Texans for Vaccine Choice has been in the trenches fighting against tyranny for ten years, and during that time we have seen state agencies like Child Protective Services weaponized against mothers who decline antibiotic eye ointment for their newborn babies and parents who selectively vaccinate their children. We advocated strongly for reforms, and achieved them through various amendments over several sessions.
This type of piecemeal restoration of parental rights is not ideal, by any means. Constantly petitioning the Legislature to codify one parental right at a time, and the inherent risk that these wins could be easily reversed in the next session by a simple majority vote, is exactly why TFVC strongly supports SJR 34 (Sen Hughes) and its House companion HJR 112 (Rep Frank).
There has been an upswell of misplaced fear about this proposed amendment to our state Constitution, and we want to assure medical freedom warriors across the state that we do not make decisions about which bills to support in haste. In fact, this measure has been brought forth numerous times, most recently during the 88th Session in 2023, and TFVC has supported it each and every time.
Nowhere in the Texas Constitution are parents’ rights enumerated, leaving parents and guardians vulnerable to the political will of our Representatives and Senators, not to mention unelected bureaucrats in the Department of Family and Protective Services and Department of State Health Services. Until recently, a mother could be accused of neglect for homeschooling her child, a father could have his rights terminated if he chose not to vaccinate his toddler. Had there been a Constitutional right to the “care, custody and control” and “to make decisions about the upbringing” of these children, CPS could have never intervened in these situations. Unfortunately, they often did.
The crux of the SJR 34 issue for many grassroots activists seems to be the strict scrutiny language that follows the description of the rights of parents, which says that state interference in these rights is warranted when it is “essential to further a compelling government interest” and “narrowly tailored to accomplish that compelling government interest”. Are there circumstances in which the state has an obligation to intervene and restrict parental rights, such as abuse or neglect? Absolutely. And this language ensures that any attempt by the state to interfere into a family situation is tightly restricted to the goal of guaranteeing the safety and wellbeing of our most vulnerable Texans. Strict scrutiny is the highest bar against which state actions are judged in a court of law, far higher than what we currently have in statute. Without this language, the courts would be responsible for establishing a standard, and that would likely not be nearly as favorable toward parents.
TFVC is optimistic that cooler heads will prevail in the discussion about SJR 34, and that we can all lock arms to get this bill across the finish line in the 89th Legislative Session, and on the ballot for Texas voters to support in November.
