A new parental rights law in Washington state, criticized as a “forced outing” measure, will take effect this week after a court commissioner denied an emergency order to temporarily block it. The law, Initiative 2081, grants parents the right to review their child’s counseling records and expands instances where parents can opt their child out of sex education.
The law requires schools to notify parents in advance about medical services offered to their child, except in emergencies, and for medical treatments arranged by the school that require follow-up care beyond normal school hours. Critics argue that this measure could harm students seeking confidential services related to birth control, reproductive services, counseling for gender identity or sexual orientation, or support for sexual assault or domestic violence, as it may force these students to disclose sensitive information to their parents against their will.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and other groups challenging the law claim it violates the state Constitution. They argue that it conflicts with existing privacy laws that protect young people’s rights to access certain medical services, such as abortions, without parental consent. They assert that the new law does not explicitly state that it amends these privacy protections, creating potential legal and privacy conflicts.
The measure was supported by conservative megadonor Brian Heywood, who stated that the initiative was not intended to give parents veto power over their child’s medical decisions but rather to ensure parents are informed. Despite progressive lawmakers’ attempts to avoid placing it on the fall ballot and their anticipation of legal challenges, the Democratic-led Legislature approved the measure in March.
King County Superior Court Commissioner Mark Hillman stated that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated imminent harm that would justify blocking the law before a full hearing, which is scheduled for June 21. Hillman expressed sympathy for the concerns raised but deemed the potential harms as speculative. The state’s attorney, William McGinty, argued that the law is constitutional and that the plaintiffs had not met the criteria for a temporary restraining order.