In addition to litigation, True North Legal engages in policy work fighting to protect life, family, and religious freedom in Minnesota. Our work was featured in The Federalist earlier this year.
Cattle and reptiles will have more legal protections in Minnesota than Minnesota’s vulnerable preborn children. Legal penalties for animal cruelty in Minnesota range from misdemeanor up to a felony while there is no criminal penalty for leaving a preborn child to die on a cold metal table,” Renee Carlson, general counsel at True North Legal, said in remarks to the Senate ahead of the vote.
Renee Carlson, General Counsel of True North Legal, welcomed former Vice President Mike Pence to Minneapolis on Wednesday. Renee and Vice President Pence addressed leaders and advocates for parental rights in Minnesota, including legislators, school board members, attorneys, policy advisors, and parents.
As Renee put it in her remarks, ““Respecting the rights of parents to direct their child’s education should be the easiest decision schools make – when families flourish, children thrive!” True North Legal is dedicated to protecting and defending the fundamental parental right and responsibility of parents to the upbringing and education of their children. Watch the full event here, or below.
Watch Renee’s testimony on SF 23 above, or read the full text below.
Madam chair and members,
My name is Renee Carlson. I serve as General Counsel for TNL.
Life isn’t easy. We know this from the testimonies heard today.
Because every person’s story is different, access to trusted counselors is critical for all Minnesotans.
Moreover, counselors and clients should direct the conversations about a client’s counseling experience, not the government.
But SF 23 doesn’t allow either. It stifles personal counseling goals by censoring constitutionally protected speech of licensed counselors, clients, and many others, which is likely to result in a vacuum of care, leaving patients who voluntarily seek counseling without any options.
SF 23’s unconstitutional discrimination based on content and viewpoint permits speech that helps a person change his or her gender identity or embrace same-sex attractions. Yet bans speech, that helps a person address unwanted same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has “long protected the First Amendment rights of professionals”—such as therapist and counselors, and signaled that counseling censorship laws such as SF 23 violate these rights and principles regarding free speech.
And, just a few years ago, the 11th circuit court of appeals struck down a FL law with similar yet even narrower language than SF 23, holding it was an infringement on constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment, stating ““People have intense moral, religious, and spiritual views about [counseling related to sexuality and identity]…. And that is exactly why the First
Amendment does not allow communities to determine how their neighbors
may be counseled about matters of sexual orientation or gender.”
Our own 8th Circuit has been clear that speech is not conduct simply because the government says it is.
SF 23’s consumer fraud provision makes this bill the most expansive counseling censorship bill in the country. The bills vague and overly broad language leave counselors, clients, and all others expected to comply with the prohibitions confused about what is actually prohibited.
However, under the proposed bill, faith-based organizations engaging in faith-driven activities could be subjected to severe legal consequences and ruinous lawsuits.
Minnesotans of diverse faith backgrounds will be caught between liability under the law and strong moral convictions.
Further, these provisions are unnecessary, as current Minnesota law already holds licensed professionals accountable.
There is no justification for legislation that violates Minnesotan’s freedom of speech in a very private setting, while imposing severe legal consequences for Minnesotans who simply want to live consistent with their deeply held beliefs.
True North Legal General Counsel Renee Carlson wrote this piece for the Star Tribune‘s Opinion page this week, following the paper’s Editorial Board’s decision to endorse the PRO Act, a radical abortion bill currently being considered by the Minnesota state legislature.
In “Codify abortion rights with ‘PRO Act'” (Jan. 9), the Star Tribune Editorial Board made some astounding claims about the so-called Protect Reproductive Options Act. While the board usually seeks to strike a note of moderation, the PRO Act is one of the most radical abortion bills ever proposed in Minnesota — or indeed, to my knowledge, in any American state.
Following the bill’s first hearing last week, the Editorial Board suggested that PRO Act opponents are the extremists. Let’s talk about that. If opposing the PRO Act is extreme, the Star Tribune must believe that a partial-birth abortion at 40 weeks gestation is perfectly moderate. The board must believe that under no circumstances should the state mandate that a pregnant woman receive unbiased information from her doctor that would help her make an informed choice.
