types of things, in state law, that they made examples of. The kinds of things that districts would have to seek parent permission before their students could be surveyed. We would never ask those kinds of questions. Never, never.”

As reported by AZFamily, Dr. Scott Menzel, SUSD superintendent, said the information listed in the notification “would catch my attention as well, and that’s what led to our additional review to say okay, why was that here?”

Menzel said the district conducted a review of the material and decided to modify it, removing the language which caused confusion and outrage among some parents.

According to Menzel, the comprehensive list of personal information which may be solicited by the school with the permission of parents was taken from a “template” that was not intended to be used in connection with that particular health screening.

“As we were looking at how we put these things together, there was template language someone had taken based on survey administration,” Menzel said, adding that the language was an attempt to ensure the district was “compliant with all the statutory requirements.”

According to a statement from SUSD obtained by LifeSiteNews, “SUSD’s initial parent acknowledgment form incorrectly stated that the FastBridge screener might ask for personal information about income, family matters, medical or family medical history, mental health history and other categories of private information.”

“To be clear,” the statement continued, “the FastBridge screener does not and has never sought this information. The form has since been amended to reflect the information that is actually collected. We apologize for this oversight and offer our assurances that SUSD does not support, endorse or collect any family personal history information through FastBridge.”

Dr. Menzel said “mistakes happen,” and added that his district wants to be “transparent” and “attend to the needs of our students.”

Wray expressed her view that parents ought to be made aware of any such concerning language in school documents, telling AZFamily “I think our mission is to make sure parents are aware that they have to be on top of what they’re being asked to sign and what’s happening in the classrooms.”

Norman said the permissions request sent to parents by SUSD was “well-meaning, well-intended, and poorly executed.”

“Because there was that initial misunderstanding, people were concerned about that, rightfully so,” Norman said. “So, we’ve apologized, we’ve told them what we’re really looking into, which is: Kids have been hurting a lot … since March 2020.”