Texas's "Parental Rights" Amendment Will Cement Republicans' Anti-Educator Agenda

"Nation Fund for Independent Journalism, which is dedicated to highlighting the best of student journalism. For more StudentNation, check out our archiveor learn more about the program here. StudentNation is made possible through generous funding from The Puffin Foundation. If you're a student and you have an article idea, please send pitches and questions to [email protected].This November, Texans will vote on Proposition 15, a ballot initiative to add a parental rights amendment to the Texas Constitution."

"The amendment's language affirms that parents have the "fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control" over their child and "to make decisions concerning the child's upbringing." In the broader context of family law, this amendment offers nothing new. More importantly, is the way the measure dovetails with a wave of controversial legislation this year shifting power away from educators and towards parents."

"According to the official bill analysis, the legislation is not intended to change the law, but is responsive to the fact that "rights found in case law can change and disappear over time with the appointment of new judges." Therefore, this amendment would "ensure the longevity of these rights" and codify existing federal case law, specifically from the 2000 Supreme Court decision Troxel v. Glanville, which affirmed parental rights. (Much of the language within the constitutional amendment is taken verbatim from this decision.)"

Proposition 15 would add a parental rights amendment to the Texas Constitution affirming parents' "fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control" over children and "to make decisions concerning the child's upbringing." The amendment reproduces language from the 2000 Supreme Court decision Troxel v. Glanville and aims to codify federal case law to protect parental rights from changing judicial interpretations. Supporters say the amendment will ensure longevity of these rights and limit federal influence. Opponents call the measure unnecessary, vague, and dangerous and warn it could be used to advance culture-war policies affecting LGBTQ+ families, book access, and public-school curricula.

Read at The Nation