Moms For Liberty Oklahoma

HB 3001 is a narrow, procedural bill that extends the sunset date of the Child Death Review Board and prevents a lapse in its statutory authority. The bill does not expand the Board’s powers, create new mandates, or impose additional regulations on families or local entities. It maintains continuity for an existing review body focused on identifying systemic failures in child fatality and near-fatality cases related to abuse or neglect.

Monitor Notes

• Future extensions should include performance metrics and outcome reporting to justify continued operation
• Board recommendations should remain advisory, not regulatory
• No expansion of data collection, inter-agency data sharing, or authority without legislative review

Bottom Line

HB 3001 is acceptable as introduced, but continued legislative oversight is warranted to ensure the Board does not evolve into an expanded regulatory or data-collection body beyond its original purpose.

This should be a no-brainer.

If public officials are working for the people, they should never be silenced by nondisclosure agreements about their official duties.

HB 3030 simply says:

• You don’t get to serve the public and keep secrets from them.
• No elected or appointed official should be required or allowed to sign an NDA that limits transparency about government business.
• If it involves public office, public decisions, or public resources, the public has a right to know.

This bill:

• ✔️ Strengthens transparency
• ✔️ Reinforces accountability
• ✔️ Protects whistleblowers and honest officials
• ✔️ Prevents backroom deals disguised as “confidentiality”

It does not interfere with:

• Legitimate litigation strategy
• Truly personal or private matters unrelated to public office
• Existing public records laws or ethical safeguards

Bottom line

If lawmakers believe in:

• Open government
• Accountability
• Serving constituents over special interests

HB 3030 should pass unanimously.

Any opposition to this bill raises a simple question:

What are they trying to hide?

Bill needs to pass!

HB 3036 would reduce certain statutory restrictions on where handguns may be carried in Oklahoma by deleting those restrictions from state law.

• Supporters see this as reinforcing constitutional rights and simplifying gun laws.

Law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.

Removes restrictions for carrying handguns on certain property. This bill is an OK2A bill. OKGOP platform is clear on protecting our 2nd amendment rights.

HB 3151 restores integrity to Oklahoma’s instructional time requirements by closing loopholes that currently allow non-instructional activities to count toward required school days or hours. Under current law, districts may count professional meetings, parent-teacher conferences, and some virtual days toward compliance. HB 3151 tightens those rules, so that “instructional time” more accurately reflects actual classroom learning.

A 7 page bill: All personally identifiable educational data relating to a minor child is the property of the parent until the student reaches 18. State agencies and contractors shall act only as custodians--not owners.No state education agency or local school district shall sell, trade, or license any student data for commercial purposes. Parents have the right to 1) complete records of all data elements collected or maintained on his or her child by any state education agency or local school district. 2)Opt out of any nonessential collection or data linkage beyond what is required by state or federal 3. Opt out of inclusion in any research study, predictive analytics model, artificial intelligence training dataset, or cross agency workforce linkage. 4) Receive annual written notice from the school district and SDE listing data elements collected and all authorized data-sharing agreements. No personally identifiable educational data shall be collected unless expressly authorized by state or federal law. New data elements proposed for collection by the SDE shall receive legislative approval following public notice and hearing. Personally identifiable student data shall not be transferred to any federal or state agencies, including but not limited to, workforce, health, or human services agencies, or to any private contractor or nonprofit organization without the written consent of the parent. Any data-sharing arrangement between multiple agencies shall be disclosed publicly on website The SDE shall develop a standardized Parent Data Opt-Out Form which shall exclude the applicable student's records from longitudinal and cross-agency linkage. Penalties for vendor violations.

This is a good measure to prevent data being collected, transmitted, sold, etc without parental consent. This opt out is very important. This piece further protects individual liberties, beyond parental rights. This should clarify as to it's authority to also apply to actions/contracts engaged in by the OSDE.

HB 3723 would shift approval power for certain large green energy projects to local elected officials — and potentially local voters — before those projects can be built.

HB 3727 would bar local governments from spending public dollars on lobbyists, especially former legislators.