The board must believe that allowing minor girls to get abortions without parental involvement is, again, a moderate and sane position. Abortion would then be one of the very few medical procedures that a minor girl could undergo without parental involvement. Anyone who opposes this is, apparently, an extremist.
To make matters worse, consider the Minnesota Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretation in Doe v. Gomez, which currently provides not only so-called abortion rights, but also the right to have an abortion funded by taxpayers in some circumstances. It follows that if the PRO Act is passed, we may see legal arguments attempting to put Minnesota taxpayers on the hook for a whole host of “reproductive services” guaranteed in the bill — such as “fertility treatment.” We cannot rule out commercial surrogacy, an inherently coercive and troubling practice.
The rushed consideration of the PRO Act (with DFL leaders pushing for passage by the end of January) is an insult to the legislative process, and surely an attempt to sneak this through before Minnesotans discover the true radical significance of this bill. If passed in its current form, it would quite possibly make Minnesota’s abortion laws on par with the most extreme in the nation in some respects.
The PRO Act is out of step with Minnesotans’ values, both those who call themselves pro-life and those who call themselves pro-choice. Even most pro-choice Minnesotans support common-sense protections for women and the ability of the state to regulate abortion after the first trimester, as all recent polling on this issue indicates. The PRO Act would bulldoze over these conscientious pro-choice Minnesotans in service of a radical, “shout your abortion” agenda that brooks no moral hesitation about abortion.
Make no mistake, the PRO Act is not about health care. It is political theater, its status as the first bill introduced in both houses of the Legislature displaying the priorities of DFL leaders, not Minnesotans. In supporting radical bills like the PRO Act, which drastically limits the state’s ability to protect the safety and well-being of women and girls, or indeed regulate abortion in any way, the DFL needs to stop pretending that it is simply enacting the people’s will, or, even more duplicitously, that it is merely codifying into law the “rights” Minnesotans already have.
As should be clear to anyone who reads the bill and thinks about its implications, the PRO Act goes far beyond Doe v. Gomez. Legislators should first explain to Minnesotans precisely what this bill does, and what it doesn’t do. Rather than protecting women and girls, it creates an extreme abortion regime, and then some, in Minnesota.
Gone are the days of abortion moderation, of “safe, legal and rare.” The new DFL majorities, now supported by the voice of the Star Tribune, are putting all their cards on the table for a brave new world in which anyone with moral concerns about abortion is an extremist. This does not represent the views or priorities of Minnesotans.
Renee Carlson is general counsel, True North Legal, an initiative of the Minnesota Family Institute.
From June 2022: Vice President Pence praised the work of True North Legal in a video released by Minnesota Family Council.
True North Legal worked with Vice President Pence’s organization, Advancing American Freedom, to submit an Amicus brief in Dobbs v. Jackson, urging the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
A Minnesota-based advocacy group called Mothers Offering Maternal Support (MOMS) has taken action to restore common-sense abortion restrictions for young girls and women, against the wishes of Attorney General Keith Ellison.
The group, which has close to 50 members, filed a new motion on Monday, Nov. 14 in its effort to oppose a ruling made by Ramsey County Judge Thomas Gilligan on July 11.
“Abortion providers now may legally provide secret abortions to minors without providing any notice to parents, and they no longer need share statutorily required information with the minors themselves before allowing non-physicians to perform abortions at any gestational age of the pregnancy,” MOMS said in a memo in support of its motion to intervene.
Gilligan had decreed that, among other things, the state’s 24-hour waiting period for an abortion was unconstitutional, and that minors didn’t need to inform their parents they were seeking an abortion.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by abortion activists against the state of Minnesota. The attorney general is responsible for defending state law regardless of his personal opinions.
Ellison announced in July that his office would not be appealing the decision, saying an appeal would be unlikely to succeed and thus would be an ineffective use of taxpayer dollars.
