Editing Texas Constitution talk:Article I, Section 37

{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''.

==Amendments 2025==

This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR34 SJR 34], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.

==add==

* ''State v. Loe'', 692 S.W.3d 215, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=968288155892656348570#p230 230-31] (Tex. 2024)("But neither our society's history and legal traditions nor this Court's precedents support a view of the scope of parents' constitutionally protected interest in directing their children's care, custody, and control that would place any action a parent may undertake outside the government's authority to regulate. See J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d at 195; De Witt, 182 S.W.2d at 690. This plays out in various contexts, many of which are deeply embedded in our legal history. Some longstanding restrictions on children's activities, like prohibiting child labor and access to tattoos and tobacco, limit parental authority. See TEX. LAB. CODE § 51.011 (prohibiting the employment of a child younger than fourteen except under limited circumstances); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 146.012(a)(1), (a-1) (prohibiting a child younger than eighteen from obtaining a tattoo, even with parental consent, except to cover certain other tattoos or markings); id. § 161.082(a) (prohibiting the giving or selling of cigarettes or tobacco products to someone younger than twenty-one). Tattoos provide a particularly apt example, as they involve what is in most cases a permanent adjustment to the human body that is not intended to restore the body's physical condition but instead applied for psychological reasons. The Legislature prohibits children from being tattooed, even with their parents' consent, both because children may not fully appreciate the consequences of their actions and because of the risk that parents may be imposing their own desires, however well-meaning, on the child. Whatever the context in which they arise, these examples demonstrate that, while parents have a large degree of control and authority to decide what is best for their children, parental control and authority have never been understood as constitutionally mandated absolutes. Said differently, a fit parent's fundamental interest in caring for her child free from government interference extends to choosing from among legally available medical treatments, but it never has been understood to permit a parent to demand medical treatment that is not legally available.")