The goal is to keep taxpayer funds focused on core services and limit the influence of paid lobbyists using public funds.

An Act relating to lobbying regulation; prohibiting political subdivisions from spending public funds on hiring a lobbyist or paying a nonprofit state association or organization that hires lobbyists.

Yes, please add former members cannot be appointed to positions in Government for 6 years.

"Beginning on January 1, 2027, no former member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives or the Oklahoma State Senate may work or register as a lobbyist until six (6) years after their last term has expired. Former members of the Legislature who have become registered lobbyists prior to January 1, 2027, shall not be eligible for renewal of their registration until six (6) years after their last term has expired."

I support SB 1200 and its goal of preventing financial conflicts of interest on school and technology center boards. The bill takes an important step toward protecting public trust in education governance. To strengthen the bill without changing its intent, I respectfully suggest a few clarifications to better define what qualifies as a disqualifying interest, limit unintended exclusions of community members, and ensure the rule is applied fairly and consistently.

1) Clarify What “Interest” Means

Example: A retired contractor who owns a small, inactive stake in a construction company that has not worked with a school district in years would not automatically be disqualified.

Why: Without clarification, the term “interest” could be read too broadly and exclude people with no real influence or involvement in school contracts.

2) Limit the Scope to Active or Direct Involvement

Example: A person who works for a large company that occasionally issues bonds statewide but has no role in school-related projects or decisions, would not be barred from serving.

Why: This prevents the rule from unintentionally excluding individuals who have no practical ability to influence school board decisions.

3) Provide a Clear Look-Back or Time Boundary

Example: Someone who sold their business years ago or ended involvement before filing for office would be eligible to run.

Why: Without a time boundary, past or long-ended activities could permanently disqualify otherwise qualified candidates.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect local voters, school districts, and community members who want ethical governance without unnecessary exclusions. They help ensure the bill targets real conflicts of interest, prevents confusion or uneven enforcement, and keeps school boards open to qualified citizens while maintaining public trust.

SB 1271 strengthens reading proficiency requirements for early elementary students and expands reporting on literacy interventions

SB 1452’s rebuttable presumption of joint custody structurally supports dual parental involvement and aligns with parental-rights priorities, constitutional norms of freedom plus judicial discretion, and conservative values of family integrity and clear legal standards — so long as courts exercise discretion responsibly in the best interests of the child

Points to Monitor in Policy and Practice

1. Judicial interpretation: How judges apply the presumption in varied family situations (e.g., domestic violence, abandonment, substance abuse).
2. Best interest standard: Ensuring that courts continue to center child safety and welfare above procedural presumptions.
3. Education & guidance for courts: Training for judges and attorneys on applying the presumption fairly and effectively.

We must stop the expansion of Socialism in our school systems through the implementation of school based health care clinics (SBHCs). Many programs exist for this encroachment - "Whole Child Whole School" (WSCC), "Community Schools", "Multi-Tiered Support for Mental Health", "Mental Health for On-Site Counseling Teams" (MTSS), "Health Integration Program", "Health Partnerships", and "Mobile School Clinic" to name a few.

Health care is not a function of education!

Moral values and common sense.

Employees are prohibited from drinking on the job or being inebriated in the private sector, so why are supposed "servants of the people" allowed to do so? A moral and common-sense refrainment!

Sad that this is necessary, but apparently it is. Thank you for this bill!

Data centers in Oklahoma may not be directly or indirectly rented, leased, or controlled by a foreign owner. Declares that any current rental or lease agreements would be deemed invalid from the date of adoption. The bill also declared that any current rental or lease agreements would be deemed invalid from the date of adoption.

As long as they can't use the same form to get around, maybe no form and specific requirements.

While this bill is being sold as a broad parental-rights expansion, in reality it’s narrowly tailored toward IEP disputes and special-education enforcement.SB 1720 would expand parents’ legal rights in public schools by adding protections under the Parents’ Bill of Rights, establishing a formal complaint process, and creating a right to sue when those rights are violated — a major shift in empowering parents within the education system.

