Texas Constitution talk:Article I, Section 37 - Revision history

Admin at 13:47, October 30, 2025

2025-10-30T13:47:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, October 30, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{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''.		{{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''.

	~~==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.~~

	~~==Tribune ==~~

	This proposal would include parental rights, as currently outlined out in federal case law, in the Texas Constitution. The intent of the amendment is to protect parental rights since “case law can change and disappear over time with the appointment of new judges,” according to an analysis of the legislation.

	The constitution would be amended to include the following: “Provides that, to enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”

	Some questions were raised during legislative discussions about how the proposal would ensure children’s voices are also heard. More recently, various advocacy groups have expressed opposition to the constitutional amendment’s broad language. Education and reproductive rights groups say other provisions in Texas law already recognize parental rights and that the amendment could be used to justify censorship and further restrict access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. The group Accountability Matters has also raised concerns that the vague language of the amendment could lead to costly legal fights over its meaning and enable more state oversight.

	~~==HRO==~~

	~~Supporters say:~~

	~~By enshrining in the Texas Constitution the right of a~~
	~~parent to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s~~
	~~children, Proposition 15 would provide a clear and solid~~
	~~legal foundation to protect parental rights.~~
	~~Courts have long recognized that parents have a~~
	~~constitutionally protected right to make decisions for their~~
	~~children. This proposition would codify longstanding case~~
	~~law in the Texas Constitution to ensure that this important~~
	~~right could not be removed or diminished by future court~~
	~~opinions. The parent-child relationship is rooted in natural~~
	~~law and should be safeguarded. Proposition 15 also would~~
	~~make accessing the right simpler, less costly, and easier for~~
	~~parents and lawyers, allowing them to cite the Constitution to~~
	~~help defend their rights in court.~~


	~~Critics say:~~

	~~Proposition 15 focuses too heavily on the rights~~
	~~of parents without including language to ensure that~~
	~~children’s rights and best interests are protected. The~~
	~~proposition should further emphasize the duties and~~
	~~responsibilities of parents to their children so that parental~~
	~~rights cannot override fundamental children’s rights, such~~
	~~as the right to basic healthcare or mental health support, as~~
	~~well as the ability of children to have their psychological,~~
	~~emotional, and social needs met.~~

	~~Other critics say:~~

	~~While protecting parental rights is essential,~~
	~~Proposition 15 contains language that is too vague~~
	~~and, as worded, could impose obligations on parents~~
	~~or undermine parents’ rights if it were determined that~~
	~~parents have not met their responsibilities.~~

	~~== TLC ==~~

	~~Comments by Supporters:~~

	~~• Enshrining in the Texas Constitution the right of a parent to~~
	~~exercise care, custody, and control of the parent's children~~
	~~would provide a clear and solid legal foundation to protect~~
	~~parental rights.~~

	~~• Courts have long recognized that parents have a constitutionally~~
	~~protected right to make decisions for their children. Such~~
	~~a fundamental right deserves a securely codified place in~~
	~~the Texas Constitution to ensure that it is not removed or~~
	~~diminished by future judicial decisions.~~

	~~• By expressly recognizing parental rights and responsibilities in~~
	~~the text of the constitution, the proposed amendment would~~
	~~make parental rights easier to identify for parents and their~~
	~~lawyers, allowing them to cite the Texas Constitution to help~~
	~~defend their rights in court, and would provide clarity that~~
	~~could help avoid costly litigation.~~

	~~• Protecting the rights of parents helps parents to meet their~~
	~~obligations to care for, nurture, and educate their children.~~

	~~• The proposed amendment is not intended to expand or~~
	~~diminish any existing parental rights.~~

	~~Comments by Opponents:~~

	~~• The proposed amendment does not do enough to protect~~
	~~children's rights, which are not expressly addressed by the~~
	~~amendment.~~

	~~• While not raised during legislative consideration of the~~
	~~proposal, a review of other sources indicates concerns that~~
	~~the amendment language stating that the established parental~~
	~~rights correspond with the responsibility of parents to nurture~~
	~~and protect their children could result in a parent's rights~~
	~~being conditioned on the government determining that the~~
	~~parent's responsibility has been fulfilled.~~

Admin: /* TLC */ new section

2025-10-22T15:28:34Z

TLC: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, October 22, 2025
Line 52:		Line 52:
	or undermine parents’ rights if it were determined that		or undermine parents’ rights if it were determined that
	parents have not met their responsibilities.		parents have not met their responsibilities.

			== TLC ==

			Comments by Supporters:

			• Enshrining in the Texas Constitution the right of a parent to
			exercise care, custody, and control of the parent's children
			would provide a clear and solid legal foundation to protect
			parental rights.

			• Courts have long recognized that parents have a constitutionally
			protected right to make decisions for their children. Such
			a fundamental right deserves a securely codified place in
			the Texas Constitution to ensure that it is not removed or
			diminished by future judicial decisions.

			• By expressly recognizing parental rights and responsibilities in
			the text of the constitution, the proposed amendment would
			make parental rights easier to identify for parents and their
			lawyers, allowing them to cite the Texas Constitution to help
			defend their rights in court, and would provide clarity that
			could help avoid costly litigation.

			• Protecting the rights of parents helps parents to meet their
			obligations to care for, nurture, and educate their children.

			• The proposed amendment is not intended to expand or
			diminish any existing parental rights.

			Comments by Opponents:

			• The proposed amendment does not do enough to protect
			children's rights, which are not expressly addressed by the
			amendment.

			• While not raised during legislative consideration of the
			proposal, a review of other sources indicates concerns that
			the amendment language stating that the established parental
			rights correspond with the responsibility of parents to nurture
			and protect their children could result in a parent's rights
			being conditioned on the government determining that the
			parent's responsibility has been fulfilled.

