by Guy Page
Another takeaway of parental right-to-know is scheduled for a vote in the Vermont Senate this afternoon (see Senate Calendar, pg. 1126.)
S.220 updates public and school library requirements to allow children ages 12 and over to shield their book selections from their parents. Current law stops libraries from disclosing book selections to parents for children 16 and over.
Other sections of the bill spell out that, in the name of constitutionally-protected free speech, school and public libraries must adopt policies that “shall prohibit the removal of school library materials for the following reasons:
(1) partisan approval or disapproval;
(2) the author’s race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, political views, or religious views;
(3) school board members’ or members of the public’s discomfort, personal morality, political views, or religious views.”
The bill is sponsored by Progressives and Democrats concerned about public schools in other parts of the U.S. removing pro-transgender library books. It is not known whether any Vermont library has removed such books from their shelves.
Another bill that would expand minor consent at the expense of parental right-to-know appears to be dead. S.151, a miscellaneous health care policy bill, did not pass Crossover last Friday and is not scheduled for review this week. Other senators vocally dismissed the bill but not because of the brief clause giving minors the right to consent to STD vaccination without parental knowledge or consent.
While S.151 proper may not proceed this year, it would not be surprising if the minor vaccination clause found its way into another bill. Supporters say that children are at grave risk of permanent harm caused by STDs but are understandably reticent to discuss the problem with their parents. Opponents – like Sharon Toborg of Vermont Right to Life, who testified last week, point to a child’s inability to make a sound decision and the potential for covering up sex abuse.
“Sexual activity involving kids under 15 years old is always de facto sexual assault under Vermont law because no child under 15 can legally consent. While legal intervention is not always warranted, steps should be taken to evaluate whether a situation calls for it,” Toborg testified to Senate Health and Welfare.
“We should all want to make sure kids are protected from exploitation as well as from their own immaturity. However, changes in laws and policies at both the federal and state levels, such as the change proposed in S.151, are making those protections for minors increasingly difficult. The tacit approval of early sexual activity by policy makers – activity that is literally criminal under Vermont law – makes it more important than ever that parents are informed so they can protect
their children when the state will not,” Toborg said.
These two bills are by no means the only legislative incursions expanding minor consent to health care decisions at the expense of parental rights. The Vermont Family Alliance provided the following list:
Current Statutes
- 18 V.S.A. § 4226 allows minors 12+ to consent to Sexually Transmitted Infection Treatments (Effective 1971)
- 18 V.S.A. § 8352 A mental health care provider shall not use conversion therapy with a client younger than 18 years of age. (2017)
- 18 V.S.A. § 8350 A minor may give consent to receive any legally authorized outpatient treatment from a mental health professional (2018)
- 18 V.S.A. § 9493 no age limit on access to abortion (2019)
- https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abortion-in-vermont/abortion-laws
- 16 V.S.A. § 132 Requires provision of contraceptives in all public secondary schools (2021)
- 1 V.S.A. § 150 “Legally protected health care activity” protects the right of any person of any age may access reproductive health care services and gender affirming health care services without interference from any private or public person or entity. (2023)
Bills in process in 2024
- S.151 Sec 4 allows minors 12+ to consent to Sexually Transmitted Infection Prevention (vaccines, drugs, and shots) without parent or legal guardian consent
- S.220 Section 6: lowers the age at which library officers and employees may legally disclose library use records from 16 to 12 years old
- S.18 flavored tobacco and e-liquids ban would direct minor consumption to cigarettes and marijuana
Introduced and referred to Committees but not taken up:
- H.816 Proposes to require annual mental health screening of school-age youth for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk (2024)
- H.659 proposed “to allow a minor who identifies as transgender to consent to receiving hormone blockers and other nonsurgical, gender-affirming care and treatment without requiring parental consent.” (2022)
- H.515 proposed to allow minors age 16+ to consent to vaccines. (2019)
H.684 proposed to allow minors age 12+ to consent to preventative services for STIs, which includes HPV and Hep B immunizations, medications pre- and post- exposure to HIV, and “any other services for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.” (2019)
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation
Live Not by Lies.
