Parents across America are exhausted from fighting schools, government agencies, and activist organizations just to access basic information about their own children. So when a proposal appears that claims to “protect parental rights” through a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, it’s understandable that people get excited.
We want parents to be empowered.
But we must also be sober, strategic, and informed.
Recently, US Representative Mary Miller (R-IL) introduced H.J. Res. 127, branded as a “Parental Rights Amendment.” On the surface, it appears to affirm what we already know to be true: that parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
But when we read the text — slowly, section by section — the reality becomes clear: This amendment does not return parental authority to parents.
It moves authority to federal courts and federal agencies.
And once a constitutional amendment is adopted, there is no going back.
The amendment contains four sections. Let’s walk through each and show why each section is a danger to parents.
SECTION 1
“The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.”
This sounds great. We agree that parenting is a God-given, fundamental right.
But here’s the problem:
Once “parental rights” are defined at the federal level, they become subject to federal interpretation, federal court rulings, and federal administrative power.
Right now, parental rights exist at the state level, where parents can influence legislation, elect school board members, and challenge bad policy. If this amendment passes, parental rights are moved into the federal arena where judges, not parents, ultimately decide what those rights mean.
You cannot shrink federal government power by giving it jurisdiction over parenting.
SECTION 2
“The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose… private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.”
The word to focus on is: reasonable.
Who defines “reasonable”?
Not parents.
Not local school boards.
Federal courts.
Example:
You request that your child be opted out of gender ideology lessons. The school refuses, arguing your request is not “reasonable” because it interferes with “inclusive education.” Courts side with the school.
This amendment gives the illusion of empowerment while preserving the power of the system to deny parents.
SECTION 3 (The most dangerous section)
“Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest… is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”
This is strict scrutiny language. In legal terms, it means:
- Government may override parental rights
- If government can argue it has a “compelling interest”
And courts decide what qualifies as “compelling.”
Examples:
- School socially transitions a child without parental knowledge
→ Claim: “Compelling interest in preventing emotional harm.” - State requires certain medical decisions
→ Claim: “Compelling interest in protecting child health.” - CPS intervenes because parents refuse gender-affirming care
→ Claim: “Compelling interest in child welfare.”
The amendment does not protect parents from these scenarios.
It provides the legal framework to justify them.
SECTION 4
“The parental rights guaranteed by this article shall not be denied or abridged on account of disability.”
This sounds empathetic. But disability is a broad category under federal law, including “mental or emotional impairment.”
Nothing prevents CPS or courts from weaponizing this:
“We believe the parent has a mental health disability; therefore parental decision-making is limited.”
This section creates a pathway for challenging parental fitness based on subjective or political definitions of “disability.”
Example: Imagine a mom who struggles with anxiety — a condition that qualifies as a disability under federal law because it affects “major life activities.” Her middle school begins socially transitioning her daughter behind her back — new name, new pronouns, teachers told not to inform the parent.
The mom discovers it and demands that the school stop.
The school responds by calling CPS and claiming:
“The parent’s anxiety and emotional instability could put the child at risk if the child’s gender identity is not affirmed at home.”
Under Section 4, the mother thinks she’s protected.
But under Section 3, the government simply argues:
- The school has a “compelling interest” in protecting the child’s emotional well-being.
- Limiting the mother’s parental rights is “narrowly tailored” to serve that interest.
So the court rules:
“We are not denying your parental rights because you have anxiety (which would violate Section 4). We are denying your parental rights because we have a compelling government interest in protecting the child (allowed under Section 3).”
Section 4 becomes a shield for the government, not a protection for the parent.
The amendment ends up validating government power to override parents — while pretending to protect them.
Big Picture: What This Amendment Really Does
This amendment:
- Federalizes parental rights
- Gives courts veto power over parenting decisions
- Invites legal challenges to parental decisions using “compelling interest” arguments
- Does not stop schools or government from overriding parents — it gives them a script on how to do it
Parents believe they are gaining authority.
In reality, they are gaining a permission-based framework.
We do not need to ask Washington, D.C. to “grant” parental rights.
We need to demand that they stop violating them.
How the U.S. Constitution Is Amended
Educating parents on this process matters, because once we open this door, we cannot close it.
There are only two ways to amend the Constitution:
| Step | Path 1 — Congress | Path 2 — Article V Convention |
|---|---|---|
| Proposal | 2/3 vote of both House and Senate | 2/3 of states call a convention |
| Ratification | 3/4 of state legislatures (38 states) | 3/4 of state ratifying conventions |
The President has no role.
Once an amendment is ratified, it becomes permanent.
You can’t undo a constitutional amendment with legislation.
You can’t repeal it with a court case.
Only another amendment can repeal an amendment.
We do not take federal constitutional amendments lightly.
Our Position
At Conservative Ladies of America, we believe:
- Parents already possess these rights by God and by natural law.
- The Constitution exists to restrain government, not to grant parents conditional privileges.
- The federal government is the problem — not the solution.
- Local control and parental authority must be restored at the state level, not transferred to federal courts.
Parents don’t need permission.
They need government to get out of the way.
Final Thought
We share the desire to protect children from government overreach.
But intent does not equal impact.
A federal amendment that grants parental rights…
also grants the federal government the authority to define, regulate, and restrict those rights.
We will never support anything,, no matter how well-branded, that hands more power to the federal government in the relationship between parent and child.
Parents do not need a permission slip from the government.
They need the government to back off.
Support the Mission
If our work helps you stay informed and empowered to stand against government overreach, please consider supporting Conservative Ladies of America. Your donation allows us to continue researching legislation, exposing the fine print, and equipping parents with the truth.