In a landmark ruling last summer (Mahmoud v Taylor), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parents must be informed of classroom instruction involving certain gender and sexually explicit subject matter; and moreover, must be afforded an opportunity to “opt out” of such programs.
A Massachusetts court recently affirmed in Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools that no public school can force a parent to choose between giving up the benefit of a public education and exposing their child to material that burdens the parent’s right to the free exercise of religion.
Alaska’s Attorney General affirmed the intent of the law. (See a memo from the former Alaska Attorney General).
Last week, in what is widely viewed as a wake-up call over municipal liability for non-compliance, the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education agreed to pay a $1.5 million award to families whose religious rights were violated when their opt-out opportunity was denied to them. The case affirms that school districts nationwide have financial liability for failing to protect the constitutional rights of parents whose children attend public school.
Notably, the Maryland board was directed to issue advance notice to parents before introducing certain sexuality explicit materials.
READ: Liberal County Took On Religious Parents — Now They’re Paying For It
Here in Alaska, some believe our state courts have misconstrued privacy protections to the degree that Alaska legal precedent undermines the rights of parents.
Jim Minnery, Director at the Alaska Family Council, observes:
Our homes and places of worship are being invaded and undermined by our public schools…In spite of the law, Schools nationwide are still teaching kids a view of sexuality that undermines parental rights and traditional views on sexuality by faith leaders.
Today, Alaska caselaw with respect to parental consent appears increasingly out-of-sync with Federal law and with public opinion. Historically, Alaska’s legislature has avoided statutory reforms that would strengthen parental rights.
Increasingly, these conflicts center on our public schools. Senate Bill 90, sponsored by Senator Cathy Giessel, is the latest example of what Minnery describes as a “dangerous overreach that undermines the fundamental rights of parents to guide their children’s healthcare decisions.”
According to Minnery, Alaska Senate Bill 90 claims to help teens access needed mental health services, but instead “creates a system where minors can receive ongoing treatment behind their parents’ backs—with potentially devastating consequences.”
“SB 90 gets [the goal] exactly backward”, states Minnery. “Instead of supporting families, it enables providers to exclude them. Instead of protecting children, it exposes them to potentially harmful decisions made without the guidance of those who know and love them best…Alaska’s parents have both a constitutional right and a moral responsibility to direct their children’s healthcare.”
In Alaska, outreach is underway. In a press release, the Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to connect with Alaskans concerned about transparency and compliance in our public schools. The release stated:
“Alliance Defending Freedom’s Center for Parental Rights seeks to identify public-school parents who are struggling to access curriculum and public schools that refuse to honor parents’ requests to opt their children out of the curriculum and programs that undermine their rights as parents. We want to help parents access curriculum, request notice, and make informed choices about what their children are taught and exposed to during the school day.”
Letters are being sent to District Superintendents across Alaska reminding them of their duty to enforce the law, and that failure to enforce the law is not “neutral”. Rural Alaskan tribes, elders and councils especially are being encouraged to understand the rights of parents seeking to retain traditional family structures within their communities and places of public learning.