This is why my kids are all going to be home schooled as of next year. If the nanny state impedes on our rights in that realm as well, we’ll be moving. May Jesus have mercy on this Godless state house.
Good for you Nathan, I’ve been saying all along…yes, we should speak out, but at some point parents just need to walk away. If enough people left the public system, it would be noticed. Perhaps then, maybe things would change.
If you love your children you will remove them from public schools, they are not
educating your children they are indoctrinating them to all the leftist ideologies,
they know how easy it is to control a child’s mind…………..
And they don’t want parents getting in the way, Wake up people, they don’t care !!
I agree 100%.
Federally, in 2023, the house passed the Parental Bill Of Rights. On a state level, be they Red Blue Purple states, via 86 bills in 25 states Parental Bills of Rights moved ahead and passed amidst the culture wars inside public education. Not Vermont. Parental Rights are being shut out shut down and devalued. VT Election 2024 Candidates who address to get a Parental Rights Policy in Vermont’s will have an edge if not win the election. Here is the link to State Tracker of Parental Bills of Rights Linkhttps://www.quorum.us/spreadsheet/external/IlWdXDLbCAYlIpLUaqhv/ Here is the Federal Parental Bill of Rights that passed the house : https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5/text?s=1&r=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr5%22%5D%7D
Again, the 25 State Tracker Link to Parental Bill of Rights https://www.quorum.us/spreadsheet/external/IlWdXDLbCAYlIpLUaqhv/
My kids went to VT public schools. They are 50 and 37, went to college here and are living now far away. But even back then we had to closely monitor their schooling, as to many teachers leaned liberal even back then. Sure glad we do not have kids in any school today, especially in VT. Once the place to live, now the place to leave. About all I can say is it is better then NJ., but becoming more like it every day.
God bless Sharon Toborg for her courage and common sense and for the will and wisdom to speak truth to power, reminding those who were ostensibly elected to represent us, that they are proposing legislation in violation of existing Vermont statues. But this nothing new for them.
Thank you, Sharon!
Looking at the bios, it appears that many of the senators pushing the library bill are mothers. I guess they don’t want to know what their kids are reading.
H.72 “safe injection sites” with no age limits or notification system also violates parental rights and puts minors at risk.
Please visit vermontfamilyalliance.com and join our email list!
We only send newsletters when necessary – the majority during legislative session.
Renee McGuinness, VFA Policy Analyst
The legislators don’t care what you think just like the school boards
The vote for S.220 didn’t happen today; it is currently on the calendar for Thursday 3/21. There is still time to contact your senators and ask them to keep the “under 16” language.
A few things I pointed out to some senators:
1. On Tuesday, they passed S.289 (age-appropriate design code), which defines a “child” as “under 18” for the purposes of protecting them from big tech; whereas S.220 (library bill) for all practical purposes (though not defined) considers a “child” to be “under 12.”
2. I found it curious why S.289 allows the State to look out for the interests of Vermont children; whereas S.220 prevents parents from looking out for the interests of their own children, ages 12-17.
3. Library records/transactions include any library activity, including computers (I am almost certain). What happens when a 12-year-old goes missing and one of the last things she did was use her local public library computer? The library couldn’t share any known information about websites with parents or authorities. Will it delay the investigation at a critical point until a warrant can be obtained? (I am uncertain about this, but it is a question that should at least be considered.)
So glad my children are grown, yet another reason we are leaving Vermont.
From the same body that legislates adult decisions with a fine tooth comb comes the decision to let children make adult decisions. Would the children’s decisions be made with informed consent? Who’s information? Is it reliable? Are the liaisons qualified to give such advise, without predudice? Legal ramifications, there certainly are some up and down the board. Perhaps civil suits with property seizure are in order running from the legislators that endorse such questionable mandates down to the persons giving children such twisted ill fated advise is in order. One would suspect not much research has been done before instituting these changes. Just a continuance of walking down the path of Marxist doctrine.