#

Legislation about behavior at school came down to a matter of attendance at the New Hampshire House on Thursday.

The Parents Bill of Rights (SB 272) was “indefinitely postponed” by a vote of 195-190, meaning that the topic is dead under House rules for the rest of the current two-year legislative session.

“They completely nuked the bill,” said Rep. Erica Layon (R-Derry), a parental rights supporter. “It would take a two-thirds majority to bring it back, and that won’t happen.”

Polls show Granite State voters — and parents in particular — support the legislation, which would prevent school employees from keeping information about a student’s on-campus behavior secret from parents who ask about their own children. Because that includes behavior regarding sex and gender, Democrats have attempted to label the bill anti-LGBT, arguing that parents are too dangerous to be allowed to have this information about their children.

A handful of absences among GOP members and near-perfect attendance by Democrats in the closely-divided House left Republicans without a functioning majority. When Republicans began defecting to add amendments to the Senate bill, the battle was lost.

Majority Leader Jason Osborne (R-Auburn) drew equal boos and cheers as he made an angry statement about the vote from the House well.

“For the next two years, parents will have to continue to accept that school is a mysterious and secretive black box where they deposit their children. Who knows what will happen inside that box, and who knows what will come out the other side?” Osborne said. “By indefinitely postponing this bill, parents will have no choice but to avail themselves of the wildly successful Education Freedom Accounts.”

The writing was on the wall early in the day when Rep. Mike Bordes (R-Laconia) gave cover to Republican defectors with an amendment altering the bill so as to remove references to LGBTQ identities and remove the requirement that schools not lie to parents. Several other Democratic-sponsored amendments passed as well, with the net effect of essentially gutting the bill. 

Supporter Rep. Joe Sweeney (R-Salem) tried and failed to have the bill tabled, which would have meant it could be brought back in some form later in the current legislative session.

“We should not be cutting our legs off to continue to have this discussion,” Sweeney said. 

But the die was cast and, with the help of Republican Reps. David Bickford (R-New Durham) and Joseph Guthrie (R-Hampstead), Democrats notched a major win.

House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) said the state GOP will continue pushing for parents’ rights.

“I am disheartened House Democrats chose institutions over New Hampshire parents today,” Packard said in a statement. “They chose secrets over parent-involved solutions. They chose to ignore the majority of New Hampshire parents who made it clear they were looking for legislative support to help protect their rights and their children.”

Senate Republicans called on Gov. Chris Sununu to issue an executive order setting to affirm parental rights, saying Democrats have betrayed families.

“The decision by Democrats to block this important bill is a direct assault on parental rights and a clear indication of their misguided priorities. By denying parents the opportunity to exercise their inherent authority, Democrats have undermined the very fabric of our society, where the family unit and parental involvement play an essential role in the upbringing and development of our children,” Senate Republicans said in a statement.

“We urge Gov. Sununu to take a stand for Granite State parents and issue an executive order to affirm the rights they rightly deserve.”

Sununu did not respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Alissandra Rodrigues Murray (D-Manchester) spent time hugging and chatting with 603Equality founder Linds Jakows, who lobbied hard against the legislation. Jakows even offered a plane ticket to fly a vacationing Democrat from Florida so he could vote against the bill.

Asked to comment on the victory, Murray replied, “I don’t talk to New Hampshire Journal.”  

Rep. Gerri Cannon (D-Somersworth), who identifies as a woman, understands parental concerns about kids’ behavior at school. Cannon agreed parents should be able to know what’s in the curriculum and is being taught in classrooms, but added concern for the safety of LGBTQ children is paramount.

“If they don’t have the right to be themselves, it can put them at risk,” Cannon said.

Cannon was echoing the message New Hampshire Democrats have made the center of their opposition to parental rights: Parents are potentially too dangerous to the lives and safety of their own children to be given the same information about their kids that school officials have.

Enough Republicans agreed with Cannon and the rest of the Democrats to kill the bill.

“I think there are some people on the Republican side who support the rights of children just like any person, and there are people who understand there is the potential for harm,” Cannon said.

Even with the bill knocked out for the next two years, the parents’ rights issue isn’t going away. Shannon McGinley, executive director of the pro-family advocacy group Cornerstone Action, said parents let down by their lawmakers need to get active.

“As the House will not act, the next step is to fight this battle on the local level. All we need is for parents to be just as fearlessly, consistently engaged with their local school boards as progressive activists are,” McGinley said. “If you are too afraid of controversy to speak up, then the cultural left will always win by default.

“But if one New Hampshire school board will stand up to the intimidation and cynical legalese of these groups, then other school boards could fall like dominoes.”

New Hampshire Democrats say they will keep fighting the Parents Bill of Rights after SB 272 passed the state Senate on a party-line vote. And at least one Senate Democrat says the state should pass a law requiring parents to “support and love their children” instead.

The bill, which passed the Senate Thursday on a 14-10 partisan vote, expands the rights of parents to be informed about the education of their children in areas ranging from the curriculum to their kids’ behavior on the school campus. While the bill would cover a wide range of areas, Democrats focused entirely on its impact on schools that currently refuse to disclose to parents their children’s actions regarding sex and gender.