SB 1720 is much more about special education / IEP enforcement than broad, general parental rights. SB 1720 is less about general parental rights and more about IEP enforcement and special-education dispute resolution, despite its broader branding

Thank you for understanding the urgency of the need for this common sense legislation.

YES!! "C. Any No public body or its members, officers, or staff, nor any law enforcement officer or security personnel, present at a public meeting shall prohibit any person attending a public meeting from recording the proceedings of the meeting by videotape video recording, audio recording, or by any other method; provided, however, such recording shall not interfere with the conduct of the meeting.

Protects basic fundamental human rights

I support SB 1768 because teaching students practical financial skills is valuable and timely. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure classrooms remain focused on financial education, districts keep flexibility, and instruction does not drift into advocacy or confusion. These changes improve clarity and consistency without changing the bill’s overall intent to strengthen financial literacy.

1) Clarify Instruction vs. Advocacy

Example: Instruction on how inflation works would explain multiple perspectives and basic mechanics, rather than requiring or favoring a specific viewpoint or book.

Why: This prevents classroom instruction from being perceived as promoting a single political or ideological position instead of teaching students how to think critically.

2) Preserve Local Curriculum Flexibility

Example: A district could choose different age-appropriate materials or examples to teach inflation and monetary policy, as long as students learn the core concepts.

Why: This avoids a one-size-fits-all approach and respects that districts and teachers know what works best for their students.

3) Align the Emergency Clause with the Effective Date

Example: The bill would take effect on the stated future date without using emergency language, unless a clear and immediate need is demonstrated.

Why: This prevents confusion about timing and avoids setting unnecessary precedent for using emergency declarations when the bill already has a scheduled start date.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect students by keeping instruction educational rather than ideological, protect teachers by giving them clear boundaries and flexibility, and protect school districts by preventing confusion, controversy, or future expansion beyond the bill’s original purpose.

This is a "no brainer" as false statements should have appropriate consequents, as well as any information withheld by a government agency which may be construed as pertinent and in favor of the victim and/or his/her guardians.

The sale of firearms and firearm ammunition shall be exempt from the tax imposed by Section 1354 of Title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes if the sale takes place on July 3, 2026.

When an infant or child dies unexpectently or suddenly in this state an autopy is to be performed within 48 hours. Specify labs and toxicity studies are to be conducted including immunizations within the last 90 days.

YES!!! Citizens should be allowed to record public meetings of the legislature!

This provides accountability to charter school sponsors who currently have very minimal responsibilities post school approval. This brings Oklahoma up to the standards set in other states regarding charter school governance. As charter schools continue to expand across our state, accountability and transparency measures like the ones in this bill, which seek to inform and involve the stakeholders-the parents, are vital for the protection of parental rights and representation that should be provided when public dollars are granted. This corrects the 'taxation without representation' we currently have in some charter schools, by providing some form of voice for parents. This bill puts the responsibility of follow up on the sponsor of the charter school to make sure they are not operating independently from the tax payers they serve. As charter school families do not get to elect their board members, stakeholders have next to no representation for their tax dollars. This bill provides a starting place to correct that.

I support SB 1971 because it strengthens accountability and transparency in the charter school system by improving oversight, performance reviews, and sponsor responsibility. The bill would be stronger with a few clarifications to ensure clear limits on sponsor penalties and fair, predictable application of new requirements. These changes improve clarity and consistency without changing the bill’s overall intent.

1) Clear Standards Before Sponsor Suspension

Example: If a sponsor has several schools close due to factors outside its control—such as enrollment shifts or serving high-risk student populations—the sponsor would receive clear notice of specific deficiencies and an opportunity to correct them before losing authority to approve new schools.

Why: This prevents automatic or arbitrary punishment of sponsors without clear, fixable benchmarks.

2) Reasonable Timing for New Compliance Requirements

Example: New survey, reporting, and review requirements would apply after a defined adjustment period so existing schools and sponsors have time to implement systems without disrupting school operations.

Why: This avoids rushed compliance that could create paperwork errors or unintended technical violations.

