RALEIGH, N.C. (WGHP) – After languishing out of public sight since nearly Groundhog Day, the controversial Parents Bill of Rights emerged from its shadow in the North Carolina House on the first day of summer.
Senate Bill 49 passed on a party-line vote on Feb. 7 and was sent to the House, where it has languished in the Rules Committee until being resurrected last week, assigned to the House K-12 Education Committee and placed on a path for a floor vote.
The bill has been controversial because it mostly restates existing procedures and places limits on the discussion about sexuality and gender for elementary students – some have called it North Carolina’s version of “don’t say gay” – and a lot has happened since it was first discussed.
For instance, two transgender-related bills involving students passed through the House and Senate on Wednesday, and the Republicans now have a veto-proof supermajority in both chambers after state Rep. Tricia Cotham (R-Mecklenburg) switched parties.
And on Wednesday morning, when a committee substitute for the bill re-emerged for discussion, there was Cotham in the chair’s seat, directing queries among members and ultimately adjourning in controversy without taking any public comments. As the feed of the meeting was shutting down, some of the dozens filling the room could be heard loudly complaining about her decision.
The substitute bill was given a favorable – but far from unanimous – report and will be sent to the House Rules Committee, its final stop before a vote by the full House.
If it’s approved, this augmented bill would require another rubber stamp by the Senate before heading to the almost certain veto stamp by Gov. Roy Cooper.
SB 49, which is titled “An Act to Enumerate the Rights of Parents to Direct the Upbringing, Education, Health Care and Mental Health of their Minor Children,” includes bans on curriculum about gender identity, sexual activity and sexuality in Grades K-4, specifies “age-appropriate discussion,” how schools should handle when a student changes a preferred pronoun and requires schools to make textbooks and other materials available for parents to review.
The PCS introduced in committee on Wednesday by the bill’s original sponsor, state Sen. Amy Galey (R-Alamance), includes three changes that she described:
- It expands the language about surveillance on the school grounds to ensure safety to specify school buses, “because students often are monitored for safety and behavior.”
- It changes the “definition of a parent” to “a person who has assumed parental responsibilities.”
- It restates that prior documented consent for medical treatment would be acceptable for adjustments in care, such as changes in prescriptions to be administered by the schools.
Critics of the bill have suggested that it’s unnecessary because the rights for parents already are in place, and Galey said in pitching the bill that it “delineates rights that already exist … [and] takes items listed in federal and state law and puts them in one place.”
Committee substitute to SB 49 by Steven Doyle on Scribd
Why this bill?
Galey said SB 49 evolved because of concerns that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic when parents more closely monitored what their children were learning. She said some expressed problems with communicating with schools about those concerns and that this bill seeks “to require local educational units to enact policies to give those efforts ‘wings and feet’ and to notify parents.”
Galey mentioned the requirement that schools would have to notify parents before changing a student’s pronoun in school records. She also mentions that gender identity or sexuality would not be permitted in the curriculum in kindergarten through fourth grade.
But she says that is limited to books and other supplemental materials but “does not include responses to student-generated questions.”
During the discussion, state Rep. John Torbett (R-Gaston), a co-chair of the committee, asked what would happen to what he called “bad actors” who might act or even speak in open defiance of the law.
Galey first addressed elected leaders as being beholding to voters, but under a follow-up query by Rep. Cynthia Ball (D-Wake), she explained public employees who violated the law could be disciplined and that parents had a process and legal path to being heard.
A sensitive issue
Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham) brought up the issue of all the regulations and processes that the bill requires of public school teachers and administrators. “Is there a reason why it doesn’t apply to all educational institutions? Why not private schools or charter schools?” Morey asked.
Galey explained that the General Assembly doesn’t have jurisdiction over policy at private schools and that parents who didn’t like how they were treated could change schools. “That’s why we have school choice,” she said.
But Morey seized on that to note that lawmakers are in the process of giving more public money to private schools. “We also are giving private schools taxpayer money in opportunity scholarships. We are giving public schools incredible burdens …
[and] give all this taxpayer money to private schools when we give any or little” guidance.
“Parents already have, as you said, these rights. We’re just putting them into this bill that really boils down to maybe a page and a half of restrictions, about what we teach in K through fourth grade. It has nothing to do with the polar star of this state – a sound, basic education for everyone.”
Cotham, the sponsor of the expanded school choice effort, reprimanded Morey for mentioning “legislation not germane.”
Why so long?
