OPINION | Moms for Liberty Say Their Goal Is Protecting Children — Please Don't Take Their Word for It

by Maggie Block

Self-proclaimed "joyful warriors" Moms for Liberty say on their website that their vision is "Americans empowered and thriving in a culture of Liberty." Using imagery of children's faces and describing themselves as "Moms, Dads, Grands, Aunts, Uncles, Friends," Moms for Liberty paint themselves as a group of sweet-as-apple-pie PTA members just trying to protect America's children. They project a vision of themselves that is hard (if not impossible) to object to, which is, of course, the point. They know they can use their (strategically not completely) white motherhood to mask their hatred of queer and BIPOC people by calling queer youth acceptance perversion and calling anti-racism hatred against white people. Nothing is more effective at making a hate group look reasonable than a well-put-together middle-class mother at the forefront crying about how deeply she wants to protect "the children." Unlike the journalists who come dangerously close to treating Moms for Liberty as a neutral phenomenon, we should oppose the group's efforts, not just when the books they target seem completely innocent, but also when they hold up more challenging books as self-evidently inappropriate.

Moms for Liberty was formed in 2021, focused on controlling the books available to students in public school libraries and taught as part of school curriculums. Its founding happened in tandem with the artificially created culture war against so-called critical race theory. Moms for Liberty chapters have been pivotal in the mass banning of books and curriculums across this country for the crime of containing people or storylines that aren't about straight white Christians. Its members are able to so easily distract people from their real goals in part because the media does not push back against what they say.

The first time I saw members of Moms for Liberty talking about their activism was on the April 23 episode of CBS Sunday Morning. Correspondent Martha Teichner interviewed a number of people surrounding the current political movement for mass book bannings in public schools, including two co-founders of Moms for Liberty, Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice. In the video, Teichner asks the two pro-censorship activists, "What kinds of books do you want in schools, in libraries?" To which Descovich replies, "Books that educate children." When Teichner presses the women to be more specific, Justice interrupts the reporter to clarify, "Books that don't have pornography in them, let's start there. Let's put the bar really, really low. Books that don't have incest, pedophilia, rape." The segment then cuts to award-winning graphic novelist Art Spiegelman, as he talks about the challenges faced by his books Maus and Maus II.

While Spiegelman outright rejects the idea that these moms want liberty — "what's more Orwellian than that?" — the idea that Justice put out there, that the books the group she co-founded fights to ban are primarily pornography, goes unchallenged.

The next time I saw a member of Moms for Liberty interviewed — this time Jennifer Pippin, the founding member of the Indian River, Florida, chapter — was in The Washington Post's article "Objection to sexual, LGBTQ content propels spike in book challenges: An analysis of book challenges from across the nation shows the majority were filed by just 11 people."

Pippin, too, uses sensational language to talk about the importance of banning books from schools and libraries. In reference to the second most challenged book in 2022, Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, Pippin said, "If that book was made without the strap-on dildo, that book wouldn't be challenged." The article offers no pushback to Pippin's statement, despite the fact that the entire point of the article was to show that serial book challengers created the majority of the formal requests for books to be banned. "Last school year, Indian River County schools [in Florida] received 68 book challenges bearing Pippin's name." Surely not all 68 books Pippin challenged contained dildos. But she wasn't made to explain why the other 67 books couldn't grace school library shelves, only why she objected to the one with the most controversial content.

I desperately wish the writers of news stories would push back on the ridiculous book challenges Moms for Liberty has advocated for, because the group has pushed for the removal of many books no reasonable person would find questionable for young people to read. The Perks of Being a Wallflower was challenged for drug use because of the following line: "He was also crying pretty bad, and he decided if anyone asked him, he would say his eyes were red from smoking pot." The Hate U Give was challenged because of the hatred it displayed in the line, "I swear, I don't understand white people … " The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian was challenged for the line, "During one week when I was little, Dad got stopped three times for DWI: Driving While Indian," presumably because it acknowledged racism (all from Moms for Liberty – Polk County, IA's "Book of Books" document). When journalists allow groups like Moms for Liberty to define itself and the problems it is fighting, they are helping it spread its fascist narrative and agenda.

Moms for Liberty says its aim is to keep pornography out of primary schools, but it's clear that's not its final goal, and it's not even trying to hide it. Moms for Liberty wants to force a white Christian nationalist agenda on America. Let's not forget that Moms for Liberty started in Florida and worked hand in hand with Ron DeSantis to push through legislation aimed at removing any lessons or materials that acknowledge LGBTQIA+ people or a history of racism in this country. Banning books, such as Dim Sum for Everyone!, Sulwe, or My Two Moms and Me isn't protecting students from sexually explicit materials, it is denying reality. There are Americans (including Floridians) of all races and religions, of all genders and sexualities. To prevent schools from even being able to acknowledge that such people exist does not protect children — it hurts children who are not white, straight, cisgender, and Christian by not allowing them to see themselves in books and school curriculums.