3) Limits on Emergency Use

Example: The bill would take effect on a normal timeline unless a true, immediate safety risk to students is identified, rather than applying emergency status to long-term policy changes.

Why: This prevents emergency powers from being used for administrative convenience rather than urgent necessity.

Who these amendments protect: These amendments protect students and families by ensuring stable school oversight, protect charter schools by preventing sudden or unclear penalties, and protect sponsors and taxpayers by preventing overreach, confusion, and unintended expansion of enforcement authority.

I support SB 2028 because it expands consumer choice and supports small farmers by allowing limited, direct sales of ungraded raw milk and related products. To strengthen the bill without changing its intent, a few clarifications are needed so producers clearly understand what is allowed, consumers receive consistent notice, and enforcement remains fair and predictable rather than discretionary.

1: Clear Consumer Notice Standard

Example:A producer selling ungraded raw milk posts a simple, visible notice at the point of sale and on containers stating that the product is not inspected or regulated.

Why:Without a clear, consistent notice standard, producers could face uneven enforcement based on subjective judgments about what “notification” means.

2: Defined Scope of “Incidental Sales”

Example:A small farm selling raw milk directly to families understands that “incidental sales” means small-scale, supplemental sales tied to on-farm production—not a commercial retail operation.

Why:Clarifying this prevents confusion and stops future expansion of enforcement that could treat small farmers like large commercial dairies.

3: Limits on Transport Expectations

Example:When a farmer delivers raw milk directly to a consumer, expectations are limited to basic handling consistent with small-scale, direct sales, not commercial-grade transport requirements.

Why:Without clear limits, agencies could later impose costly standards that were never intended for direct, farm-to-consumer sales.

Who These Amendments ProtectThese amendments protect small farmers from arbitrary enforcement, consumers from inconsistent information, and regulators from pressure to stretch the law beyond its intent. Clear boundaries preserve the bill’s purpose while preventing regulatory creep, confusion, and unequal treatment.

SB2030 advances individual liberty and due process by reducing permanent government punishment and helping Oklahomans move forward — it benefits the people, not the system.

I support SB 2125 because it expands freedom for small farmers and consumers by allowing the direct sale and advertising of ungraded raw milk and raw milk products. To keep that intent intact while avoiding confusion or misuse, a few clarifications are needed around third-party sales, labeling consistency, the emergency clause, and the definition of “incidental sales”. These changes strengthen the bill without changing its purpose.

1) Clear Limits on Third-Party Sales

Example: If raw milk is sold at a farmers market or through a third party, the consumer should be able to clearly identify the original farm that produced it, and the producer should remain responsible for how it is handled and represented.

Why: Without clear limits, third-party sales could blur responsibility and create enforcement confusion if something goes wrong.

2) Consistent, Plain-Language Labeling

Example: Every container sold should clearly state that the product is raw or unpasteurized, list the date it was filled, and plainly disclose that it is not inspected or regulated.

Why: Clear and consistent labels ensure consumers understand what they are buying and reduce the risk of disputes or claims of deception.

3) Narrow the Emergency Clause

Example: The bill could take effect on a standard timeline rather than immediately, unless a clear and specific public safety need is identified.

Why: Using emergency clauses when there is no immediate threat can set an unnecessary precedent and weaken public trust.

4) Clear Definition of “Incidental Sales”

Example: Incidental sales should be clearly understood as small-scale sales connected to what a farm actually produces each month, not ongoing or high-volume distribution that looks like a commercial operation.

Why: Without a clear meaning, the exemption could be stretched beyond its intent and used as a loophole by large or industrial-style sellers.

Who These Amendments Protect

These amendments protect small farmers by reducing the risk of unfair enforcement, protect consumers by ensuring transparency and informed choice, and protect the state by preventing regulatory creep or confusion as the market grows. The result is a clearer, fairer system that honors the bill’s intent while guarding against abuse.

This bill is THE BEST raw milk bill this session!

