After decades of parental rights victories, Connecticut may become the first state to go backwards on homeschool freedom in the past 50 years. The Connecticut Senate advanced a bill attacking homeschooling families by a vote of 22 to 14, mostly along party lines. Three Democrats joined all Republicans in opposition. The measure cleared the House 96-53 last week, with four Democrats crossing the aisle to stand with Republicans.

Those margins fall short of the two-thirds supermajority required in both chambers to override a gubernatorial veto.

Connecticut families now have only one remaining safeguard. Leadership should respect the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children and block this Orwellian legislation.

BLACK CONSERVATIVE FATHER AND FAITH LEADER HOMESCHOOLS 6 KIDS TO ‘GET GOD IN’: ‘WHAT COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT?’

The proposal would force homeschooling families to prove their innocence to the government before they can educate their own kids at home. It requires annual notices of intent and background checks by the Department of Children and Families when a child is withdrawn from public school. Families would be barred from homeschooling altogether if a parent or any other adult in the household faces an active DCF investigation or appears on the state’s abuse and neglect registry.

For decades, states across the country have steadily expanded parents’ rights to direct their children’s education. This legislation reverses that progress in one stroke.

“Everyone agrees that child abuse is a serious concern and the government has an important role in addressing it,” Home School Legal Defense Association attorney Ralph Rodriguez said. “But expanding regulation over thousands of homeschooling families is unlikely to solve failures that occur within the child protection system itself.”

Added Mr. Rodriguez: “The more effective approach is to strengthen the institutions responsible for identifying and responding to abuse rather than placing new regulatory burdens on families exercising their constitutional rights.”

Democrat-led states have launched similar assaults on homeschooling in recent years. Proposals surfaced in California, Illinois, and New Jersey. Those efforts stalled or failed — for now. Connecticut has now emerged as the latest battleground. During floor debate, Sen. Rob Sampson (R) delivered a powerful closing statement: “Parents are not subjects–they are citizens–and they do not need the permission of this state government or anyone in this room to educate their own children.”

Such a broad attack on parental rights is blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the primacy of parents over the state when it comes to child-rearing decisions. If the proposal becomes law, parents should challenge it in court, where it deserves to be struck down.

In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Supreme Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State.” The state cannot override parents’ authority without compelling justification. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) protected Amish parents’ right to direct their children’s education beyond the eighth grade. Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) struck down a state law restricting foreign-language instruction, affirming parents’ liberty “to establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.”

Homeschool Legal Defense Association President James R. Mason put the problem plainly: “As the US Supreme Court has affirmed, a state cannot treat every parent as a potential threat simply because some parents do wrong. That presumption of suspicion — applied universally, before any evidence of harm — is, in the court’s own word, ‘repugnant’ to American tradition.”

Mr. Mason also noted that “the way Connecticut places families on the registry has been ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which includes Connecticut.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Even if approved, the bill may have little immediate bite. During the May 4 floor debate, it was even admitted that the legislation as written lacks an enforcement mechanism. Parents denied approval by the government could simply continue homeschooling their children with no consequences for noncompliance.

That admission raises an obvious question. If the bill carries no real penalties, why adopt it at all? The rational explanation is that this might be the opening move in a longer campaign. Collecting data and establishing oversight on innocent families today sets the stage for clamping down with real enforcement teeth tomorrow.

Connecticut has no business targeting homeschool families while its own public schools are failing spectacularly. In Hartford, only 16 percent of students are proficient in math and 18 percent are proficient in reading. This dismal performance comes despite annual per-student spending exceeding $25,000. Lawmakers should focus on fixing the government monopoly schools under their control before harassing families who have chosen to raise and educate their own children.

Connecticut should block this proposal and send a clear message that the state stands with parents, not against them. Parental rights are not privileges granted by the state. They are fundamental liberties that government exists to protect.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY COREY DEANGELIS

“Feminism has changed the way women think, and it has changed the way men think, but the trouble is, it hasn’t changed the attitudes of babies at all,” said my mother, Phyllis Schlafly. I am so fortunate that my mother put babies first. In the 1960s and 1970s, a new ideology was fashionable: that women do not need or want either men or babies. Phyllis Schlafly lived a fulfilling life centered on her husband and children; which was in stark opposition to the idea that single women are happier alone.

I am so happy that she did put babies at the center of the conversation, because, as her child, I was the beneficiary of her putting babies first.

The current birth dearth is not due to lack of government money; it is due to a culture that tells young women to put career first and that men are expendable. Today, 40% of births in the United States are without the benefit of marriage. And marriage is definitely a benefit for the child. Children who are raised with a mother and a father married to each other are the most privileged group in America. These children are more likely to finish school, get employed, earn more money, be happier and healthier, and also to start their own families. 

MORE AND MORE GEN Z WOMEN SAY THEY DON’T WANT KIDS. AS A YOUNG MOM, HERE’S WHAT THEY GET WRONG

Intact families should be celebrated, not economically punished by bad tax policies. A true choice for mothers is the choice to nurture their own children, not to succumb to the economic and social pressures for them to farm them out to institutional day care. Mothers should never be economically punished for raising their own children.

Babies were always the first priority for Phyllis Schlafly. She especially liked to talk to babies. Whenever she saw a baby or toddler in public, she would immediately engage in an active conversation with the child. Today, digital interactions have replaced much face-to-face communications and our daily spoken word count has diminished. Texting is a poor substitute for talking! Babies need to hear a rich variety of words in order to develop speech, especially the sound and inflection of their own mother’s voice. Institutional day care cannot provide the same vibrant, nurturing chatter that comes from a mother.