But on Oct. 12, his office filed a motion objecting to MOMS’ attempt to intervene in the case, meaning his office will be using taxpayer dollars to oppose their efforts to protect the unborn, according to MOMS.
Teresa Collett, an attorney representing MOMS who teaches law at the University of St. Thomas’ Minneapolis campus, previously called Ellison’s decision to not appeal the ruling a “dereliction of his duty to protect the health and safety of women and young girls.”
She believes Ellison failed to present evidence challenging the claims of the plaintiffs.
“Judge Gilligan’s opinion referenced unrebutted evidence multiple times establishing that the defense was unfamiliar with evidence from nationally recognized experts regarding the value and efficacy of laws requiring parental involvement, informed consent, reflection periods, and physician performance of abortion, suggesting a lack of experience and competence in defending these long-standing laws that were passed with bi-partisan support,” she explained in a statement this week.
MOMS representative Jessica Chastek said it was “shocking” that “the state would refuse to protect bipartisan laws that safeguard women and children from the abortion industry.”
“The mothers in this group share significant concerns about the far-reaching repercussions that this case will have on Minnesota women, as well as young girls and their parents,” she said. “All this time the two-parent notification law hangs in the balance — a law which simply ensures that parents have an opportunity to be engaged and available for our daughters at a time when they need maternal support the most.”
A court hearing is scheduled for Jan. 5.
“The Attorney General’s brief in opposition to this group’s attempt to intervene in the case is due on Dec. 22. That brief will constitute our reply,” a spokesperson told Alpha News.
On December 5, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in graphic designer Lorie Smith’s case, 303 Creative v. Elenis. At stake is whether artists—indeed all Americans—will be free to say what they believe without fear of government punishment. Lorie’s case has become even more important after the Senate’s shameful vote last week on the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act,” a bill which demonstrates that officials at the highest level of government are increasing hostile to free speech and religious liberty. No one should be forced to say something they don’t believe, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the freedom of speech of all Americans in 303 Creative.
True North Legal, Reason for Life, and Iowa’s Family Leader filed an amicus brief in support of 303 Creative, which you can read HERE. In this short video, hear True North Legal General Counsel Renee Carlson discuss the case with Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Matt Sharp.
Some of you probably saw recent headlines about the Peace Officer Licensing Standards and Training (POST) Board’s proposed revisions to its rules relating to peace officer education and licensing. Unfortunately, it is clear that these proposed revisions to the rules significantly infringe on religious freedom as well as other rights protected under United States and Minnesota constitutions.
In the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR), the POST Board claims these rules are necessary in order tostop the “…continued erosion of the public’s trust of law enforcement officers and agencies because [of] officers’ discriminatory conduct, and officer participation in hate groups..” However, if passed these rules will do the just the opposite. In its current draft form, the POST Board’s new revisions to the rules relating to education and licensing of peace officers will create serious legal and policy implications affecting numerous peace officers across the state.
That’s why True North Legal (TNL), a legal initiative associated with Minnesota Family Council, along with other allied organizations, took the first step to oppose these egregious rules. We submitted a comment and request for a contested case rulemaking proceeding consistent with Minnesota law, and we are asking you to do the same. As further discussed, and referenced in the legal analysis provided in our comment, these rule as drafted are clearly unconstitutional, violating the Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly and Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.
RE: POST Board’s Revisions to the Rules Relating to Education and Licensing of Peace Officers
Dear Members of the POST Board,
As [insert member of the public, organization, or name,] I object to the POST Board’s proposed revisions to the rules relating to education and licensing for peace officers. More specifically, I am concerned about the proposed revisions defining discriminatory conduct and related behavior.
To be clear, [I/we] have a common understanding that no one, including peace officers, should engage in unlawful discrimination. However, these proposed revisions are extremely broad and offer no clear guidance to the many officers across the state that will be impacted by these proposed changes to the rules.
In fact, as currently drafted, the rules are clearly unconstitutional, violating the Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly and Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. It is for these reasons that [I/we] request a contested case rulemaking proceeding on the proposed revisions to the rule consistent with Minnesota law.
