South Dakota House Republicans reject parental rights bill

The Republican-controlled South Dakota House of Representatives rejected a wide-ranging parental rights bill on Tuesday that would have prevented public schools from withholding information about a trans-identified student’s social transition and mental health from their parents, with 30 Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the measure.

The lower chamber rejected Senate Bill 190 in a 35-30 vote after its companion bill, Senate Bill 190, had passed the Senate earlier in the day on Tuesday by a 19-15 vote.

The measure would have amended state law to clarify that government entities “may not substantially burden the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of the parent’s minor child, without demonstrating that the burden imposed on the parent is required by a compelling governmental interest as applied to the parent and the parent’s minor child and is the least restrictive means for furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

The measure would have protected parents’ right to direct the moral and religious training and education of their minor children and instruct employees of the state or its political subdivisions that they cannot “encourage or coerce a minor child to withhold information from the minor child’s parent” and “withhold from a minor child’s parent information that is relevant to the physical, emotional, or mental health of the parent’s minor child.” 

The bill would have also prohibited employees of the state and its political subdivisions from seeking to provide any type of surgical procedure, medical examination or mental health treatment to a child without receiving parental consent. Local school boards would be instructed to develop a process by which parents can review the curriculum at their child’s school and agree to have their children withdrawn from any “specific instruction or presentation,” including lessons on human sexuality. 

The legislation would have ordered school boards establish a process for providing consent before “the parent’s minor child may use a name or nickname other than the minor child’s legal name or a derivative or diminutive of the minor child’s legal name.” 

School district employees would have been prohibited from withholding information or coercing a child to withhold information from parents about their “purported identification with a gender that corresponds to the minor child’s internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from the biological reality of the minor child’s sex.”

Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, who voted against the proposal, was among those voicing concern that the legislation could protect abusive parents and criminalize the actions of mandatory reporters, such as teachers and coaches. 

“If there’s any doubt in any of our minds that this bill passage would enable a parent to put that abuse on their child, we can’t pass it,” Rehfeldt told the South Dakota Searchlight.

Before the House approved the legislation, an amendment was adopted that sought to ensure that the bill wouldn’t impede child abuse or neglect investigations. 

“I just wanted to bring an additional amendment, just further clarifying that this legislation does not impede an investigation into child abuse or neglect,” Republican Rep. Heather Baxter, who introduced the amendment, said, according to KOTA.

Critics point to a section of the bill that requires “consent before any state agency or political subdivision of this state makes a video or audio recording of the minor child.” Videos may be made without consent only if they are part of a court proceeding, law enforcement investigation, criminal or other investigation, surveillance or a public event where the minor child has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Rep. John Shubeck, R-Beresford, said no exception is given for teachers who lead remote learning or assign video or audio projects. It also doesn’t exclude coaches who use video to help their players improve. 

“It just concerns me that well-meaning teachers will get in trouble,” Shubeck told the Searchlight. “I like giving the parents the ability to monitor what their kids are being taught, I’m just concerned about myself and others getting inadvertently swept up into breaking the law.”

The attempt to pass Senate Bill 190 comes amid concerns that school districts across the nation have policies in place that allow children to transition socially at school without their parents’ consent, even allowing teachers to hide such information from parents. 

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a California policy requiring teachers to withhold information from parents, allowing a federal judge’s injunction against the state’s requirement to take effect after an appeals court put the injunction on hold.

Last year, the high court sided with parents who were prevented by their local Maryland school district from opting their children out of LGBT-related school curriculum.

States that have passed a parents’ bill of rights similar to Senate Bill 190 include Indiana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.  

The Republican-controlled South Dakota House of Representatives rejected a wide-ranging parental rights bill on Tuesday that would have prevented public schools from withholding information about a trans-identified student’s social transition and mental health from their parents, with 30 Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the measure.

The lower chamber rejected Senate Bill 190 in a 35-30 vote after its companion bill, Senate Bill 190, had passed the Senate earlier in the day on Tuesday by a 19-15 vote.

The measure would have amended state law to clarify that government entities “may not substantially burden the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of the parent’s minor child, without demonstrating that the burden imposed on the parent is required by a compelling governmental interest as applied to the parent and the parent’s minor child and is the least restrictive means for furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

The measure would have protected parents’ right to direct the moral and religious training and education of their minor children and instruct employees of the state or its political subdivisions that they cannot “encourage or coerce a minor child to withhold information from the minor child’s parent” and “withhold from a minor child’s parent information that is relevant to the physical, emotional, or mental health of the parent’s minor child.” 

The bill would have also prohibited employees of the state and its political subdivisions from seeking to provide any type of surgical procedure, medical examination or mental health treatment to a child without receiving parental consent. Local school boards would be instructed to develop a process by which parents can review the curriculum at their child’s school and agree to have their children withdrawn from any “specific instruction or presentation,” including lessons on human sexuality. 

The legislation would have ordered school boards establish a process for providing consent before “the parent’s minor child may use a name or nickname other than the minor child’s legal name or a derivative or diminutive of the minor child’s legal name.” 

School district employees would have been prohibited from withholding information or coercing a child to withhold information from parents about their “purported identification with a gender that corresponds to the minor child’s internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from the biological reality of the minor child’s sex.”

Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, who voted against the proposal, was among those voicing concern that the legislation could protect abusive parents and criminalize the actions of mandatory reporters, such as teachers and coaches. 

“If there’s any doubt in any of our minds that this bill passage would enable a parent to put that abuse on their child, we can’t pass it,” Rehfeldt told the South Dakota Searchlight.

Before the House approved the legislation, an amendment was adopted that sought to ensure that the bill wouldn’t impede child abuse or neglect investigations. 

“I just wanted to bring an additional amendment, just further clarifying that this legislation does not impede an investigation into child abuse or neglect,” Republican Rep. Heather Baxter, who introduced the amendment, said, according to KOTA.

Critics point to a section of the bill that requires “consent before any state agency or political subdivision of this state makes a video or audio recording of the minor child.” Videos may be made without consent only if they are part of a court proceeding, law enforcement investigation, criminal or other investigation, surveillance or a public event where the minor child has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Rep. John Shubeck, R-Beresford, said no exception is given for teachers who lead remote learning or assign video or audio projects. It also doesn’t exclude coaches who use video to help their players improve. 

“It just concerns me that well-meaning teachers will get in trouble,” Shubeck told the Searchlight. “I like giving the parents the ability to monitor what their kids are being taught, I’m just concerned about myself and others getting inadvertently swept up into breaking the law.”

The attempt to pass Senate Bill 190 comes amid concerns that school districts across the nation have policies in place that allow children to transition socially at school without their parents’ consent, even allowing teachers to hide such information from parents. 

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a California policy requiring teachers to withhold information from parents, allowing a federal judge’s injunction against the state’s requirement to take effect after an appeals court put the injunction on hold.

Last year, the high court sided with parents who were prevented by their local Maryland school district from opting their children out of LGBT-related school curriculum.

States that have passed a parents’ bill of rights similar to Senate Bill 190 include Indiana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.