A new Washington state parental rights law, derided by critics as a “forced outing” policy, will go into effect this week after a court commissioner refused to grant an emergency order temporarily suspending it on Tuesday.
According to King County Superior Court Commissioner Mark Hillman, the civil liberties groups, school district, youth services organizations, and others challenging the law did not demonstrate that it would cause the type of imminent harm required to justify blocking it until a trial court judge can hear the case. We have scheduled a hearing with the judge for June 21.
Related posts
The measure, known as Initiative 2081, reinforces and, in some situations, builds on parental rights already guaranteed by state and federal law. Initiative 2081 mandates that schools notify parents ahead of time about the medical services their child receives, excluding emergencies, and about any follow-up care the school arranges after regular business hours. It gives parents the right to inspect their child’s medical and counseling records, broadening the circumstances in which parents can opt out of sex education.
Critics argue that the legislation might hurt students who seek birth control, reproductive service referrals, gender identity or sexual orientation therapy, or treatment or support for sexual assault or domestic violence. Many of those students do not want their parents to know, they said.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and other opponents of the proposal, it violates the state Constitution, which states that new laws must not amend or invalidate old laws unless specifically stated.
For example, state law protects the privacy of medical information for minors who can access care, including abortions, without parental authorization. Although the law does not mention amending the existing privacy statute, the plaintiffs asserted that it would grant parents the right to receive alerts before their child receives care and the opportunity to inspect school medical data.
Conservative megadonor Brian Heywood supported the proposal, stating that it did not aim to grant parents veto power over their child’s decision to seek therapy or medical care. “It’s just saying they have a right to know,” he stated.
The Democratic-led Legislature easily approved it in March, with progressive members hoping to keep it off the autumn ballot and calculating that the courts would most certainly stop it.
During the hearing, Hillman stated that while he understood the parties’ concerns about the bill, the harms they claimed were merely theoretical.
The state’s attorney, William McGinty, argued that the statute is constitutional and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated their eligibility for a temporary restraining order.
