The Terrible Trifecta: SB 10, SB 11, & SB 12

While this post is about specific Texas legislation, similar bills are in play in other GOP-controlled states.

Watching the 2025 Txlege session provides far too many moments of despair. I held out hope that fiscal conservative Republicans and Democrats could stave off the voucher scheme or at least make it contingent on voter approval in November. However, Abbott’s threats to Republican holdouts worked and it passed. (See my post earlier this year about school financing.)

Vouchers were not, however, the only bills threatening public education. SB 10, SB 11, and SB 12 also showed up to work the big money far right donors’ push to attack if not outright obliterate the separation between church and state. The language of “parental rights” also appears frequently in SB 11 & 12 to push a conservative minority control of programs and materials. All three are terrible and will be challenged to varying degrees. 

SB 10 – The Ten Commandments Bill 

The bill tries to skirt previous Supreme Court rulings by requiring the posting in all classrooms if the posters are donated to the district. There is no direction to use district funds to comply. Set up much like the display of “In God We Trust” placards bill passed two sessions ago, the posters/placards if donated must be displayed. The difference this time is that instead of  displaying in a prominent place like the building entry, the 10 Commandments are to be placed in every classroom as an homage to the nation’s history as a “founding document” and a shared moral heritage. (If you want to see a good refutation of the bill’s proponents, look up TX Rep. James Talarico’s interactions in committee and on the TX House floor.)

I read through the committee testimony, which overwhelmingly opposed the bill, but it made little difference to the bill’s sponsors pleasing their big money donors who want to infuse Christianity in our public schools.

Key takeaways from the testimony: 

1. The vast majority identified as Christians and still opposed.
2. The supporting testimony was for the most part short statements of support to bring God or morals back to the classroom. The longer, more nuanced supporting testimony came from groups aligned with the bill’s goals such as Concerned Women of America. 
3. The opposing testimony invoked constitutional concerns by supporting separation of church and state, parental rights to guide religious education, and marginalization of non-Christian students, faculty, and families. 

Keep in mind that Abbott signed this the day after Louisiana’s bill was shot down by the 5th Circuit. @HowdyPolitics says that a lawsuit is already underway to challenge this bill. 

1st Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

SB 11 – Period of Prayer and Religious Reading

Ugh! This bill is an even more blatant attempt to get around Engel v. Vitale (1962) Supreme Court ruling. The key here to resistance is that each school board must have a vote as to whether or not they will institute this period. Speak up now! Let your board know you do not want this. 

1. The “moment of silence” mandated each day after the pledges to the US and Texas flags is already a time that students could pray. 
2. The opt-out/opt-in procedures that then must be followed to avoid the objections of non-participants are onerous to say the least for school administrations. (Do I hear “unfounded mandate”?) The details of the procedure is definitely an attempt to avoid judicial overrule. 
3. The bill even states that without this approved period students and staff still have the right to religious expression, prayer, and reading in school. 

So what’s the point? To further an Evangelical Christian goal of control over public education and eventually all aspects of public life. Theocracy is the end goal. 

SB 12 – Parental Rights & DEI 

This bill eliminates DEI initiatives or programs, restricts student services without parental consent, restricts instructional content regarding race, gender, sexuality, and requires parental notification/permission for student participation in clubs and activities, specifically forbidding school-sponsored clubs “based on sexual orientation or gender identity”

This bill sets up the type of administrative bureaucracy that many people complain about. To administer the consents required and the compliance mechanisms requires a lot of administrative time, some of which will most likely be transferred to already overworked teachers. 

While the bill in several places seeks to protect students from abuse, it will also limit the ability of students to find safe spaces if their families are hostile to their sexual orientation or identity.

Forbidding organizations like GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) is another direct attack on these students and their families. Far right conservative voices touting only the inclusion of their vision of the family, marriage, and sexuality are working hard through this type of law to make LGBTQIA+ individuals feel excluded from publicly funded institutions that have a responsibility to be non-discriminatory.  

Public Testimony and TXLege 

I ran the House committee public comment documents through ChatGPT for a breakdown analysis of support or opposition. I only used the House committee comments because those comments can be submitted from anywhere by Texans, but Senate committee comments can only be submitted in person at the Capital on specially designated computer terminals. I feel the House comments reflect a broader collection of Texas voices. 

To hear the TX GOP, bills like these have tremendous support. I don’t know what their offices are hearing from constituents, but the public comments are overwhelming against all three bills. 

	Support	Oppose
SB 10 House Comments	~5-10%	~90-95%
SB 11 House Comments	~15-20%	~80-85%
SB 12 House Comments	<5%	~95%+

In skimming through comments, I saw numerous examples of committee members’ constituents telling them to vote no. With such strong opposition provided by ordinary Texans, why did all three pass? The legislators voting yes aren’t representing their constituents, they’re representing the wishes of conservative donors, PACs, and organizations funding their campaigns. 

Does this mean the effort to write or testify against these bills is fruitless? No. It shows a level of truth that should be shouted out during the next election cycle to demand that Texas legislators represent their constituents not their wealthy donors.

In addition, all three will face judicial challenge in some part. This is part of the what the TXGOP and their most conservative donors want. They are playing a long-game with our tax dollars to overturn Supreme Court precedent to further their goals.