It’s unclear why the House waited so long to hear the bill, although each chamber gives priority to its own legislation before taking up measures that have crossed over. Still, several bills have taken greater priority than SB 49, including those relating to abortion rights, pistol permits and Medicaid expansion.
Rep. Ashton Clemmons (D-Guilford), a member of the Education Committee and the No. 2 Democrat in the House, didn’t respond immediately to a text message from WGHP asking why the bill re-emerged suddenly.
SB 49 was introduced on Feb. 1 by Galey (R-Alamance) as the latest iteration of a bill that last spring was passed by the Senate but ignored by the House.
And it passed the Senate over the impassioned plea of Sen. Lisa Grafstein (D-Wake), the only LGBTQ member of the Senate – who also argued strongly against the transgender sports bill passed by the Senate on Tuesday – that the bill would do more harm and that most of its provisions are unnecessary under North Carolina law.
“Sometimes intent matters, and sometimes intent doesn’t matter,” Grafstein said before the floor vote in February. “In this case, it’s not intent but consequences.”
In a statement released after the Senate’s vote, Equality North Carolina Executive Director Kendra R. Johnson likened the bill to the “Don’t Say Gay” legislation that has been adopted in Florida.
“North Carolina’s own ‘Don’t Say Gay Bill’ is part of a nationwide attack on LGBTQ+ equality and another of many bills targeting trans and queer youth across the country. We know that anti-LGBTQ legislation has a negative impact on the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth, who already experience disproportionate adverse health outcomes. We urge legislators to listen to the many healthcare experts, teachers, and families speaking out on the dangers of this bill and to take action to stop this harmful legislation from moving forward.”
State Sen. Michael Garrett (D-Greensboro) and two cohorts had introduced what they called the “Parents and Students’ Bill of Rights,” which, he says, asks “Republicans to put aside the culture wars and focus on the issues that keep parents up at night.”
That bill gained no traction because the GOP supermajority didn’t discuss it in committee.
What’s in SB 49
Parents have the right:
- To direct the education and care of his or her child.
- To direct the upbringing and moral or religious training of his or her child.
- To enroll his or her child in a public or nonpublic school and in any school choice options available to the parent for which the child is otherwise eligible by law in order to comply with compulsory attendance laws, as provided in Part 1 of Article 26 of this Chapter.
- To access and review all education records, as authorized by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act … relating to his 33 or her child.
- To make health care decisions for his or her child, unless otherwise provided by law, including Article 1A of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes.
- To access and review all medical records of his or her child, as authorized by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 as amended, except as follows: If the parent is the subject of an investigation of (i) a crime committed against the child under Chapter 14 of the General Statutes or (ii) an abuse and neglect complaint under Chapter 7B of the General Statutes and an individual authorized to conduct that investigation requests that the information not be released to the parent. b. When otherwise prohibited by law.
- To prohibit the creation, sharing, or storage of a biometric scan of his or her child without the parent’s prior written consent, except as authorized pursuant to a court order or otherwise required by law.
- To prohibit the creation, sharing, or storage of his or her child’s blood or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) without the parent’s prior written consent, except as authorized pursuant to a court order or otherwise required by law.
- To prohibit the creation by the State of a video or voice recording of his or her child without the parent’s prior written consent, except a recording made in the following circumstances:
- During or as part of a court proceeding.
- As part of an investigation under Chapter 7B or Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.
- When the recording will be used solely for any of the following purposes: 1. A safety demonstration, including one related to security and discipline on educational property. 2. An academic or extracurricular activity. 3. Classroom instruction. 4. Photo identification cards. 5. Security or surveillance of buildings or grounds.
- To be promptly notified if an employee of the State suspects that a criminal offense has been committed against his or her child, unless the incident has first been reported to law enforcement or the county child welfare agency, and notification of the parent would impede the investigation.
Two other bills advanced
The Education Committee also approved two other bills that would affect public schools:
SB 411, among other things, allows homeschooled students to take college placement exams and allows registered nurses to serve as school nurses. It was referred without opposition to the Rules Committee
House Bill 686, a measure cosponsored by Reps. Jon Hardister (R-Guilford) and Amos Quick (D-Guilford), require civil rights courses for middle schools and civics courses for high schools. It was referred without opposition to the Appropriations Committee.
State Rep. Donny Lambeth (R-Forsyth) praised the bill and said that it was “another example where two parties and two differences can come together for a good bill. Many times we come together in a positive way. I commend you for that.”
