Committee hears heated testimony on proposed constitutional parental-rights amendment and voluntarily defers the measure
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers heard pro and con testimony on HB 485, a proposed constitutional amendment to declare parental rights fundamental and subject restrictions to strict scrutiny. Supporters argued it protects parental authority; opponents warned that sweeping language could impede child-protection, public-health and school-safety measures. The committee voluntarily deferred the bill to allow the Attorney General's office to weigh in.
House Bill 485 would place the principle that parental rights are fundamental directly into the Louisiana Constitution and require courts to apply strict scrutiny to government actions that interfere with those rights.
Representative Omany (the bill sponsor) said the change would embed established precedent into the constitution and require the government to show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means before infringing parental authority. “This amendment would preserve the careful balance,” the sponsor said, arguing it would not criminalize child-protection interventions.
Supporters from groups including Health Freedom Louisiana and Convention of States Action told the committee the measure corrects perceived overreach in policy choices and would elevate parental authority. Jill Hines of Health Freedom Louisiana said the amendment “ensures that parental authority is not treated as secondary.” Dale Clary, appearing for Convention of States, warned that recent court decisions and policies illustrate the need for constitutional protection.
Opponents urged caution. Angela Adkins, executive director of 10000 Women Louisiana, called the amendment overly broad and legally risky, saying undefined terms such as “nurturing” and “control” invite litigation and could hamper public‑health protections such as school immunization rules or child-welfare investigations. She urged the committee to pursue narrowly tailored statutory protections instead of an expansive constitutional change. Another volunteer witness said the state already has robust parental-rights protections and that making strict scrutiny the default could have unintended consequences.
After extensive questioning and exchange, the sponsor requested — and the committee agreed to — a voluntary deferral so the Attorney General’s office and other stakeholders could review the amendment language and provide guidance. The committee adopted that voluntary deferal by unanimous consent.
Next steps: The bill is voluntarily deferred to allow the Attorney General’s office to advise and for the sponsor to refine language.
