Letter to Education Policy Conference Committee on S.F. 1740

PDF Version

Dear Education Policy Conference Committee Members:

The Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in Minnesota, wishes to express its opinion on two provisions being considered.

Homeschooling Ban

First, we write to express concern about (not opposition to) an amendment included in the Senate version of the Education Policy Bill (lines 2.4-2.22) barring homeschooling due to criminal convictions or, alternatively, an Alford plea.

Proposals that limit fundamental rights—such as this limitation on the ability to direct the education of one’s child—should be fully reviewed through the legislative process, and not tacked onto a policy bill without even one hearing in either body. Therefore, we urge you to not include the provision in the conference report until further hearings are held establishing that there is a concrete, identifiable problem that will be remedied by the bill language.

The Catholic Church believes that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to foster responsibility, rehabilitation, and restoration, and not just punishment for the sake of retribution.  In Minnesota, we have long worked to limit the effect of collateral consequences of criminal convictions such as through felon voter restoration and “ban the box” legislation to give people the opportunity to responsibly reintegrate into the community.  The legislation cited here imposes a new collateral consequence of conviction rather than removing one.

The language at issue has the effect of barring homeschooling related to Alford pleas or convictions of a significant number of crimes, some of which are related directly to child endangerment, and some which are not. This collateral consequence will be in effect even if 1) the offender is out of incarceration and no longer deemed a public safety threat to the community (except for registered sex offenders); 2) parental rights have not been terminated; and 3) there is no determination that the child is in need of protective services. The three prior remedies are already in place to allow the state to protect both the public and children.

The breadth of applicable crimes that trigger a loss of parental rights is broad and there has not been a sufficient record established to show that each and every one should be included. No hearing has been held to establish that children homeschooled by parents with criminal convictions suffer greater instances of physical or emotional abuse, or will experience learning loss. In fact, an MDE working group designed to study the issue never even released a report on the issue for legislators to consider.  And given that there is much too frequent news regarding the epidemic of sex abuse in public schools, perhaps there is a greater need to focus our child protection efforts elsewhere.

To be sure, we stand in support of better child protection policies, and have advocated for, among other things, expansion of mandatory reporter laws.  And the state can certainly impose significant measures to protect children, including protection from the child’s parents or guardians through the termination of parental rights. But this proposal raises serious constitutional questions because the ability to homeschool is curtailed based only on the presence of a prior conviction.

There is an old saying that every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.  We encourage all legislators to give scrutiny to collateral consequences to ensure that there are legitimate public policy purposes behind them besides mere retribution. 

Abstinence Education

In addition, we want to express our opposition to the changes outlined regarding sexually transmitted infections and diseases program in the Senate version (within lines 29.1-29.30). While we all agree that the common good is served when young Minnesotans are properly instructed on how to lead healthy, responsible lives, we believe this language is flawed. Removing the phrase “until marriage” (line 29.10) undermines the benefits that abstinence until marriage provides. It suggests to youth that they should abstain only for the purposes of avoiding a sexually transmitted disease, while offering them alternative prevention methods that are not 100 percent effective.

The primary way to avoid sexually transmitted disease is to practice abstinence until marriage. Even Planned Parenthood agrees that abstinence is the “only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy” and can be a way to avoid sexually transmitted disease.[1] Abstaining from sexual activity until marriage has proven long-term benefits, beyond simply avoiding sexually transmitted disease. A Cornell University study found that delaying sexual involvement until marriage leads to better relationships. Doing so allows young people to be more intentional when picking a spouse, which leads to longer-lasting relationships with stronger emotional connections.[2]

We encourage you to remove the proposed deletion of “until marriage” that waters down sexual education and instead ensure that we are promoting programs that will set our kids up for long-term success in their health and relationships.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully yours,

Matt Hughes

Assistant Director for Government Relations

[email protected]

[1] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/abstinence-and-outercourse/what-are-benefits-and-disadvantages-abstinence-and-outercourse

[2] https://ifstudies.org/blog/slow-but-sure-does-the-timing-of-sex-during-dating-matter