I could spend the rest of this essay here only looking at the sweetest, most family friendly books it has spent its time challenging, and the damage that is causing, because it is shameful the number of books being banned across this country for portraying Jewish community, children with disabilities, and stories of Japanese internment, among other things. The vast majority of programming, books, and lesson plans the Moms for Liberty cohort are trying to ban from public life are only questionable if you hate BIPOC, religious minorities, and LGBTQIA+ people. However, I am going to try and push you, dear reader, to fully consider books with the most attention-grabbing content. I want to make a case for the real pearl clutchers that Moms for Liberty likes to talk about to the press.

The argument Moms for Liberty and its ilk make is that books that have any mention of sex and sexuality being available to minors is tantamount to child abuse. This is not a new argument; it's a real mainstay in the conservative activist playbook. In researching this essay, I read about the controversy surrounding the nonfiction book It's Perfectly Normal being included in Chester County's public library in 1997. Grandmothers who dedicated their time and energy trying to get the book banned (and when they were unsuccessful, defacing copies of the book), called it pornography, evil, and against the natural law of modesty. It's Perfectly Normal is a nonfiction book aimed at educating children about sex. In the '90s, author and former educator Robie Harris wanted to write a book that gave young people information they needed to be safe as the AIDS epidemic raged on. The book acknowledged homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion without moral prescription or shame. ("A dirty book, or a frank discussion? Chester County is the latest Battle Ground for Sex and the censors," The PhiladelphiaInquirer, Sun, Mar 9, 1997.)

The lack of shame with which Harris discussed sexuality was a large part of what the Christian activists found questionable. That has not changed and is a clear motivator for contemporary book-banning activists, especially queer sex and sexual desires. As shown by the fact that the top two most challenged and banned books of 2022 are both memoirs of queer people exploring their identity, including their sexuality: All Boys Aren't Blue by George M. Johnson, and Gender Queer, a graphic novel by Maia Kobabe. Both books describe real scenes from the authors' lives, including them completing sex acts both solo and partnered. Both books are honest and, yes, graphic, but I don't think either book is erotic.

Gender Queer takes the reader through Kobabe's experience of eir gender (Kobabe uses "ey, em, eir" pronouns), sometimes as it relates to horror around menstruation (with illustrations of eir bloody nightmares); sometimes as it relates to discovering eir own sexual desire (MLM fan fiction, and homoerotic Greek myths and illustrations); sometimes as it relates to masturbation; and sometimes as it relates to exploring sex (with a sexual partner, ey experiment with the dildo to no avail, no nudity shown). Moms for Liberty finds all of what I mentioned above worthy of banishment from public school libraries. But what is actually wrong with any of it? Nobody is arguing that Gender Queer belongs in an elementary school library; nobody is arguing that it should be required reading. Why can't it be available to any young readers?

Anxiety around periods is very common; books like Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret have been exploring this since that book was published in 1970 (not without its own controversies). The problems Moms for Liberty has with the inclusion of Kababe's menstruation nightmare is somewhat unclear to me. They show the images without commentary, as though they believe the visuals themselves explain the concern. What's the problem here? Is it the inclusion of imagery of bloody thighs and pads? Is it the fact that the story is about dysphoria, and the horror (not mere anxiety) that periods can bring to young people suffering from it? I suspect it is both. But I don't buy into its logic; period blood on thighs and sanitary products is a monthly occurrence for half the population. It may be taboo, but it shouldn't be — there's nothing shameful about menstruating. Further, just as it was necessary for Judy Blume to break with tradition and talk about periods in a book for girls in the 1970s, it is important for young people going through dysphoric menstruation to be able to know they're not alone in their puberty experience either.

Americans are deeply concerned about only exposing young people to appropriate materials, but what's deemed appropriate has less to do with where young people are developmentally, and much more to do with what makes the adults in their lives comfortable. I imagine many people, including some reading this, find the idea of a graphic novel exploring sexual desires and masturbation being in any school library distressing. But again, I have to ask why? Children as young as babies, according to Planned Parenthood, or as young as 3, according to WebMD, masturbate as part of normal body exploration. "Masturbation becomes goal-driven [focused on orgasm] around age 10," WebMD continues. So why couldn't young people in high school, or even middle school, read a book about someone exploring their own masturbation practice? 1. Because it is a distinctly queer masturbation practice, and Moms for Liberty is homophobic and transphobic. 2. Because any discussion of masturbation makes us, the adults in their lives, uncomfortable. But masturbation is entirely normal. Our fear of talking to young people about sexual pleasure, or even allowing them to find stories about sexual desire, leads to stigma and shame. Stigma and shame they should not have. Further, it leads young people to find media on their own online — you know, actual pornography. Not true and honest stories about sex and exploration, but media produced to be confusingly and often overwhelmingly sensational.