Admin at 15:25, October 22, 2025

2025-10-22T15:25:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:25, October 22, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{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''.		{{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==		==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.		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.

Admin at 15:02, October 22, 2025

2025-10-22T15:02:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, October 22, 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Some questions were raised during legislative discussions about how the proposal would ensure children’s voices are also heard. More recently, various advocacy groups have expressed opposition to the constitutional amendment’s broad language. Education and reproductive rights groups say other provisions in Texas law already recognize parental rights and that the amendment could be used to justify censorship and further restrict access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. The group Accountability Matters has also raised concerns that the vague language of the amendment could lead to costly legal fights over its meaning and enable more state oversight.		Some questions were raised during legislative discussions about how the proposal would ensure children’s voices are also heard. More recently, various advocacy groups have expressed opposition to the constitutional amendment’s broad language. Education and reproductive rights groups say other provisions in Texas law already recognize parental rights and that the amendment could be used to justify censorship and further restrict access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. The group Accountability Matters has also raised concerns that the vague language of the amendment could lead to costly legal fights over its meaning and enable more state oversight.

	== HRO ==		==HRO==

	~~Digest:~~

	Supporters say:		Supporters say:

Admin: /* HRO */ new section

2025-10-22T15:02:01Z

HRO: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, October 22, 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Some questions were raised during legislative discussions about how the proposal would ensure children’s voices are also heard. More recently, various advocacy groups have expressed opposition to the constitutional amendment’s broad language. Education and reproductive rights groups say other provisions in Texas law already recognize parental rights and that the amendment could be used to justify censorship and further restrict access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. The group Accountability Matters has also raised concerns that the vague language of the amendment could lead to costly legal fights over its meaning and enable more state oversight.		Some questions were raised during legislative discussions about how the proposal would ensure children’s voices are also heard. More recently, various advocacy groups have expressed opposition to the constitutional amendment’s broad language. Education and reproductive rights groups say other provisions in Texas law already recognize parental rights and that the amendment could be used to justify censorship and further restrict access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. The group Accountability Matters has also raised concerns that the vague language of the amendment could lead to costly legal fights over its meaning and enable more state oversight.

			== HRO ==

			Digest:

			Supporters say:

			By enshrining in the Texas Constitution the right of a
			parent to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s
			children, Proposition 15 would provide a clear and solid
			legal foundation to protect parental rights.
			Courts have long recognized that parents have a
			constitutionally protected right to make decisions for their
			children. This proposition would codify longstanding case
			law in the Texas Constitution to ensure that this important
			right could not be removed or diminished by future court
			opinions. The parent-child relationship is rooted in natural
			law and should be safeguarded. Proposition 15 also would
			make accessing the right simpler, less costly, and easier for
			parents and lawyers, allowing them to cite the Constitution to
			help defend their rights in court.


			Critics say:

			Proposition 15 focuses too heavily on the rights
			of parents without including language to ensure that
			children’s rights and best interests are protected. The
			proposition should further emphasize the duties and
			responsibilities of parents to their children so that parental
			rights cannot override fundamental children’s rights, such
			as the right to basic healthcare or mental health support, as
			well as the ability of children to have their psychological,
			emotional, and social needs met.

			Other critics say:

			While protecting parental rights is essential,
			Proposition 15 contains language that is too vague
			and, as worded, could impose obligations on parents
			or undermine parents’ rights if it were determined that
			parents have not met their responsibilities.

Admin at 14:58, October 22, 2025

2025-10-22T14:58:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:58, October 22, 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	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.		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.

	== ~~tribune~~ ==		==Tribune ==

	This proposal would include parental rights, as currently outlined out in federal case law, in the Texas Constitution. The intent of the amendment is to protect parental rights since “case law can change and disappear over time with the appointment of new judges,” according to an analysis of the legislation.		This proposal would include parental rights, as currently outlined out in federal case law, in the Texas Constitution. The intent of the amendment is to protect parental rights since “case law can change and disappear over time with the appointment of new judges,” according to an analysis of the legislation.

47.221.209.71: /* tribune */ new section

2025-10-22T14:34:08Z

tribune: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:34, October 22, 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	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.		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.

			== tribune ==

			This proposal would include parental rights, as currently outlined out in federal case law, in the Texas Constitution. The intent of the amendment is to protect parental rights since “case law can change and disappear over time with the appointment of new judges,” according to an analysis of the legislation.

			The constitution would be amended to include the following: “Provides that, to enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”

			Some questions were raised during legislative discussions about how the proposal would ensure children’s voices are also heard. More recently, various advocacy groups have expressed opposition to the constitutional amendment’s broad language. Education and reproductive rights groups say other provisions in Texas law already recognize parental rights and that the amendment could be used to justify censorship and further restrict access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. The group Accountability Matters has also raised concerns that the vague language of the amendment could lead to costly legal fights over its meaning and enable more state oversight.

Admin at 20:20, June 20, 2025

2025-06-20T20:20:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, June 20, 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	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.		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=9682881558926563485#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.")

Admin at 14:35, June 19, 2025

2025-06-19T14:35:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:35, June 19, 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:
	==add==		==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.")		* ''State v. Loe'', 692 S.W.3d 215, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9682881558926563485#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.")

Admin at 14:33, June 19, 2025

2025-06-19T14:33:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:33, June 19, 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Amendments 2025==		==Amendments 2025==

	This section, proposed by [		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.
	SJR 5], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.

	==add==		==add==

	* ''State v. Loe'', 692 S.W.3d 215, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=968288155892656348570#p230 230-31] ~~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. ~~231*231~~ 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.")		* ''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.")