The law does not mandate that schools proactively inform parents, but it does require them to answer parents’ questions when asked.

“No school should withhold information from parents about a child because the school thinks it knows that child’s interests better than the parents,” said Senate President Jed Bradley (R-Wolfeboro).

Democrats adamantly disagreed, arguing teachers — not parents — should be the “trusted advisors” to children questioning their sexuality or gender.

“It’s just devastating to think that the safety and ability to determine who you are is taken away from our students when our teachers are no longer our trusted advisors,” said Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D-Portsmouth).

“Unnecessarily outing students [to their parents] at the direction of our government through state law opens these children up to a litany of dangers, including hostility, rejection, isolation, and even violence from their parents or other family members,” Kwoka added.

And New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley claimed informing parents will result in “some kids being beaten to death.”

Polls show Granite State voters, including Democrats, overwhelmingly believe parents, not school employees, should have the final say regarding the education of their children.

Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) said the Democrats’ talking points are simply wrong. The bill merely consolidates the rights parents have under the law, requires school district employees to tell parents the truth about their child’s behavior regarding sex and gender when asked, and tightens up requirements for teachers to report suspected abuse or neglect.

“It says that schools and school employees cannot lie to parents,” Lang said.

That was a step too far for Sen. Debra Altschiller (D-Stratham), who said the legislation is 180 degrees off in its approach. In questions for the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), Altschiller said that rather than empowering parents, “Should we not enumerate [in the law] that it is a parent’s responsibility to love them and support them  for who they are?”

Asked to repeat the question, Altschiller said that just as parents are required by law to feed and clothe their kids, “Should we not require parents to support and love and bring up their children to have these close relationships?”

“I think it would be difficult to put that into legislation,” Carson replied.

Sen. Suzanne Prentiss (D-Lebanon) claimed there was no actual need for a bill to give parents the right to be told the truth about their children.

“What is the real need, how did we get here?” she asked.

Carson reminded the Senate the bill was inspired in part by a lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who was told by school employees they could not tell her the truth about her child’s behavior regarding gender.

“Parents shouldn’t have to file lawsuits to find out about their children,” Carson said.

Sen. Dan Innis (R-Bradford) an openly gay man, said the bill does right by parents and children. It will help teachers guide children and families in sometimes emotionally difficult situations.

“This bill is not anti-anything,” Innis said. “This bill is pro-child, pro-parent, pro-family, and, in many ways, pro-teacher,” Innis said.

The House will now take up its own version of the bill next week, and another hotly contested debate is expected.

A Hillsborough Superior Court judge has dismissed the lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who says the school district’s transgender policy is interfering with her rights as a parent, with the judge ruling the mother’s rights as a parent are “not absolute.” 

Judge Amy Messer ruled the Manchester School District’s policy directing teachers and staff not to fully and accurately inform parents about their child’s expressed gender identity is fine. Messer ruled parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

The mother, who filed the lawsuit under the pseudonym Jane Doe, stated in her original complaint that she found out in fall 2021 that her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The name of the school was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity.

The mother spoke with school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. The mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school, according to the lawsuit.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother soon received an email from the school principal stating that, due to the district’s policy, the mother’s instructions were being overridden. The principal stated the district’s policy requires school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses, according to the lawsuit. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated to not tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

Messer ruled the policy, which was originally produced by the National School Boards Association and adopted by the Manchester school district, does not interfere with parental rights because parents can still direct their child’s home life. Parents can still interact with their children, direct their medical care, and supervise their social lives outside of school.

“In short, the policy places no limit on the plaintiff’s ability to parent her child as she sees fit,” Messer wrote.

Messer’s ruling mirrored arguments laid out by school district attorneys, who essentially claimed Doe had no right to direct what happens to her child in the school building.

The district’s motion to dismiss claimed the policy did not interfere with the parent-child relationship, since the mother was free to have the child identify as their birth gender at home. However, according to the motion, the mother has no rights when it comes to the child’s identity at school.

“Whatever the scope of a parent’s rights vis-a-vis their transgender or gender nonconforming children, they do not include the right to force a school district to act as a conduit for the parent exercise of those rights in this fashion,” the motion stated.

Manchester School District did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Doe’s attorney, Richard Lehmann, said he was not done with the case.

“We will appeal the ruling,” Lehmann said.

Issues like Manchester’s transgender policy were behind this year’s push in the State House for a parental bill of rights. The proposal died in the previous session after Gov. Chris Sununu signaled he would veto the bill over concerns about the privacy and safety of the students.

A new New York Times/Siena College poll finds widespread opposition to the approach to sex and gender policies in schools pushed by progressive districts like Manchester. More than two-thirds of registered voters oppose sexual orientation and gender identity being taught in elementary school, Among independent voters, 71 percent oppose it, 57 percent of them strongly.

Shannon McGinley, executive director with the conservative Cornerstone Action organization, declined to comment on the lawsuit’s dismissal. McGinley and Cornerstone vocally supported the parents’ bill of rights.

“Schools are not courts of law and should not have the authority to unilaterally deprive people of recognized legal rights. This is a government entity that is increasingly being given vast and unquestioned power over our lives and the lives of our children,” McGinley said of the bill.