The truth is, books are a really safe place for young people to explore their sexuality. There's no way to get pregnant or develop an STI; they can explore their interests and desires without putting their hearts and bodies at risk; they can explore their fantasies without going against their faiths; and they can put the book down without facing any conflict or coercion if they aren't interested in it anymore. And again, young people around the age of 10 are having sexual fantasies; denying them access to books with any sexual content is not protecting them, it is denying the reality that they are sexual beings and denying them resources they need to feel comfortable and fulfilled as sexual beings. The fact that a young person is reading about sex does not mean they are going to run out and have sex. It does mean they know they're not sick for wanting it. And in the case of queer young people reading books with queer sex scenes, it means they know a little bit more about how they might have sex one day.

While I haven't had the pleasure of reading All Boys Aren't Blue (I'm waiting for my hold to become available at the public library!), there are a few different resources I can use to help me evaluate and understand what kind of content it contains. According to Commonsense Media (a great online resource that gives frank, no-stigma breakdowns of mature content in books, TV shows, movies, and video games), All Boys Aren't Blue contains "descriptions of consensual sex and a sexual assault that aren't erotic. … A couple of violent incidents against the author are also specific but not gory, but blood is mentioned. Teens in college drink, party, and smoke marijuana."

Moms for Liberty's "Book of Books" contains three passages from All Boys Aren't Blue where the author describes sex and a sexual assault (Page 50 of the document), which I read for this article. There is a scene where he has penetrative sex with another boy for the first time. It's described clearly, though not particularly graphically (the word penis is not used, nor are any of its synonyms, as an example). I thought it was fumbling and unsure and sweet. It felt real and honest. The scene where he describes sexual assault is upsetting, but shouldn't it be? It walks the same very fine line of clearly describing what happens without being graphic. I know from a fellow librarian that in the book Johnson talks about how it wasn't until years after he had been having sex that anyone talked to him about how to do it safely as a gay man. Because — and I know this is hard for some people to believe — kids are gay without having any exposure to books about being gay. Johnson was gay and had no resources about his identity, which didn't prevent him from having gay sex. It did, however, prevent him from having safe sex.

This book so clearly comes from a desire to help other queer people know more than he did as they navigate their burgeoning desires. Isn't that exactly the kind of book you'd want in school libraries? No, not every student will be ready for those two books. But shouldn't they be available for the students who are?

Whether or not you agree with my previous points, you may still want to use the trump card Tiffany Justice showed us: School libraries have books with incest, pedophilia, and rape in them! Surely I don't think experiences that ugly should be available on any school library bookshelf? Well, let's look at one such book. The fourth most challenged book of 2022 has, according to Common Sense Media, "Sex acts and feelings between adults … more than one grown man behav[ing] inappropriately with young girls. There is also incest and domestic violence, including the rape of an 11-year-old girl." Sounds like the exact kind of book many people would not want in school. This book is The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison.

For those who are not aware, Morrison is one of the Great American Authors. Morrison is an American Book Award-, a Pulitzer Prize-, a Nobel Prize- (among many others) winning author. The Bluest Eye was her first book and one that has been taught in many classrooms since it was published in 1970. As with most of Morrison's work, it wrestles with the brutal outcomes that white supremacist patriarchy creates for Black women and girls. The book's title refers to the main character's self-hatred and wish to have blue eyes due to the way she, a Black girl, is treated by her family and wider community.

You could argue there are other books that deal with Black girls' self-image that don't feature pedophilia and incest that could be taught in schools instead. But, as we discussed earlier, Moms for Liberty seems to find problems with books that acknowledge racism. So we could choose some other book, likely by an author who is not as talented as Morrison, that deals with how a white supremacist society negatively affects a Black girl's self-image, but I assure you Moms for Liberty would object to that one too.

