Answer from Michael Farris​, J.D., LL.M:​

The Founding Fathers never argued that inalienable rights were absolute. Freedom of the press was clearly viewed as both inalienable and fundamental by the Founders. Yet, there were laws that were on the books punishing those who used the press to defame other people. Defamation was (and is) punished despite the fact that the freedom of the press was viewed as a God-given liberty described repeatedly as both inalienable and fundamental.

Likewise, parental rights are not absolute.

If we strip away the terminology debates and just think about theories of legally protectable rights, we will eventually conclude that there are essentially three potential levels of rights:

Absolute rights that may never be invaded by government for any reason whatsoever.

Very important rights that should not be limited except when someone abuses their rights by extreme use of their liberty.

Ordinary rights that the government could overcome whenever there was a good reason to do so.​

The Founders clearly believed that inalienable rights were not absolute. Consider this section from the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780:

First, it is obvious that equal protection of the laws was denied to Jews and Muslims. Religious freedom did not extend that far. Second, there was the limitation of “demeaning themselves peacefully.” Baptist pastors in Virginia were routinely arrested in the 1770s for disturbing the peace when they preached without obtaining a license from the government. (My book, gives an exhaustive history of the development of religious liberty in England and America). This “demeaning themselves peacefully” standard gave the prevailing denomination incredible power to limit the religious practices of dissenters. Moreover, there was the limitation that the other denominations had to be “good subjects of the commonwealth.” That, too, was an open-ended, vague provision that could be used to limit religious liberty.​

​

Fortunately, the Massachusetts position was eventually replaced by a view of true religious liberty for all. But my point is this: Even inalienable rights were, in fact, limited by the Founding Fathers.

I think it is now evident that:

The Founders did not believe that inalienable rights are absolute.

Parental rights should not be absolute.

In light of the fact that parental rights cannot and should not be considered an absolute right, the question remains: Have we chosen the correct method of limitation on this right?​

We certainly do not want to return to the language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780: “Parents should have the right to make all decisions for their children provided that they are ‘demeaning themselves peaceably and [are] good subjects of the commonwealth'.” I guarantee you that such a rule would let the government run roughshod over every parent that had the courage to defy an improper government edict.

Accordingly, we chose the language from, 406 US 205 (1972)​, to describe the difficult burden the government must meet in order to demonstrate that a parental choice can be limited by the government. There must be evidence—not a mere assertion—that in this particular case the government’s interest is “of the highest order and not otherwise served.” This language was used to hold that the compulsory education law was not important enough to meet this standard in the context of that case. Compulsory education law cannot be described as anything less than an incredibly high priority to the government. Yet, parental rights prevailed over this interest in Yoder.​

Some standard has to be articulated because the courts will never find that parental rights are absolute. Realism dictates this path, as does good philosophy. Parents should not have the right to abuse their children.

So, we either leave it to the courts to invent the exceptions to the rule, or we give them the standard from the very best example we have in Supreme Court history. We have chosen the latter path.​

The bill establishes the “Parental Bill of Rights.” The bill provides that the state, its political subdivisions, any other governmental entity, or other institution shall not infringe upon the fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of a minor child. If those entities infringe upon a parent’s fundamental right, they must demonstrate that the action is reasonable and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, and the action must be narrowly tailored and not otherwise served by less restrictive means.

The bill enumerates a list of rights that a parent possesses in order to direct the education of his or her child and be informed about the child’s educational programs. The bill also requires a school district to promote parental involvement in the public school system by providing access to the child’s studies and instructional materials while recognizing a parent’s right to withdraw the child from objectionable portions of the school’s curriculum.

The bill further requires a parent’s permission before a health care practitioner may provide services, prescribe medicine to the child, or perform a medical procedure, unless otherwise provided by law. The bill provides a misdemeanor penalty for a health care practitioner or similar person who violates the health care provisions and subjects these persons to disciplinary actions.

• The right to direct the education and care of your minor child.

• The right to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of your minor child.

• The right to access and review all school records relating to your minor child.
  

• The right to consent in writing before a biometric scan of your minor child is made, shared, or stored.
  

• The right to learn about your minor child's course of study, including the source of any supplemental education materials. This includes the right to inspect school district instructional materials.

• The right to object to instructional materials and other materials used in the classroom. Such objections may be based on beliefs regarding morality, sex, religion, or the belief that such materials are harmful.
  

• ​The right to withdraw your minor child from any portion of the school district's required comprehensive health education that relates to sex education, instruction in AIDS education, or any instruction regarding sexuality if the parent provides a written objection to his or her minor child's participation. This includes the right to be notified in advance of such course content so that you may withdraw your minor child from those portions of the course.

• The right to learn about the nature and purpose of clubs and activities offered at your minor child's school, including both those that are extracurricular or part of the school curriculum.

• The right to make health care decisions for your minor child.

• The right to make medical decisions to address any needs of your minor child.

• ​The right to access and review all medical records of his or her child​

• The right to be notified promptly if an employee of the State, a political subdivision of the State, a public school district or public school, another governmental entity, or another institution suspects that abuse, neglect, or a criminal offense has been committed against his child.

• The right of a parent to exempt your minor child from immunizations.
  

• ​The right to refuse physical and psychological screening of your minor child.

• ​Health care provider may not provide or solicit or arrange to provide health care services, perform a physical or psychological examination, or prescribe medicinal drugs or biologics to a child without first obtaining written parental consent.​

• ​Parental consent for health care servicese required for a mnior child until the age of 18.

​