-Great: Allows all raw milk to be advertised

-Great: Allows raw milk to be transported off farm

-Great: Allows 1500 gallons of raw milk to be sold per month** (This bill increases raw milk sales from 100 gallons a month to 1500 gallons a month, however, there should be NO limits on sales of raw milk, this restricts farms from making a decent living and limits their ability to be competitive, and appears to be unconstitional favoring of certain industries over small business....see below.)

-Great: removes ALL raw milk producers from the egregious Oklahoma Milk Products Act!!!

(To be even better, get with Rep Hardin and amend to add language allowing off farm sale to restaurants, feed stores, and farmers markets.)

***HR 8374 "The Interstate Milk Freedom Act" proposed in Congress will allow the interstate sale of raw milk. When it is enacted, the state of Oklahoma will be putting raw milk farms at a disadvantage in the USA by limiting their sales of raw milk per month and prohitibing them from their constitutional right to freedom of speech (advertising their legal product) under current regulations of the Oklahoma Milk Products Act.

Amends regarding standardized subject matter standards, graduation requirements, establishing set curriculum of 23 units for all 8-12 grade students.

HB 3021 looks less like education reform and more like lowering the bar to meet labor shortages, which ultimately shortchanges students and families.

Aligns with a workforce agenda by lowering and reshaping graduation requirements through waivers and alternative diplomas, prioritizing labor needs over consistent academic standards and long-term student readiness.

The decline in academics is not a mystery:

• time was redirected,
• rigor was replaced with ideology,
• mastery was traded for compliance,
• and outcomes were deprioritized.

If Oklahoma wants kids who can read, write, and think — academics must come first again.

Remove the non-academic mandates and there’s plenty of time for kids to read, write, and do math—every day—without extending the school year or piling on new requirements.

HB 3706 mandates time, not quality.

Without specifying what kind of math is taught, it risks enforcing more Common Core–style math, not restoring real math fundamentals.

Amends to each school district board of education shall adopt a policy prohibiting students from using cell phones and personal electronic devices while on the campus of a public school district from bell to bell. (This bill was sold as a 1 year pilot in 2025 and thereafter SCHOOL DISTRICTS WOULD MAKE THE DECISION TO CONTINUE OR OPT OUT OR ALTER IT. But now, the legislature wants to USURP TOTAL CONTROL OVER THIS ISSUE.

HB 3715 is hypocritical in application by banning parent-controlled cell phones while leaving school-controlled Chromebooks and iPads untouched. This creates a one-sided restriction that removes parental oversight while preserving district-managed devices that are often the primary vectors for content delivery, data collection, and ideological programming.

This asymmetry aligns with DEI-era governance models that centralize control over student access, content, and data while marginalizing parental authority.

NO: Higher education is already cost prohibiitve for most students. A voluntary donation fund for schools wishing to participate is fine, but no school should be penalized (a penalty that will be passed on to the students via tuition raised). STRIKE this and make it voluntary.

"2. Failure to meet the deadline established by paragraph 1 of 6 this subsection shall result in a punitive fine of one percent (1%) of the institution of higher education’s appropriated budget for each month of noncompliance. Collected fines shall be deposited 9 into the General Revenue Fund."

SB 1328 makes an effort to strengthen parental rights but stops short of inserting meaningful due process protections when those rights are limited. Without guardrails, the “reasonable belief” exception risks swallowing the rule.

If amended to include documentation and review requirements.

This legislation reduces parental rights.

SB 1342 authorizes higher benefit payments with no clear cap or funding source, while school districts simultaneously claim financial crisis. It rewards poor budget discipline, diverts resources from classrooms, and expands compensation obligations without addressing administrative bloat or inefficiency.

While SB1389 is framed as expanding parental choice through tax credits, in practice it uses financial incentives to entice greater participation in a state-managed program, which expands data collection, reporting, and long-term system reach into family education decisions.

This shifts the bill from empowering parents to growing the administrative footprint of government.

Revolving funds with no limitations or audits are against the OKGOP platform. We believe in sunset laws, zero based budgeting and performance audits to justify government programs.

