Congressional findings and declaration of purposes

(a) Findings Congress finds the following: (1) The nature of the parent-child relationship endows parents with the primary responsibility and obligation to care for their child. (2) From these responsibilities and obligations comes the pre-political, natural right of parents to care for their children. (3) The role of parents in the raising and rearing of their children is of inestimable value and deserving of both praise and protection by all levels of government. (4) This right as recognized in the traditions of western civilization recognizes that parents have the responsibility to love, nurture, raise, and protect their children. (5) The right encompasses the authority of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children according to the dictates of their conscience, to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children in their own beliefs and religion, and to be the primary decision maker for their child until the child reaches adulthood. (6) The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the primary role of parents in caring for children, concluding the following: (A) [T]he child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925). (B) [I]t is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923). (C) It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children comes to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972). (D) The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972). (E) Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course. Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979). (F) We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978). (G) The Supreme Court has explained that the liberty specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997). (H) [W]e have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children... In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (plurality op.). (I) [T]he Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a better decision could be made. Troxel, 530 U.S. at 72–73 (plurality op.). (7) Some decisions of Federal courts have failed to recognize the fundamental right of parents, resulting in an improper standard of judicial review being applied to government conduct that adversely affects parental rights and prerogatives. (8) Government agencies have increasingly intruded into the legitimate decisions and prerogatives of parents in situations that do not involve abuse or neglect but simply an agency’s disagreement with parenting choices based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. (9) Government’s involvement in parenting should prioritize the parent’s role as the child’s primary educator and should support, not supplant, the parent’s rights and responsibilities. (10) Government should not interfere in the decisions and actions of parents without compelling justification. (11) The strict scrutiny test used by courts to evaluate cases concerning fundamental rights is the correct standard of review for government actions that interfere with the right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children, and it appropriately balances the interests of parents, children, and government. (b) Purposes The purposes of this Act are— (1) to protect the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children as a fundamental right; and (2) while protecting the right of parents, to acknowledge that the rights involve responsibilities and specifically that parents have the responsibility for the education, nurture, and upbringing of their children as specified by the Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923), Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972), and Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997), and have the high duty to recognize and prepare their children for additional obligations as specified by the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).