Image by drobotdean on FreePik
Submitted by a concerned Tennessee Citizen Journalist –
While three separate parental rights bills stumbled into the General Assembly, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted only on SB2749 (Haile R-Gallatin) on Tuesday, February 27. After limited discussion and the testimony of two witnesses, the bill succeeded with a six/two vote along party lines.
Shortly before the committee hearing two events changed the landscape of competing bills. Sen. Hensley dropped his bill and joined Sen. Haile’s bill as a co-sponsor. Sen. Pody amended his bill drastically trimming out all of the government exceptions to parental rights. When Sen. Haile’s bill passed, Sen. Pody moved his bill to “General Sub” which is where bills go to die.
Although Senator Kerry Roberts made a comment that he was concerned about this bill permitting a move towards federalizing parental rights, his comment did not raise any discussion and ultimately, he conceded with a yes vote on the bill’s passage. It is now moving to the Senate Floor for a vote.
In the meantime, the House companion bill HB2936 (Faison-R Cosby) was heard on Tuesday, March 5, in the Children and Family Affairs Subcommittee. Two speakers, Connie Reguli, J.D., and a lobbyist with American Defending Freedom spoke. Reguli is opposed to the bill since she describes it as being filled with slippery slope exceptions to parental rights, like using the word “unless” to qualify when a parent loses their parental rights. This “unless” standard includes allowing for recorded interrogations of children by law enforcement or Dept. of Children’s Services.
In the very first section of the bill, the definitions describe a “parent” to include an individual who has been granted decision-making authority over the child under state law. “Decision-making authority” is defined as “the power granted by the state to a non parent to make important decisions regarding a child, including decisions regarding the child’s education, religious training, health care, extracurricular activities, and travel. So under the bill, the “parent” is whomever the “state” gives the power to be a parent. This is directly contrary to parental rights granted under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The March 5 committee hearing can be seen here.
Reguli describes in detail her complaints about this bill.
We need to STOP the Tennessee General Assembly from slicing and dicing parental rights with HB2936 sponsored by Rep. Jeremy Faison (HB2936) and Sen. Ferrell Haile (SB2749) Find the language here.
EVERY PARENT IN TENNESSEE MUST STEP UP TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILY.
Rep. Faison has in his mind that this bill is necessary to protect parental rights, but the United State Supreme Court has already established that parents have the right to raise their children, obtain medical treatment, and more. (See below)
What the parental rights bill does is enumerate parental rights and then provides multiple exceptions for the government to block parents from protecting those rights. The bill includes the word “unless” five times and then provides a slippery slope of exceptions like when a parent provides “blanket consent” or when any person represents themselves has having authority to consent to to waive parental rights (you correct, this is very scary). Let’s talk about UNLESS. The word unless is used five times and gives reasons for parental rights to be subverted by the government. Like, the government’s right to interrogate your child without your knowledge or consent. This bill allows for a complete absence of consent when there is a “law enforcement interaction”….. So the SRO (school resource officer) can stop your child at school and isolate them to interrogate them? YES. And of course DCS (Dept. of Children’s Services) can do the same. The bill DOES NOT require government officials to establish probable cause with credible evidence. The Fourth Amendment protects persons from search and seizure unless probable cause has been established. Federal case law is clear on this.
However, children have no protection from Fourth Amendment seizure and interrogation under this bill. Probable cause is not required.
Are you seeing the problem?
Then we get into a very slippery and the barely comprehensible clause when parental rights do not apply like for “a minor participating in a program for which the minor’s parent has consented to the child’s participation by an employee of the institution of higher education OR OTHER SCHOOL OFFICIAL.” If your reaction is “I totally do not understand when this applies”, you are correct that it is confusing and likely has a broader scope of application than it appears on its face.
So who is giving consent….the parent or the employee or other school official. And what is the participation……in a program of higher education?…for minors. I have a feeling that this is more than college attendance. What if the college has a summer program for high school students on creative writing, coding, or any subject? Now the enrollment in this program is a waiver of all of your parental rights? YES
Let’s go back to “blanket consent“. Now school admission papers, or perhaps any other activity for minors, will include a “blanket consent” clause. Parents will need to read the FINE print on everything associated with their child. Years ago, I sued a kids jumping facility because they allowed someone other than the parent to sign the waiver. I won. Now those facilities are very careful about waivers.
