THE SUPREME Court DEFENDS PARENTS—WHILE VIRGINIA'S LEFT TRIES TO KEEP THEM IN THE DARK

THE SUPREME Court DEFENDS PARENTS—WHILE VIRGINIA'S LEFT TRIES TO KEEP THEM IN THE DARK What Virginia parents need to know The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents may be entitled to notice and an opt-out when public-school instruction substantially interferes with their sincere religious beliefs. Virginia Code § 22.1-16.8 requires parental notification when assigned instructional materials contain sexually explicit content and allows parents to request alternative materials. In 2024, Democrats passed HB 571 and SB 235, which would have added broad anti-censorship language to that parental-notification statute. Those bills did not explicitly repeal parental notification, but their undefined anti-censorship language could have been used to discourage enforcement, create confusion, or characterize parental objections as censorship. Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed both bills, preserving the existing parental protections. In 2026, Democrats also stopped HB 532, Sage's Law, patroned by Delegate Karen Hamilton, which would have required schools to notify at least one parent when a child requested a school-supported social transition away from their biological sex. The Supreme Court draws a constitutional line. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court ruled that parents do not surrender their religious liberty when they enroll their children in public school. The case involved a Maryland school district that introduced LGBTQ+-themed storybooks into elementary classrooms, ended parental notification, and refused to allow religious parents to excuse their children. The Court held that government may not condition access to public education on parents surrendering their right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The ruling did not give parents control over every classroom decision. It did, however, make clear that schools cannot force young children into instruction that substantially interferes with their families' sincere religious beliefs while denying parents both notice and a reasonable opt-out. Virginia's parental-notification law Virginia Code § 22.1-16.8 requires schools to: Notify parents when assigned material contains sexually explicit content; Identify the specific material and subject matter; Allow parents to review it; and Provide alternative, nonexplicit material when requested. This is not a book ban. It is a recognition that parents should know what their children are being required to study and should have a lawful opportunity to request an alternative. HB 571 and SB 235 In 2024, Democrats passed HB 571 and SB 235, which would have amended § 22.1-16.8 by stating that the law could not be used to permit the "censoring of books" in public schools. Legally, the bills did not directly eliminate parental notification or alternative assignments. But the phrase "censoring of books" was broadly worded and undefined. That language could have been used to: Portray parental objections as censorship; Discourage school officials from fully enforcing notification requirements; Narrow the circumstances in which parents received notice; Create litigation over the meaning of the law; and Pressure schools to prioritize anti-censorship claims over parental rights. Parental protections are not always eliminated through a direct repeal. Sometimes they are weakened through vague language, administrative uncertainty, and legal pressure. Governor Youngkin vetoed both bills, preserving the existing statute without the added anti-censorship language. Democrats stopped Sage's Law The same conflict over parental authority returned in 2026 through HB 532, Sage's Law, patroned by Delegate Karen Hamilton. The bill would have required a school to notify at least one parent when a minor asked school employees to participate in a social transition to a sex or gender different from the child's biological sex. It would also have required parental involvement before schools implemented certain transition-related plans. The bill did not authorize mistreatment or bullying. It addressed a basic question: Should a government school participate in a child's social transition while withholding that information from the child's parents? Delegate Hamilton said no. Democrats on the House Education Committee voted to pass the bill indefinitely, effectively killing it. Their action prevented Virginia from establishing a clear statewide requirement that parents be notified when school personnel are asked to participate in such a major decision involving their child. A troubling pattern The left increasingly treats: Parental notification as dangerous; Parental review as censorship; Religious objections as intolerance; and School secrecy as compassion. But schools exist to assist parents—not replace them. Parents carry the primary responsibility for the upbringing, education, health, and religious formation of their children. Government employees should not be making or implementing life-altering decisions with minors while deliberately excluding their families. Parents do not surrender their rights The Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud now places an important constitutional barrier against no-notice, no-opt-out policies. Virginia cannot override the First Amendment. The General Assembly, the Department of Education, and local school boards cannot require parents to surrender their sincere religious convictions as the price of public education. HB 571 and SB 235 attempted to place broad anti-censorship language inside Virginia's parental-notification law. Governor Youngkin stopped them. Sage's Law attempted to ensure that parents were informed when schools were asked to participate in a child's social transition. Democrats stopped it. The question is ultimately simple: Who possesses the primary authority over a child—the parent or the state? The Constitution, natural law, and common sense give the answer. Children belong to families—not to the government.