Advocacy groups at odds over parental rights constitutional amendment

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) – Conservative advocacy groups are at odds over a parental rights constitutional amendment on the Texas ballot next month. 

On Nov. 4, voters will approve or reject 17 constitutional amendments, the majority of which relate to tax prohibitions, The Center Square reported.

The state legislature passed the ballot propositions this year; they will only go into effect if voters approve them. Early voting is from Oct. 20 through Oct. 31. 

The parental rights constitutional amendment, Proposition 15, states, "The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children."

It would amend Article I of the Texas Constitution by adding Section 37, which states, “To enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”

The Texas legislature overwhelmingly passed a joint resolution, SJR 34, with strong bipartisan support. It passed the state Senate unanimously and passed the House by a vote of 112-22. 

Its sponsor, Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, argues the amendment is necessary because “over the last 100 years, federal case law has outlined specific areas in which parents have a constitutionally protected right to make decisions for their children. However, rights found in case law can change and disappear over time with the appointment of new judges. Placing the rights of parents in the Texas constitution would ensure the longevity of these rights for future generations.”

If approved, the amendment would “provide clarity regarding those rights,” Hughes argues. The amendment “does not change the law” but places “into the Texas Constitution the rights of parents already protected by the U.S. Constitution, as laid out in case law.” He also points to U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have held “the constitutional rights of parents are the ‘oldest of the fundamental liberty interests’ ever recognized by the court.”

The Parental Rights Foundation, Texas Home School Coalition and others support the amendment. The Parental Rights Foundation argues it “will protect those rights from shifting ideologies of the courts for all future generations” and “connecting parental responsibility directly to ‘the corresponding fundamental right’ of decision-making will protect families from government overreach or any attempt to redefine what a parent must do. Short of actual physical harm by abuse or neglect, it is the parent’s role ‘to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.’” 

The conservative group Accountability Matters disagrees and is calling on voters to oppose Proposition 15.   

The amendment has the potential to erode parental rights, the group told The Center Square, adding that the language is “vague and broad,” which could allow for “misinterpretation and misuse.”  

The phrases, “care, custody and control” and “decisions concerning the child's upbringing” are undefined, it argues, which creates “ambiguity that courts or state agencies could exploit.” A child’s “upbringing” could be interpreted “to favor specific cultural or ideological norms, restricting parents who make unconventional choices,” it says. The language vagueness could empower the state “to define acceptable parenting,” which would undermine parental rights that already exist in federal and state law, it warns.

Language related to parents' “‘responsibility to nurture and protect,’ could be weaponized to challenge parental decisions deemed insufficiently protected by state actors,” it also warns. Parents who oppose certain medical treatments, for example, might face legal scrutiny if the state deemed their choice didn’t meet the undefined nurture and protect standard, it adds.  

It also argues the vague and undefined phrase, “deeply rooted in this nation's history and traditions,” could be used against parents, raising questions about what the terms “history” and “traditions” actually mean. 

Accountability Matters raises other concerns, arguing parents could become embroiled in costly legal battles as a result of the vagueness of the amendment language.

Ultimately, the group argues the amendment is unnecessary because the 14th Amendment already provides protections for parents; the Supreme Court has cited case law going back more than 100 years giving explicit rights to parents; and Texas Education Code Chapter 26 grants parents extensive rights, including to direct their child's education, access school materials, and make decisions about their upbringing. 

Proposition 15 language “appears to champion parental authority but may mislead voters by implying that current protections are insufficient,” Accountability Matters argues. “Parental rights are already well established in federal and Texas statute,” but the amendment would enable “state oversight or promote specific ideological agendas that would undermine the very parental liberty it claims to uphold,” the group warns. “It risks undermining parental liberty by introducing ambiguous terms that would invite state overreach, ideological bias, and unnecessary litigation.”