SB1391 requires private schools receiving the Parental Choice Tax Credit to administer the statewide student assessment in order to remain eligible.

This single provision fundamentally changes the nature of school choice.

SB1391 turns school choice into a data trade — families must surrender student assessment data to access a tax credit, expanding government reach into private education.

Oklahoma schools already receive substantial funding. Before expanding foundation spending authority, the Legislature should address mismanagement, administrative bloat, and unnecessary expenditures. More money without accountability does not fix broken priorities — it entrenches them.

Amends to add: No attempted adjustment adopted by the Statewide Official Compensation Commission shall operate to increase the emoluments of any office for which a current member of the Legislature is elected or appointed. Any such office shall retain the emoluments in effect prior to the attempted adjustment adopted by the Commission.

SB1518 appears to be a statutory workaround designed to protect political insiders, allowing a sitting legislator to vote for or benefit from a salary increase for a statewide office and then run for that same office during the same term.

While framed as a “clarification,” the bill undermines the spirit and enforcement of the Oklahoma Constitution’s anti-corruption guardrails.

Oklahoma Constitution – Article V, §23

The Constitution is clear: No member of the Legislature shall, during the term for which he was elected, be appointed or elected to any office… the emoluments of which shall have been increased during his term of office.

This provision exists to prevent:

• Self-dealing
• Conflicts of interest
• Legislators enriching themselves through future offices

SB1518 attempts to statutorily neutralize the effect of a pay raise so that it “does not count” for eligibility purposes — even when:

• The raise was approved during the legislator’s term
• The legislator voted while actively campaigning for that office

A statute cannot override the Constitution.

The OKGOP platform states we believe in sunset laws, zero based budgeting and performance audits to justify government programs.

SB 1545 sounds like it protects religious freedom, but in reality it eliminates local control.

As written, it removes cities’ and counties’ authority over zoning for all religious institutions—churches, mosques, satanic temples, and others—regardless of community impact.

Even more concerning, it shifts decision-making power to the Oklahoma Housing Finance Authority, an agency with no zoning or land-use expertise. That’s not limited government—that’s state overreach.

Zoning exists to protect safety, infrastructure, and neighborhoods—not to restrict worship.

Religious liberty does not require stripping communities of their voice.

This bill centralizes power, sets a dangerous precedent.

We can't continue taking away people's rights under the guise of safety and security. Let's follow the laws and policies already in place and hold those accountable.

Violates parental rights; horrible bill

Note from Millstone Press on this bill: "Senator Avery Frix’s SB 1774 (introduced in the 2026 session) amends 10A O.S. § 1-2-105 to empower the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) during child abuse/neglect investigations.

The critical addition allows district courts to order temporary emergency custody (up to 72 hours) if parents refuse to cooperate—even absent proven imminent harm. While framed as enhancing investigations, this bill risks state overreach into family autonomy, potentially punishing parents for asserting their rights.

The Bill’s Core Change

The new language in subsection B.1 states:

“If a parent refuses to cooperate with the Department in its investigation, the Department shall immediately notify the district attorney’s office of the refusal and a district court may order the child to be placed in temporary emergency custody for up to seventy-two (72) hours while the investigation is being conducted.”

This goes beyond existing tools (court-ordered access, exams, or records) by authorizing short-term removal solely for non-cooperation. Other provisions (reasonable discipline protections, multidisciplinary teams, collaborative processes) remain, but the custody trigger stands out as expansive.

Senator Frix’s Background

Frix’s conservative record on taxes, business, limited government—but this bill expands state child welfare powers.

So is Frix really Pro-Trump as this move exhibits extending government overreach, which secures more funding into Oklahoma.

Supporters may argue it prevents obstruction in legitimate probes, especially for vulnerable children (disabled, non-verbal). However, critics see it as lowering the bar for state intervention.

Major Concerns: Overreach, Parental Rights Erosion, and Constitutional Violations

This provision effectively gives OKDHS leverage to take children for “failing to participate”—a vague standard that could encompass disputing a report, demanding warrants, or invoking privacy. The 72-hour removal, while temporary, inflicts real trauma on families, particularly in erroneous or low-risk cases.

