Last August, founder and president of Moms for America, Kimberly Fletcher, raised the question of whether so-called “suicide prevention programs” in schools actually work or merely confuse already confused and troubled children. She shared her concerns in an article on the Moms for America website, which also appeared on Townhall.com.

The article provides information on “new programs aimed at confusing children and exposing them to mature and inappropriate content without their parents’ knowledge or consent,” as documented by Brenda Lebsack, a 25-year veteran of California’s public schools. Lebsack is the founder of the parent advocacy organization Brenda4Kids, (new website is Interfaith4Kids) which aims to “pull back the curtain on what’s really going on in public education.” Lebsack agrees that parents “have been left in the dark about many changes concerning educational content, laws, policies, and the fast erosion of parental rights.”

With the mental health crisis so prevalent among young people, including the rise in suicide rates, Fletcher explains that “administrators now have areas of the school dedicated to suicide prevention. There are increasing campaigns, many spearheaded by grieving families who have lost a teen to suicide, to encourage students to reach out for help. There is even contact information for suicide prevention programs listed on the back of student identification badges at many schools.”

While all this sounds good, the problem is in the content of the supposed solutions. One cause for serious concern is the federally funded “988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline,” which is allegedly a suicide prevention hotline for minor children; however, “when underage students contact the hotline, they are surveyed about their genders and sexualities.” As Lebsack points out, “surveying children about their gender and sexual practices without parental consent is against the law.”

Fletcher reports that In the survey, of which Lebsack provides screen shots, “children are given eleven different ‘genders’ to choose from and even given the option to write in their own identity.” [Emphasis added.]

Also researched by Lebsack is the Trevor Project, “a hotline and chat-based resource recommended by 988 and other suicide prevention programs aimed at school-aged children. The chat features claim to be for ages 13-24, but they are available for students in kindergarten through 12th grade at all public schools.” Since there is no verification process, younger users can easily access the chats by lying about their age.

The controversial Trevor Project focuses on suicide prevention for LGBTQ+ students. Lebsack explains that the Q in this case “stands for ‘Questioning,’” If a child merely expresses “doubt or confusion” about his or her gender or sexuality, the child is considered “an LGBTQ+ identifying student who is then sent to programs like the Trevor Project.” For example, if a student takes the “illegally administered” 988 survey and indicates doubt about his or her sexual identity, he/she “is then directed to the Trevor Project that encourages further confusion.”

Additionally “chat rooms” are available to children and teens through the project’s online platform. Fletcher writes that these chat rooms “have shocking names and content. Among the groups are ‘Witchcraft, ‘Furries United’ (for catgirls/boys and other students who want to pretend to be animals or are just curious), ‘Gay Men Club’ (with the tagline ‘Let’s talk about boys!’), ‘Non-Binary Pals,’ and more.” [Emphasis added.]

These chat groups can easily be joined by adults. Thus, Fletcher warns, “underage students who are confused are actively encouraged by supposed suicide prevention programs to chat with unvetted adults around the world. This is a serious issue.”

According to Alex Newman’s Report 65 on Freedom Project Media, numerous critics have accused the Trevor Project of “grooming children,” including Dr. James Lindsay, “a leading secular critic of the sexualization and indoctrination of children.” Lindsay called the organization a “groomer Project posing as suicide prevention.” It has also come under fire from the Libs of TikTok.

Suicide programs nothing new

As with so many other destructive courses that have been introduced in public schools over the past 50 years, Phyllis Schlafly cautioned about the danger of suicide education more than three decades ago. In her February 1991 report, Phyllis indicated that in the late 1980s, “there suddenly developed a frenzy to ‘deal’ with the problem of teenage suicide. Government-financed conferences were held, a whole new social service bureaucracy started to form, and some legislatures even mandated that suicide courses be taught in the public schools.”

Phyllis wrote that researchers at the time had found that these courses only served to “stir up suicidal feelings when teenagers discuss the topic openly.” Despite the classes, they “continued to believe that suicide was a possible solution to their problems,” and students who took them said that “talking about suicide makes some kids more likely to try to kill themselves.”

Although the researchers’ conclusions proved “a clear need to evaluate such programs to determine their efficacy and safety,” that the courses produced “unwanted effects,” and that the results raised a “cause for concern,” the instruction continued.

As Phyllis pointed out, “most teenagers are not at risk for suicide and it is dangerous to pretend they are and expose them to classroom discussions about suicide.” One of the studies showed that “suicide can be subject to imitation,” and that talking about suicide to a random group of teens without knowing which of them might be pre-suicidal, could be “playing with fire.”

All these years later, the tragedy of teen suicide has become a much more pressing issue. The suicide and death education courses that have persisted in public schools have obviously served to make the situation more dire than it was 33 years ago. Schoolchildren today are subjected to psychological manipulation through social and emotional learning (SEL), the LGBT agenda, and critical race theory which preaches white supremacy and victimology.

Remarkably, what Phyllis warned about in 1991 is precisely what has come to pass in 2024, and its failure is glaringly apparent. See Education Reporter, May 2024, then note Phyllis’s words below:

• Psychotherapy about a sensitive and volatile subject such as suicide, administered to a class of minor children (each with different emotional makeup) by a “counselor” (i.e., an unlicensed psychologist) who has spent a few hours in a workshop, should be prohibited in the public-school classroom. It is to be hoped that legislatures and schools will now abandon their folly about suicide education.

Phyllis’s hope was not realized, and instead we have suicide hotlines that will lead children who are already confused and conflicted down pathways that, at best, have the potential to push them further into harm’s way.

Lebsack, Fletcher, Newman, and other pro-child voices are encouraging parents to find out what policies are in effect in their school districts and spread the word to other parents when objectionable programs are discovered. “We cannot ignore this issue,” Lebsack warns. “Our children are counting on us to take action.”

Want to be notified of new Education Reporter content?
Your information will NOT be sold or shared and will ONLY be used to notify you of new content.
Click Here

Return to Home PageEducation Reporter Online - June 2024