Renee Carlson is True North Legal’s General Counsel. The piece below is adapted from her legislative testimony earlier this week about parental rights, which you can view here.
Parents’ rights to direct the education of their children does not end when their child goes to school. But are Minnesota schools allowing parents to exercise that right? History is telling. Over the last decade local state agencies, educational organizations, lobbyists, school boards, and administrators have created policies that undermine parental rights. Consider these few examples:
· Minnesota State High School League’s (MSHSL) decision to allow males to play on female sports teams despite significant parent testimony opposing the board’s changes;
· The Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) implementation of the Transgender Toolkit over the objections and concerns of many parents;
· The Public Educator Licensing Standards Board’s (PELSB) lack of transparency with regard to changing teacher licensing standards and cultural competency as statutorily defined.
Practically, these changes opened the door to school policies that: Circumvent parental notice in matters relating to students’ physical and emotional health, discipline students for acting consistent with various religious and moral upbringings, teach students about sexuality and how to obtain contraceptives without parental knowledge, and allow teachers to use curriculum that would be considered pornographic in almost any other context outside of diverse literary content.
Nearly 100 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right and responsibility of parents over their minor children, especially in matters relating to their child’s education and upbringing, holding “a child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations…”[1] After all, as the Court later affirmed, “parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment.”[2]
Yet, Minnesota schools have implemented policies that starkly depart from this precedent, despite Minnesota’s recognition of the constitutional rights of parents. Minnesota’s regard for parent’ rights is clearly evidenced by one of the strongest educational opt-out laws in the country, as well as state statutes that require parental involvement in education. However, the spirit and intent of the law has fallen on deaf ears. Schools have continued to put in place egregious policies inconsistent with clearly established law regarding the role of parents in the upbringing of their children [3].
Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court have become secondary resources for many decisionmakers when interpreting parental rights laws in this state. This leads to policies that contradict the law, often marginalizing parents who do not champion a school’s beliefs about gender confusion, implicit bias, general disparities, and sensitive family life issues. Even greater tension exists when a school’s actions directly contradict parents’ moral teachings, often based on strong religious convictions.
The urgency for legislation is not based on hypotheticals. In the last two weeks alone, I have received inquiries from parents representing five different school districts across the state, including a request from fifty parents representing over one hundred students, concerned about a policy that the school plans to adopt, which allows students to change their sex, and determine their gender identity without parental consent if the school determines that telling the parent would put the student at risk. Unfortunately, the school showed little regard, if any, for these parents’ concerns, including immigrant and refugee parents who speak English as a second language, insisting the law requires the school adopt this policy.
Two weeks ago, I met a middle school teacher despairing over his superintendent’s directive to keep a child’s new gender identity hidden from the child’s parents. Lawsuits against schools based on similar situations are pending in Wisconsin and Florida.
Another parent informed me that her child’s teacher shared matters about her personal sexual preferences during class and encouraged students in various forms of sexual experimentation. The parent’s desperate plea, “I will drive clear across the country for help. I will do anything!” really drives the point home.
These are Minnesotans’ stories, and there are more.
Certainly, schools face many complex and difficult decisions in our current culture. Moreover, schools have a legitimate interest in the education, health, and safety of children that will one day be adults in our society.
But respecting the rights of parents to direct their child’s education should be the easiest decision schools make. When schools decide to circumvent open meeting law, disallow or severely limit public comment, administrators will not return emails, and the Minnesota Department of Education, along with other educational organizations, and school attorneys counsel schools to implement policies that blatantly violate parental rights, the legislature needs to act.
Legislation recognizing the supremacy of parental rights is not a partisan plot to micromanage schools and teachers. Such claims significantly devalue the commitment of parents to their children. Rather, this legislation is a response to the erosion of parental rights in our state, and the current policies that only drive a wedge between parents and schools. Therefore, we strongly encourage the Minnesota legislature to pass laws that restore parents’ rights to decide what is best regarding the education and upbringing of their children.
___________
[1]Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).
[3]Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972) (“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”).
