Opponents of the bill have contended that school districts across Washington were only confused after State Superintendent Chris Reykdal sent letters telling districts not to comply with I-2081 due to conflicts with state and federal student privacy laws
Carleen Johnson
The Center Square Washington
Monday’s public hearing on Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5181 before the House Education Committee saw supporters and detractors make their respective cases for and against the controversial legislation.
ESSB 5181 aims to amend voter-approved Initiative 2081 – dubbed the parents’ bill of rights – to align it with existing state law. Critics claim it essentially guts I-2081. The bill passed the full Senate on Feb. 5 on a party-line 30-19 vote before moving to the House of Representatives for consideration.
Bill sponsor Claire Wilson, D-Federal Way, told the committee that passing the bill is necessary to clear up confusion surrounding the implementation of I-2081, which voters passed in November. I-2081 ensures that schools notify parents about issues related to their children, including mental health and medical decisions, as well as gender-related counseling or medical care.
“When we passed the parents’ rights initiative last year, we said from day one, if needed, we would come back and make changes,” Wilson continued. “Changes are needed because poorly written provisions in the initiative caused confusion.”
Opponents of the bill have contended that school districts across Washington were only confused after State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal sent letters telling districts not to comply with I-2081 due to conflicts with state and federal student privacy laws.
“The title of the bill says it’s ‘An act related to amending the parents’ rights initiative to bring it into existing law,’” Rep. Travis Couture, R-Allyn, said. “The parents’ rights initiative is existing law, so how could the underlying bill actually amend it and be in order with the title?”
Nicole Kern with Planned Parenthood spoke in support of the bill, arguing that protecting student privacy is paramount.
“Parents would still be notified of most health care decisions, except in very limited areas around reproductive care and mental health,” she said.
Pierce County Pastor Eric Lundberg was the final person to testify in opposition to the bill.
“This bill has crossed a major moral line,” he said. “More and more parents in our state are coming to the realization that we do not need state-run schools to educate our children.”
More than 6,000 people signed in online regarding the bill: 1,203 signed in “pro,” while 4,951 signed in “con.”
Following the hearing, Rep. Matt Marshall, R-Eatonville, told The Center Square bringing up title issues with ESSB 5181 is now on the record and that Republicans are confident that if it becomes law, it would not hold up in court as I-2081 is existing law.
This report was first published by The Center Square Washington.
- Camas School District Legislative Advocacy Committee to host Candidate Forum
Six candidates from two federal and state districts will answer education questions at Discovery High School on Oct. 5. - Opinion: Why lawmakers are going after your pension
Ryan Frost argues lawmakers included public pensions in the income tax law in preparation for lowering the $1 million deduction. - Opinion: Washington has an income tax – why won’t the media call it one?
Cargill argues the media is using supporters’ preferred label “millionaires tax” instead of the legally accurate term “income tax.” - POLL: How do you think higher impact fees for school districts affect housing affordability in Clark County?
Clark County Council raised impact fees for La Center, Hockinson, and Woodland school districts, drawing pushback from the Building Industry Association. - WA high court tosses natural gas measure approved by voters
The WA Supreme Court struck down I-2066 in a 6-3 ruling, finding it covered four distinct subjects in violation of the single-subject rule.
