A major debate today centers around parental rights. This debate considers how much of a child's life is under the parent’s sole control and how much may be controlled by the state, especially in relation to schools.
May a school transition a child and not inform the parent? May a school call a child by pronouns unconnected to the child’s biological gender, allow them to use the opposite-sex bathroom, and basically treat them as another gender without telling the parents they are doing so?
Recently, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parents do not have a right to know if a school is allowing a child to transition. The court certainly agreed that parents have a fundamental right found in our case law, history, and tradition to the care, upbringing, and education of their child. They just disagreed that such behavior amounted to medical treatment or a mental health directive because it doesn’t require intrusive instruments or special skills. To the court, it’s just normal social interaction.
The principles relied upon in these arguments were laid out by William Blackstone, as we’ve discussed in an earlier article. But they are also ensconced in our case law. Troxel v. Granville (2000), recognized a right of the parents to make decisions concerning “the care, and custody, and control of their children.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), recognized the right of parents to “direct the upbringing and education of children.” And Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), recognized the right of the parents to “bring up children.”
Under these principles, a school would absolutely be infringing on the rights of parents by socially or even medically transitioning a child without the consent of the parents. That’s inherent in our right to the care of our children.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering a similar case. My organization, Alabama Center for Law and Liberty, had the privilege of filing an amicus brief in this case, arguing that the school’s action violated the parent’s right to the care and upbringing of the child.
But how does this principle work in other cases? Take vaccines, for instance. Can a school require a child to be vaccinated in order to enter public school? What about vaccinating them without your permission? What about masks in school?
All of those are medical treatments, and medical treatments are strictly under the control of parents. Parents have the right to make those decisions, not the government. Parents shouldn’t have to come up with an excuse for why they don’t want their children receiving these treatments. It is the government who must come up with a reason why parents should vaccinate their children, and then be okay if parents refuse to do so.
This is entirely flipped upside down in our society today. Thus, if you don’t want your child to be vaccinated, you must submit a claim for a religious or medical exemption.
What? Why should I explain my parenting choices to the government? The answer, at least constitutionally, is that we shouldn’t.
Alabama has a bill pending that would repeal the requirement to file a religious exemption for those who want to refuse a vaccine. I am very hopeful this bill passes, but we shall see.
Another fun example in this realm is car seat requirements. Alabama just voted down a bill requiring children to face the rear until age two, and that also increased requirements for other car seats. You can debate with me all day long whether it is best to turn a child around before age two, but I personally stand behind my decision to turn my kids around at one. For us, not driving distracted by the five-hour-long screams of a child who hated being turned around was the more important safety issue. Arguing with me on this point is useless and I won’t budge. But it was my decision. Alabama correctly recognized my right as a mom to decide what is safest for my family.
Parents, I am writing this series because, too often, the script is flipped. Too often we are called upon to explain our positions when it should be the government who must explain. Too often we are not allowed to exercise our rights as parents. I hope this series is equipping and arming you with knowledge.
Laura Clark is a wife, mother, and community activist. She currently serves as the interim president of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty, a conservative nonprofit law firm that fights for limited government, free markets, and strong families in the courts. Anything written by Laura for this publication does not constitute legal advice.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
