By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD – Opponents of a bill that would create a statewide parental bill of rights outnumbered supporters when House Bill 10 went to a hearing Tuesday.
This is a Republican priority this year which has failed in the past.
Gov. Kelly Ayotte said she is eager to sign such a measure that puts all the rights of parents in one place and this particular version is being sponsored by House Speaker Sherman Packard, R-Londonderry.
Opponents said the bill is vague in definitions and could lead to teachers feeling uncomfortable talking with kids, particularly those who are transitioning.
Zoe Hill, a resident of Lebanon, spoke in opposition.
She said some children are not safe at home and that some need another space like a school or a trusted teacher.
“That is why it is so important,” she said, “If they don’t have that, it can lead to self harm,” Hill said. “A vote of inexpedient to legislate is a vote for children’s mental health.”
Sarah Tirrell, parent of a 16-year-old transgender girl who is taking the state to court to allow her to continue to play high school sports, said the bill assumes that teachers and parents are at odds and they are not.
She said when her daughter came out to her it was hers to convey. It would be devastating if that came out in another way in school and she did not have the opportunity to handle it on her own.
She said the bill is dangerous and that the solution is for more teacher-parent “collaboration.”
Betsy Harrington of Deering, however, supported the bill and said it’s necessary.
“Good parents have the right to be good parents,” she said.
“We need all of these amendments,” she said.
She said she is “that” parent who pushes for information from schools.
House Speaker Packard and state Rep. Debra DeSimone, R-Atkinson, presented a revised parental rights bill to the House Children and Family Law Committee.
The two said the entirely revised House Bill 10 is needed and clearly states parents have the role as the responsible party for raising a child, not the school and thus should have access to all their child’s information.
Deb Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers, NH said the 3,500 members were opposed to the bill as originally introduced which included in it a violation misdemeanor offense which could lead to criminal records. She said that has been removed in the new version, which she applauded.
“We find this amendment is an improvement and did take that out along with ‘attempt to coerce’ language.”
While they agree that the parents have the right to direct the moral and religious education of their child, she said it does not mean the parent gets to decide what it teaches. That lies with the elected local school board.
Howes asked how a teacher can teach if every parent has the right to direct what is taught.
Packard said he wanted to make things clear that the bill establishes the parental bill of rights in response to growing concerns from parents about government overreach into decisions about their children.
“I have had so many parents from my community and across the state come to me and tell me that they are the ones that are responsible for the upbringing of their children. The schools are there to teach them. The parents are the ones that are responsible for their health, their upbringing, putting a roof over their head, feeding them,” he said. The schools just are not the responsible party.
But opponents, like state Rep. Timothy Horrigan, D-Durham, said the new version – while not yet available to the public online – is unnecessary.
“Parents already have these rights,” he said, and the legislature could focus on children’s rights which he said should come first.
“I see little or no chance that a bipartisan compromise can be reached,” he said, urging them to kill the bill.
Packard said his original bill “had flaws” but they have been taken care of in the new version DeSimone put together.
“Children do better when parents are involved,” said DeSimone, of the bill which she said asserts the right to allow their child to be withdrawn if they don’t agree with something being taught if it offends their religious or moral beliefs and gives parents the right to parent their children.
They dealt with questions about exceptions and various laws where children have existing rights, including to a therapeutic privilege, and in issues of custody the state can intervene and deny access to parents.
Cathy Stratton, chief executive officer of the New Hampshire Medical Society, said it opposed the bill as it would interfere with the patient and medical professional agreement as it relates to health care services.
She said it could create barriers to the autonomy of that relationship.
As society continues to combat stigma, she said, the bill would create “more barriers” instead of tearing them down and could be developed and be potentially life threatening.
She said the bill is prioritizing confidentiality and information over patient safety.
It would undermine that relationship and would have devastating consequences to children and their mental health, she said.
Ann Marie Banfield, a parental rights advocate, said she supported the bill and that it should be focused on parents’ rights not what Democrats and Republicans want.
She said people are storing data about students but for some reason, parents can’t.
“This kind of legislation is good,” she said
DeSimone said she has become concerned that the legislature has not been able to pass a bill of rights before and hoped this will be the year.
She said parents play an educational care role in the upbringing, moral and religious training of their children and in the “Live Free or Die” state parents all should have their rights spelled out.
She said parents have told her they cannot have access to review school and medical records.
State Rep. Buzz Scherr, a member of the committee, put a hypothetical question where the language would allow anyone who is a parent of a minor child to go anywhere in the state and ask for records from a school.
Packard said a parent from Salem is not going to travel to Berlin just to get data if it is not relevant to their child.
Scherr said, “I just don’t want to open the door to school districts all over the state being interrogated…and being asked for records that don’t pertain to their children.”
DeSimone said she thinks that definition of a “parent” is clear but would be willing to entertain amendments to clarify.
David Trumbull of Weare said he opposed it as it adopts the “strict scrutiny” test and an “absolute right” to parents in schools which is contrary to recent court law related to the Manchester schools.
“It’s a good bill but it goes too far,” said Trumbull. “It makes an absolute right then it says, here’s a bunch of other things but it doesn’t say what they are.”
He said he feared a teacher would not know what he should or should not say and it could lead to a chilling effect on schools.
He noted instances of LGBTQ suicide ideation.
Sam Hawkins, representing the National Association of Mental Illness-NH, did not take a position on the bill.
There are concerns about the amendment, he said, along the right to access medical records.
It doesn’t fully consider all situations for a reasonable withholding of information where there may be reason to be concerned for harm.
“We do feel secondly, the family relationship is the most impactful in a child’s life. But we know that isn’t the only one,” and he said that NAMI does have concern with language “coerce” or “information, that it may have a negative impact on a teacher-student relationship.
“It could lead to teachers not being there for students when they need to talk to them,” he said of the bill.
Heather Robitaille of Merrimack opposed the bill and the impact it could have on educators and children.
She said her public school district already has procedures and this bill would impact content where parents can oppose it based on sex, religion and morality.
While she said every parent has the right to the upbringing of their child they do not and should not have the right to censor others.
Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill, D-Lebanon, said she understands the intent of the bill is to compile in one place all parents rights but said there are unintended consequences and vague aspects of it.
She suggested the committee kill it.
One vague aspect of the bill is the definition of a parent that could be challenging to enforce and uses the word “morality” without definition along with “sex” and “discipline.”
She said that could lead to enforcement difficulty.
As someone who faced abuse as a child, she said she could identify with the issues in the bill.
She said medical providers have testified that it could have a chilling effect.
Betty Gay said she thinks the bill needs more wording adjustments which can be done but said it would be really good to have parental rights in all one place.
Packard and DeSimone urged the committee to replace the previous version entirely with this amendment when it meets to vote on the bill on March 4.