RÉSUMÉ DIGEST
HB 81 2023 Regular Session Crews
Proposed law would have required school employees to:
(1)Use the name for a student listed on his birth certificate, or a derivative thereof,
unless granted written permission by parents to do otherwise.
(2)Use the pronoun for a student aligning with his sex unless granted written permission
by parents to do otherwise.
Proposed law would have provided that an employee was not required to use pronouns for
any person differing from the pronouns reflecting the sex indicated on the person's birth
certificate if doing so violated the employee's sincerely held religious beliefs. Would have
authorized parents to request a transfer to another teacher if a teacher objected to using a
pronoun for a student on the grounds of religious or moral convictions.
Proposed law would have defined an "employee" as any individual working in any capacity
at a public school, paid or volunteer, including but not limited to teachers and other school
employees, school bus operators, extracurricular personnel, and independent contractors, and
would have defined "sex" as the biological sex as listed on the person's original birth
certificate.
Proposed would have further provided:
(1)That proposed law would not be construed to prohibit employees from discussing
matters of public concern outside the context of their official duties.
(2)That any individual aggrieved by an intentional violation of proposed law could seek
relief; however, would have provided that a school employee would not be held
liable if the administration failed to provide information relative to a student's name
or pronouns.
(3)That employees were prohibited from discussing the application of proposed law
relative to a student's preferred name and pronouns with other students.
(4)That each public school governing authority was required to adopt policies for
proposed law implementation.
(Proposed to add R.S. 17:2122 and 3996(B)(75))
VETO MESSAGE:
"Please be advised that I have vetoed House Bill 81 of the 2023 Regular Session.
At its core, this bill is yet another example of a string of discriminatory bills being pushed
by extreme groups around the country under the guise of religious freedom. But even if you
accept the proponents' religious freedom argument, the bill is still fraught with serious,
practical implementation issues.
As finally passed, every parent whose child goes by a nickname, rather than the name on
their birth certificate, would have to provide written permission to the school to allow an
employee of the school to use the child's nickname rather than his given name. The bill
defines "student" as a public school student under the age of 18. Even just as it pertains to
being called by a nickname, does this mean the parents of a 17 year old public school student
would have to provide permission to the school for employees to use the nickname, but an
18 year old student at the same public school can go by a different name not on his birth
certificate without requiring parental consent?
Even further, this legislation would only apply to public and charter schools, meaning
children attending private school can be called by a name or pronoun other than that on their
birth certificate without a parent's written permission? Are the same religious freedom protections for public school employees this bill alleges to address not extended to
employees at private schools?
While there is an attempt to provide safeguards for a child who may have a nickname or a
pronoun that a school employee refuses to use for religious and moral reasons, the bill falls
woefully short of actually protecting the child. As finally passed, the legislation allows the
parent in these instances to request that the child be transferred to another teacher's
classroom. But not only is the school not required to transfer, what happens in a small
school, in a rural district, where there is no other class to be transferred to or even another
school in the district for the child to be transferred to? Where does the child go to be
educated?
I believe this legislation is rooted in discrimination. But even considering the argument for
religious freedom, the drafting of this bill is so flawed and leaves the reader with so many
questions that it will not become law."