An Abilene resident is asking the Texas education commissioner to order the removal of 13 sexually explicit books from Abilene Independent School District libraries, saying district officials ignored a new state law meant to protect students from “profane” and “indecent” material.
In a 15‑page petition filed Monday, Tammy Fogle accuses Abilene ISD’s board and library review committee of applying the wrong legal standard, defying Senate Bill 13, and keeping books that even district reviewers admitted contain graphic rape, child sexual abuse, and other explicit content involving minors.
She told Texas Scorecard she has faced organized institutional and community pushback amid her work to remove these titles from children’s libraries. Fogle said her focus is on “protecting children from this inappropriate material.”
“They’re not going to frighten me,” she added. “They’re not going to intimidate me.”
The challenged books include “The Bluest Eye,” “The Lovely Bones,” “Speak,” “Kite Runner,” “Sold,” “Poet X,” “I Am Not Your Perfect Mexican Daughter,” and others that Fogle says are “indecent” or “profane” under SB 13’s updated library standards.
Fogle first filed formal challenges under the new process created by SB 13 and Education Code Section 33.027 in October, triggering a review by the district’s School Library Advisory Council (SLAC) and the school board.
The district temporarily removed the books from circulation while they were under review, but the board ultimately voted to keep 13 titles, only reclassifying three to “upper high school” access.
At the heart of Fogle’s complaint is her claim that Abilene ISD never implemented SB 13’s expanded definitions of “harmful,” “indecent,” and “profane” library materials and instead continued to use a narrower, three‑part obscenity test that allows explicit books to be retained if they have “literary value.”
SB 13, which took effect September 1, 2025, requires districts to remove material that is either legally “harmful to minors,” “indecent” (sexual organs or activities portrayed in a patently offensive way), or “profane” (grossly offensive language considered a public nuisance)—with no exception for literary or educational merit under the indecent and profane prongs.
The petition quotes district librarian Kate Stover opening the November 17, 2025, SLAC meeting by reading only the three‑part “harmful material” test into the record and omitting the separate “indecent” and “profane” definitions that SB 13 made independent grounds for mandatory removal.
SLAC members then used that standard on every book, with one member explicitly stating “The Bluest Eye” did not meet all three prongs because it has literary value, without ever applying the indecent or profane content tests.
In a December 15 meeting, an assistant superintendent allegedly told SLAC members to “vote what your heart tells you,” which Fogle’s attorney Jonathan Hullihan argues contradicts the statute’s requirement that reviewers apply legal definitions, not personal judgment.
Fogle says she flagged these errors in a December 17 appeal letter, but the board never corrected course before its January and February votes.
Her filing walks through each of the 13 books, citing page‑by‑page examples of graphic sexual content involving minors, child rape, molestation, prostitution, masturbation, and pervasive profanity, as well as admissions by SLAC members that the material is disturbing.
Examples highlighted in the petition include:
- “The Bluest Eye,” which contains a detailed scene of a father raping his 12‑year‑old daughter along with depictions of a pedophile’s sexual conduct with young girls. SLAC members called it “one of the hardest books I’ve read” and acknowledged it depicts sexual conduct in a way “clearly offensive” for minors.
- “The Lovely Bones,” which opening chapters graphically describe the rape and murder of a 14‑year‑old girl, and which is banned in Texas prisons under a policy barring books that graphically present illegal sexual behavior such as rape and sex with minors.
- “Kite Runner” and “Sold,” which depict child rape and child sex trafficking in extended, explicit passages that reviewers described as “descriptions of sexual violence” and “child sex trafficking.”
- “Poet X,” which includes a first‑person masturbation scene by a teen girl that left one SLAC member saying she was “so uncomfortable with that one part” and another saying “I don’t think you can keep the book when the sex act is described in detail.”
Even after those admissions, Fogle noted, the committee repeatedly recommended retaining the books based on perceived literary merit or the belief that students could benefit from reading about difficult topics.
The petition also targets the Abilene ISD Board of Trustees for adopting SLAC’s recommendations wholesale without making the specific findings state law requires.
During a December 8 meeting, Fogle read an explicit passage from “The Lovely Bones” during public comment before the board voted to retain the first batch of books, but no trustee asked whether the material met SB 13’s definitions or whether the indecent/profane standards had been applied.
In a January workshop, she again read multiple graphic passages from “The Lovely Bones” and told trustees the book is not allowed in Texas prisons; board members still voted 5–1 to deny her appeal.
The transcript shows at least two trustees admitting they had not personally read the challenged books but were deferring to the SLAC.
In the final February 8 vote on the second‑round titles, a motion to separate out “Like a Love Story” for special consideration failed for lack of a second, and the board voted 6–1 to retain all six remaining books.
At no point did the board make findings that the materials were not “pervasively vulgar” or “educationally unsuitable,” or that they failed to meet the “indecent” or “profane” thresholds—something a 2025 commissioner decision in Parent v. Lovejoy ISD says is required.
Fogle’s appeal reflects a broader fight unfolding across Texas as parents test how aggressively SB 13 will be enforced. The law, passed by the 89th Legislature, tightened library standards after earlier litigation and replaced the READER Act with a new framework that gives parents and community members a formal challenge process and requires removal of certain sexually explicit materials from school libraries.
In her December appeal letter, Fogle argues that Abilene administrators “overcomplicate” the law by relying on Texas State Library and Archives Commission guidance and court‑developed obscenity tests instead of the plain language of SB 13.
“Educational value is irrelevant when the profane and indecent threshold is met,” she wrote, adding that a district “cannot substitute a voluntary parental tool” like an opt‑out feature in the library catalog for its mandatory duty to remove prohibited materials.
She also noted that some of the same books Abilene ISD kept on shelves are barred from Texas prisons because they contain graphic depictions of illegal sexual behavior, asking why students should have easier access than inmates.
Fogle is asking Education Commissioner Mike Morath to find that Abilene ISD violated the Texas Education Code and to order the immediate removal of all 13 titles from district libraries and student‑accessible platforms.
The petition leans on a recent en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Little v. Llano County, which held that public library curation is government speech and that there is no First Amendment right to force a public library to carry particular books.
Hullihan argues that decision means Abilene ISD has no constitutional defense for keeping the books and that Morath has clear authority to require their removal under state law.
The Texas Education Agency’s Division of Hearings and Appeals will now decide whether to docket the case and, ultimately, whether Abilene ISD must pull the books or defend its decisions in a formal hearing.
Abilene ISD did not respond to Texas Scorecard‘s request for comment before publication.
No ads. No paywalls. No government grants. No corporate masters.
Just real news for real Texans.
Support Texas Scorecard to keep it that way!