Critically, SB 1774 potentially infringes on fundamental constitutional rights. The Oklahoma Constitution explicitly protects inherent liberties that government cannot arbitrarily restrict:

• Article II, Section 1: “All political power is inherent in the people; and government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and to promote their general welfare; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.”

• Article II, Section 2: “All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.”

These affirm that any law infringing on constitutional rights is not legal and cannot restrict our liberties without due process or compelling justification.

Parental rights to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of children are recognized as fundamental liberty interests under both Oklahoma and U.S. constitutional frameworks (see also U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Troxel v. Granville, affirming parents’ fundamental rights).

The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) reinforces this:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

As established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), “any law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” If SB 1774 enables removals that violate due process (14th Amendment) or inherent family liberties without adequate safeguards, it risks being unconstitutional and unenforceable. Broad “non-cooperation” triggers could disproportionately burden families exercising their rights to question state actions, conflicting with these protections.

The bill lacks robust checks: no explicit penalties for bad-faith reports, narrow definitions of cooperation, or mandatory post-removal reviews beyond standard procedures. In Oklahoma’s overburdened child welfare system, this invites abuse and erodes the limited-government principles Frix has championed elsewhere.

Broader Context

SB 1774 emerges amid ongoing debates over parental rights in Oklahoma (e.g., prior Parents’ Bill of Rights expansions). Yet it moves in the opposite direction by expanding state removal authority. As of now, the bill is newly introduced with no hearings scheduled.

Final Thoughts

Senator Frix’s bill prioritizes investigation convenience over family integrity, granting OKDHS troubling power to separate children for mere non-participation. The media has been plaqued with allegations of dishonest, low integrity caseworkers and this will be another tool in their bag of tricks to enter fraud into cases.

By conflicting with the Oklahoma Constitution’s inherent rights to liberty (Art. II, §§ 1–2) and the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause—principles that render infringing laws void—this measure threatens core liberties rather than safeguarding children. Oklahoma families deserve better: robust child protection without unconstitutional overreach.

Parents, constituients and Lawmakers should reject SB 1774 to respect these foundational limits on government power. Track progress at oklegislature.gov.

Contact your representatives and tell them to stop this bill in its tracks. Contact your Governor Candidates and tell them this bill needs to die in committee.

Continuing to create law that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and Oklahoma Constitution makes that law void.

The SDE has been given $7 BILLION DOLLARS since 2003 per their own admission and we are ranked 50th in academics? Where has all this money gone? No accountability. Where are the audits for this money and now they want more to do what they should have been doing already for 20+ years. This has become what looks like a giant money laundering scheme.

SB1778 uses literacy as an entry point to expand state control, standardize children into workforce pipelines, and reduce parental authority — it’s workforce development policy disguised as reading reform.

SB1778 follows the same policy architecture used nationally to connect early education to labor-force pipelines. Literacy is treated not as a family-directed educational goal, but as an input metric for long-term economic productivity.

This is consistent with the P-20 / cradle-to-career workforce model, where literacy is the first measurable labor input.

SB1896 advances a workforce-development model that standardizes students into state-defined pipelines, expands administrative control, and sidelines parents under the banner of alignment and outcomes.

SB1897 advances a workforce-development education model that standardizes students into state-managed pipelines while expanding administrative power and weakening parental authority.

Data required shall be provided to the Commission without the need for a separate data-sharing agreement with related state agencies and shall be subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act; the confidentiality of individual student records shall be preserved as required by state and federal law .The Commission may contract with an independent third party to receive, process, and report data submitted and may receive and expend federal or private grant funds to carry out its duties. NO! THIS IS 2025 SB224 again!

SB 2047 changes the mechanism, not the mission. Without strict limits on vendors, geography, data volume, retention, and use, it continues the same practice as SB 224 (2025) — selling and sharing children’s data under a different label.

Yes, we shouldn't have to get a permit to sneeze. Or raise captive bred alligators. ;)