Committee adopts amended SB 72 after heated debate over teacher disclosure and minor medical consent

The House Children and Family Law Committee voted 9-7 on May 6 to adopt an amendment to Senate Bill 72 that broadens parental access to information about their children's health, school behavior and some medical decisions, and then voted 9-7 to pass the bill as amended.

Representative Raymond moved the first amendment considered (2025-15-30 H) to SB 72, arguing teachers should report information about a child’s health and school behavior but should not be “surveillance operatives” required to out students. "I think it's okay for the teacher to say, 'Yeah, I'm concerned about some of the company your child is keeping,'" Representative Raymond said. That first amendment failed on a roll call, 7-9.

The committee then took up a broader package (amendment 2025-18-32 H). Supporters said the larger amendment more comprehensively lists parental rights and clarifies when schools must notify parents about bullying, criminal offenses on campus, drug use and threats of self-harm. Representative DeSimone, who moved the committee’s subsequent actions, described the amendment as "much more comprehensive" and said it was intended to help parents partner with schools during adolescence.

Opponents at the hearing said the changes would create barriers to confidential health care for minors and could deter students from seeking help from trusted adults. Representative Petrino, a longtime teacher, warned that mandatory disclosure would reduce avenues for students who lack safe family supports to seek help at school. "If they have absolutely no place to go, you will put children in harm's way when they know they have no place to turn," Petrino said, urging protection for the committee’s "1 trusted adult" model.

Debate included several recurring concerns raised by committee members:

- Whether teachers would be required to disclose private information such as a student's sexual orientation or pronoun use; Representative Raymond emphasized the amendment aimed to distinguish normal adolescent development from conduct that violates school codes or threatens safety and said outing a student who does not violate the code was not the bill’s purpose.

- Whether the amendment added medical-consent language that would require parental signatures for telehealth, routine prescriptions and some reproductive-health services; opponents said the change would impede minors’ access to confidential care, including birth control, and could increase teen pregnancy in some jurisdictions.

- The legal threshold for reporting to child-protective services: some speakers said the amendment alters when mandated reporters should escalate concerns, potentially raising the bar to cases believed to be criminal rather than civil neglect.

Several committee members described personal experiences to illustrate both sides: Representative Malone and Representative Greg recounted encounters with young people who became homeless or unsafe after being outed or lacking family support; other members described parents’ expectation to be informed about significant school incidents such as assaults or drug use.

Roll-call votes recorded in committee minutes:

- Motion: adopt amendment 2025-15-30 H (mover: Representative Raymond; seconder: Representative Greg). Outcome: failed, 7 yes, 9 no.

- Motion: adopt house amendment 2025-18-32 H to Senate Bill 72 (mover: Chair Pearson; seconder: Representative DeSimone). Outcome: passed, 9 yes, 7 no.

- Motion: recommend SB 72 ought to pass as amended (mover: Representative DeSimone; seconder: Representative Kozen). Outcome: passed, 9 yes, 7 no.

Committee discussion and recorded statements show the bill’s core changes focus on mandated parental notification in cases the amendment defines as within the school’s educational mission and student code of conduct, plus language affecting how medical consent and telehealth access may be handled for minors. Supporters said the amendment consolidates parental rights and creates a clear set of expectations for schools; critics said the same language will deter students from confiding in teachers and from accessing confidential health care in unsafe family situations.

The committee’s passage sends SB 72, as amended, to the next stage of the legislative process. The record shows significant partisan and philosophical disagreement over where to draw lines between parental rights, student privacy and access to confidential health services.

The transcript shows the committee repeatedly returned to the same core trade-offs: protecting children’s safety and privacy, preserving avenues for students with unsafe home lives to access help, and whether medical-consent provisions belong in an education-focused parental-rights bill. No implementation dates or funding changes were specified in committee action.

Related votes on other bills were taken later in the session (see separate article or the committee roll).