Another section of gobble-gook language says that there are no parental rights when “a government entity or any other person reasonably relies in good faith on an individual’s representations that the individual is the parent of a minor child or has otherwise been granted authority to make decisions regarding a minor’s care under state law.” In layman’s terms this means that a person providing medical or mental health treatment for your child can avoid any liability by saying … OOPS I MADE A MISTAKE. THAT OTHER PERSON GAVE ME PERMISSION (whomever that other person may be). This provides for complete exoneration for any who when they rely on someone else’s representation.
Can you see where this is going?
Under the medical decision-making section, the law defines a PERSON as “an individual, corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether or not a citizen or domiciliary of this state and whether or not organized under the laws of this state.”
And a PERSON under this bill can administer EMERGENCY care to your child without your consent. Please note that it DOES NOT SAY – LIFE SAVING CARE. So what is an emergency? Is the governor’s executive order calling for a State of Emergency giving any commercial entity the right to treat your child? YES IT DOES. Is your child’s gender dysphoria an emergent situation for your child? It depends on who is asking.
Although this bill pretends to give parents a legal right of action to sue anyone who violates their parental rights, the bill is so perverted and packed with exceptions that NO ATTORNEY will touch a case. And what parent can afford 30, 40, 50 thousand dollars to sue a government or commercial entity who has dozens of attorneys to protect them from liability? Any school or other other entity will include an ‘indemnity‘ clause, which means, if you allow your child to participate or receive treatment you will NOT sue us.
An organization called ADF (Americans for Defending Freedom) sent a representative to try to convince the General Assembly to pass this bill on March 5, 2024, claiming that 17 other states have passed “substantially similar” bills. But this is not true. After researching the parental rights bills across the country, nineteen states have parental rights bills but only five of the more recent bills have plugged in this type of “exception” list which, by law, gives the government the right to ignore parental rights.
Many states, like Michigan, Nevada, Virginia, and Montana have set forth a very clear statement that parental rights are fundamental rights and the government must show a compelling interest to interfere. Any government interference must be narrowly drawn to set the least restrictive environment.
ParentalRights.org is working on establishing a federal law protecting parental rights that is simple and direct and it is not filled with exceptions and tricky language to exonerate those who continue to try to interfere with these rights.
That proposed Parental Rights Amendment says this:
- Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.
- Section 2. The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose, as an alternative to public education, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make
reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child. - Section 3. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
- Section 4. The parental rights guaranteed by this article shall not be denied or abridged on account of disability
One state, ALABAMA, enacted a similar simple parental rights act last year and now seeks to include these rights in their constitution.
BOTTOM LINE – Tennessee parents, grandparents, and other concerned citizens must stop the Tennessee General Assembly from passing this parental bondage bill.
HERE ARE THE LINKS TO MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT YOU CAN CONTACT DIRECTLY: (Click on the link and there is an “Email Legislator” button or use the email address below.
Tell them to vote NO on HB2936 – the parental rights bill
HERE ARE THE LINKS TO MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT YOU CAN CONTACT DIRECTLY: (Click on the link and there is an “Email Legislator” button or use the email address below.
Tell them to vote NO on HB2936 – the parental rights bill
Sponsor: JEREMY FAISON – rep.jeremy.faison@capitol.tn.gov
Committee Chair: MARY LITTLETON – rep.mary.littleton@capitol.tn.gov
Committee Co-Chair: ANDREW FARMER – rep.andrew.farmer@capitol.tn.gov
Other members:
RUSH BRICKEN – rep.rush.bricken@capitol.tn.gov
RON M. GANT – rep.ron.gant@capitol.tn.gov
JOHNNY GARRETT – rep.johnny.garrett@capitol.tn.gov
TORREY HARRIS – rep.torrey.harris@capitol.tn.gov
DARREN JERNIGAN – rep.darren.jernigan@capitol.tn.gov
JASON POWELL – rep.jason.powell@capitol.tn.gov
ROBERT STEVENS – rep.robert.stevens@capitol.tn.gov
For curious minds….
It is well established by the United States Supreme Court that parents have fundamental interest to parent their children. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). A child also has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parents. Ward v. San Jose, 967 F. 2d 280 (9th Cir. 1992) A state employee who withholds a child from her family may infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association. Murphy v. Morgan 914 F. 2d 846 (7th Cir. 1990) The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time; represent a serious infringement upon the rights of both. J.B. v. Washington County, 127 F. 3d 919 (10th Cir. 1997) Absent extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services 91 F. 3d 1306 (10th Cir. 1999) Parent’s interest is of “the highest order,” and the court recognizes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of healthcare professionals and government officials. Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc. 787 F. 2d 403 (8th Cir. 1996)