Phyllis Schlafly rightly saw that feminist ideology devalued motherhood. She started an award for the Full-time Homemaker of the Year to honor women who prioritize their babies. Phyllis asked: would you rather be in an office instructed by a boss or managing your household from your own kitchen? She rejected the phrase “working mothers” to describe employed women, because, as she said, “all mothers work all the time”.

The concept of taxpayer-paid day care for young children reflects a misplaced understanding of who is responsible for their care. Young children want and need their parents, not a nanny state, to look after them. Government welfare programs encourage the disintegration of the family by leading mothers to seek government support rather than support from fathers. Subsidized day care can undermine the family unit by diminishing the provider’s role in the home. Americans consider whether it is wise policy to encourage mothers to leave their babies with government employees. What most mothers desire in paid work is to work inside their home or to work a flexible schedule that allows them to prioritize their family.

At Eagle Forum, we believe in public and private virtue, meaning taxpayer money should be spent wisely and families should have control over their own households. If Congress truly wanted to help families, it should increase the dependent deduction on income taxes. Those savings would directly benefit families, without routing taxpayer money through a government intermediary.

Here is who loses under taxpayer-paid babysitting:

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The child loses because what the child most wants is mother care, not day care. Day care may be expensive, but mother care is priceless.

The mother loses because no one cares more about her child than she does. The day care worker can never be emotionally invested in the welfare of the child.

The day care workers lose because wages are still low. Increasing the supply of day care will not raise workers’ wages.

The taxpayers lose because when the government pays, prices rise (as we have seen in the ever-rising prices of college education and health care). The subsidies will ensure that the day care businesses can raise their prices without losing customers.

Stay-at-home mothers lose as they do not receive any subsidy for choosing to remain at home and raise their own children. They have resisted the social pressure to return to paid employment and place their children in institutional babysitting. 

However, there are some winners under taxpayer-paid babysitting:

Day care bureaucrats win because they can expand their business models. As in education, additional government funding often goes to administration rather than workers. Instead of supporting small family-run daycares, the industry will shift toward larger, institutional services.

Politicians win by pretending to give money to the people.

No job is more vital than motherhood. We honor all mothers who choose this important job.

Critical minerals quietly power every aspect of modern American life. As you pour your morning coffee, you are relying on copper wiring and silicon chips working behind the scenes inside your coffee maker. When you grab milk from the refrigerator, you are depending on metal components, copper wiring, and electronic controls to keep everything cold. Turn on the TV to another round of bickering politicians on cable news, and you are looking at a screen built with indium, lithium, and rare earth phosphors. 

Flip off the lights, hop in your car, connect your phone to Bluetooth, and turn on your favorite podcast for the drive to work. That everyday routine depends on copper, lithium, and a whole host of other critical minerals that power batteries, speakers, navigation systems, electric motors, and modern communications technology. 

These materials are so deeply embedded into our daily lives that most Americans would never think twice about them. But they should. 

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WORKS TO BREAK CHINA’S RARE EARTH MINERAL STRANGLEHOLD ON AFRICA

Beijing certainly has. The Chinese Communist Party has spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars cornering the market on critical minerals, from mining to processing and refining. Today, China controls roughly 70 percent of global rare earth mining and nearly 90 percent of rare earth refining capacity, dominating the supply chains that underpin America’s economic and national security. 

This is not just about what goes into your coffee maker or your iPhone. Critical minerals are essential to America’s military strength, powering everything from advanced fighter jets and missile systems to radar, satellites, and communications technology. China knows this and has demonstrated time and time again its willingness to weaponize global supply chains for geopolitical leverage. 

Last year, Beijing imposed sweeping export controls on rare earth elements, disrupting global markets and sending shockwaves through defense and manufacturing supply chains. The consequences hit Americans directly. Supply disruptions drive up costs, slow manufacturing, threaten jobs, and make everything from cars to consumer electronics more expensive and harder to produce. 

My home state of California’s aerospace industry offers a clear example of what is at stake. The sector supports more than 350,000 jobs and generates tens of billions of dollars in annual economic output. It is also central to America’s defense industrial base, producing advanced aircraft, satellites, and missile systems. Without reliable access to critical minerals, thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity are at risk.

President Trump and his administration understand the urgency of this challenge and are moving quickly to restore American energy and mineral dominance. Recent efforts to strengthen domestic mining and support companies like MP Materials and Lithium Americas are important steps in the right direction.  

But America cannot solve this problem alone. Even with increased domestic production, global demand for critical minerals is projected to skyrocket in the coming decades. Some estimates show the world will consume as much copper over the next 25 years as humanity has in all of recorded history. 

This is why we must work alongside our most trusted allies and friends to build strong, resilient supply chains away from China.

This week, my Developing Overseas Mineral Investments and New Allied Networks for Critical Energies (DOMINANCE) Act passed out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The DOMINANCE Act helps lock in President Trump’s critical minerals strategy and creates a coordinated approach to secure the supply chains that power our economy and national defense. This legislation strengthens America’s ability to work with allies, reduces dependence on China, and ensures the free world — not the Chinese Communist Party — controls the resources that will define the 21st century. 

This is not just about energy or industrial policy. It’s not about military might or geopolitical competition, although that is certainly part of the calculus. At its core, this challenge is about protecting the American Dream, and our way of life.

The appliances in our homes, the cars we drive, the technology we rely on each day, and the military systems that defend our nation all depend on secure critical mineral supply chains. America can either meet this moment now, or risk regretting it for the next 100 years. 

I am optimistic that, under this administration and alongside our allies, America can reclaim our critical minerals supply chains and take back our energy future. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM REP YOUNG KIM