Proposed CA bill would severely undermine parental rights, authority

In September 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 107 into law, making California a sanctuary state offering shelter to transgender children and their parents who leave jurisdictions restricting access to gender-affirming care to minors.

The state senate has now approved an even more far-reaching legislative proposal, the “Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act”, Assembly Bill 1955, which would undermine parental rights and authority.

Assembly Bill 1955 pays lip service to parents, acknowledging they “have an important role to play in the lives of young people.” However, the bill would prohibit local school boards from adopting or enforcing policies requiring teachers and others to disclose youngsters’ gender identities or sexual orientations to anyone—including their parents without the student’s permission, “unless otherwise required by state or federal law.”

The bill gives no indication of the circumstances under which officials would have to inform parents. The bill does make counseling services available to students and families.

Before the bill can become law, it must first be approved in committees and a floor vote by the State Assembly. Given Newsome’s having signed the sanctuary bill, combined with a state suit against a local board described in the next paragraph, it is all but certain he will sign this legislation into law.

The bill’s supporters claim it is designed to protect transgender and LGBT students whose safety may be at risk if their parents are not supportive. While children certainly need love and support at home, this does not mean parents must agree with all of their choices. As such, how wise is it to keep parents uninformed about what their children are doing at school?

As Republican state Senator Kelly Seyarto said, “[i]f we include the parents, that’s the best way to take something from people being angry and mad to developing a solution that works for everybody.”

Greg Burt, vice-president of the California Family Council, added “[y]ou don’t assume that all parents are unsafe.” It is hard to avoid the inference that all parents are unsafe because the bill bans educators from notifying parents about any significant developments in the lives of their children. This is highly troublesome because students undergoing confusion about their sexuality, possibly fueled by an ideological movement backed by activist educators, need their parents.

In 2023, a related controversy emerged when the board of the Rocklin Unified School District, in a four-to-one vote, adopted a transgender policy. The policy required educators to inform parents if their children ask to be identified as a gender other than their biological sexes or genders, use pronouns not aligned with their biological sex, or ask to use bathrooms not aligned with their genders.

State Attorney General Rob Bonta challenged the policy as endangering the civil rights of LGBT and transgender students by allegedly “outing” them after the board refused to adopt corrective action he ordered. As he had in a similar suit in another district, a trial court judge forbade the board from implementing the policy.

The key in such situations is to respect parental rights by informing parents about developments in the lives of their children while providing any needed resources for families. Excluding parents, usurping their role as this bill essentially does, is not in anyone’s best interest because it erodes familial relationships and trust, which in turn erodes social fabric and trust.

In 1925’s Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court upheld parental rights, declaring “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Even so, some states and courts have trammeled parental rights, standing Pierce on its ear, going so far as to remove at least one transgender student from the family home.

Other courts upheld state limits on such related issues as gender-affirming care and restricting the dispensation of medicines or availability of surgery for minors.

Students undergoing emotional upheaval due to uncertainty over their sexuality greatly need the assistance of their parents rather than relying entirely on school staff even if they voice concerns their families may not be fully supportive of what they are experiencing. This means educators must be mindful of parental rights by respecting familial boundaries.

One of the “frequently asked questions” accompanying Assembly Bill 1955 addressed the role of teachers, stating it does not require them to lie to parents. Rather, the answer claims to allow teachers to “focus on doing their job of supporting and affirming students” even though they cannot answer direct parental questions honestly without the approval of their children.

This bill thereby puts teachers in the unenviable position of being unable to speak truthfully and openly with parents, compromising, if not outrightly destroying, the trust that must be present in such relationships.

Forbidding teachers from informing parents whose children are considering permanent, life-altering changes to their bodies at a time when students are too young to understand fully what they are doing is unwise. It is, again, potentially harmful both to youngsters and familial relations.

Hopefully, California’s leaders will think twice rather than drive wedges between parents and their children, destroying needed trust and connections at a time when young people need them the most.