You could ask why Morrison couldn't explore those themes without including such ugly acts: rape and child sexual abuse? I couldn't find a quote from Morrison herself on why sexual violence was a theme she often explored. What I, a nonexpert, imagine is that Morrison wanted to write books that reflected the real life experiences of Black women and girls throughout American history. Writing novels about the racism and sexism Black girls experienced in U.S. history without including sexual violence is ahistorical. Further, I personally believe that Morrison wrote about a prevalence of sexual violence she saw in her life, and wrote about it to try and free others from the shame and stigma such violence triggers. Knowing you're not alone in an experience so ugly is the most powerful affirmation you can get as a survivor.

Many pro-censorship advocates argue that books that touch on child sexual abuse just aren't appropriate for students. Well, no good person wants this to be true, but the sad reality is that child sexual abuse is a common occurrence. "About 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 13 boys in the United States experience child sexual abuse," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which also points out, "Many children wait to report or never report child sexual abuse. Therefore, the numbers [cited] likely underestimate the true impact of the problem." So, while we may not agree on what is appropriate for young people to read, I hope we can agree that materials about child sexual abuse are unfortunately relevant to every school community.

In a 2017 interview, Shekema Silveri, an educator with many years of classroom experience, talked about why she taught The Bluest Eye to her students. She lists a number of benefits the teaching of the text had for her students, and when asked about student reactions to the book, she said, "Teaching novels like The Bluest Eye helps us break down barriers with students. After reading the book, I had a student who said that she is the product of incest. And I've had a student who said that she was molested by her uncle. Books allow us to help them heal in ways that we as educators couldn't help them heal on our own."
One insidious argument Moms for Liberty makes is that parents should have the right to decide whether or not their children can access explicit materials. It's an effective argument, and it's also a dangerous one. "Someone known and trusted by the child or child's family members perpetrates 91% of child sexual abuse" (from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Which is to say, children are most at risk of sexual abuse from their family's community. So allowing parents the opportunity to keep children from accessing resources explaining what child sexual abuse is, and that it is wrong, can lead to the continuation of children experiencing abuse.

While we might want these resources to be irrelevant to the youngest students, unfortunately, young children are also victims of child sexual abuse, and also need information about it. You remember the book I talked about earlier, the one from the '90s, It's Perfectly Normal? It was frequently one of the most challenged books in the U.S. on through the early 2000s. A10-year-old girl once picked up It's Perfectly Normal at her public library. She showed the chapter about child sexual abuse to her mom and said, "This is about me." It turns out the girl's father had been sexually abusing her, which her mother hadn't even suspected was happening. If the censors had succeeded and It's Perfectly Normal hadn't been available for children to check out at that girl's library, who knows how much longer the abuse would have continued? When sentencing the girl's father to prison, the judge said, "The biggest hero in this story, other than the child, is the book." What Moms for Liberty wants is for children never to hear the reality that child sexual abuse exists. But denying reality does nothing to keep anyone safe from it. It does, however, deny young people the very resources they need to be able to find their own safety.

Moms for Liberty wants to focus on the importance of parents' rights. But what rights do children have in all this? Parents sexually abusing their kids is obviously the extreme, but parents forcing their regressive beliefs onto their children also causes harm. We have known for years that LGBTQIA+ children who are met with acceptance around their identity have significantly better mental health outcomes than their peers who are met with hatred. We have known for years that states without comprehensive sexual education have the highest rates of teen pregnancies and new STI infections. Children should have the right to find information that is relevant to their lives and identities, to form their own ideas, and to make their own choices, no matter what their parents' beliefs are.

Control is different from protection, and Moms for Liberty and its ilk know that. Its goal is to return to a time when young people aren't taught about their bodies or sexualities, no matter that doing so puts children at greater risk. It wants to recreate a world where BIPOC stories are absent from classrooms, and where America's history is spotless in its blazing white glory. Its members have seen their power slipping, and they are trying to force their narrative back onto us all. And we who understand, accept, and even at times love the realities of humanity must do the work to resist their efforts. There are many groups taking up this mantle, such as Red Wine and Blue, Florida Freedom to Read Project, Mothers Against Greg Abbott, and the FReadom Fighters, which you should join and support.

However, we should not assume we are safe here in Washington State. In Burien, where I live, Moms for Liberty just hosted a forum for school board candidates in the Highline School Board race, and there are candidates running who align with its hateful ideology. Do you know who's running for school board in your city? We need to be paying attention to our local school and library board meetings, speaking at them, voting for board members in elections, and perhaps even running for those positions. We need to make sure the people who are making the rules for our institutions of knowledge are dedicated to truth, justice, and, above all else, reality.

The South Seattle Emerald is committed to holding space for a variety of viewpoints within our community, with the understanding that differing perspectives do not negate mutual respect amongst community members.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the contributors on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of the Emerald or official policies of the Emerald.

Featured image by On The Run Photo/Shutterstock.com.