Overall Vote Recommendation

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 1675, titled Mona’s Law, proposes to allow perpetual care cemeteries in Texas to inter cremated remains of pets alongside their deceased human companions. The bill authorizes two primary methods of interment: the pet’s ashes may be buried in the deceased individual’s casket at the time of burial, or placed alongside the individual’s cremated remains in a shared columbarium niche. The bill also permits information about the pet to be included on the individual’s memorial marker, such as a gravestone or plaque.

The legislation adds Section 712.010 to Subchapter A, Chapter 712 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. It specifically defines relevant terms, such as “pet,” “cremated remains,” and “columbarium,” and clarifies that livestock animals do not fall under the definition of “pet” for purposes of this section. It includes a safeguard prohibiting individuals from euthanizing pets solely for the purpose of interment with a deceased person, ensuring ethical treatment of animals.

Additionally, the bill allows cemeteries to designate separate areas as family cemeteries, where family members and their pets may be buried in adjacent but separate graves. The bill is permissive rather than mandatory, giving cemetery operators discretion in whether to offer these burial options. It also directs the Finance Commission of Texas to adopt rules necessary to implement these changes.

The Committee Substitute for HB 1675 introduces several refinements to the originally filed version, primarily narrowing the types of pet interment options allowed and improving the overall clarity of the language. The most notable substantive change is the removal of an option that would have allowed a pet’s cremated remains to be buried in a separate grave near the individual’s grave at the time of interment. In the substitute version, the bill now limits interment options to two: either placing the pet’s remains in the individual’s casket or placing them beside the individual’s cremated remains in a columbarium. This simplification likely aims to reduce potential logistical concerns for cemetery operators and regulatory complications.

Both versions maintain the provision allowing perpetual care cemeteries to designate a distinct area as a family cemetery where human and pet remains may be buried in separate graves. However, by removing the immediate interment option of a separate grave “near” the individual’s grave, the substitute confines such arrangements to this specifically designated family cemetery section, reinforcing clearer physical boundaries within cemetery grounds.

In addition to this substantive change, the substitute version makes minor editorial adjustments to improve the readability of the bill without altering its core definitions or implementation framework. Key definitions, such as those for “cremated remains,” “cremation,” and “pet,” remain consistent between both versions. Likewise, both versions retain the prohibition on euthanizing a pet for the purpose of burial and direct the Finance Commission of Texas to adopt rules to implement the law, with a uniform effective date.

Overall, the changes in the substitute version reflect a modest narrowing of scope and a more streamlined legislative approach while preserving the bill’s original intent to allow respectful and dignified interment of cremated pets alongside their human companions.

Author (5)

Elizabeth Campos

Josey Garcia

Claudia Ordaz

Marc LaHood

Ann Johnson

Contact the Author

Rep. Elizabeth Campos

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0452

Capitol Office:

EXT E2.422

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 1675 are minimal. The bill is not expected to result in any significant cost to the State of Texas. Although it requires the Finance Commission of Texas to adopt rules related to the interment of cremated pet remains in perpetual care cemeteries, it is assumed that any administrative expenses associated with these rulemaking activities can be absorbed within existing resources of the relevant state agencies.

The Department of Banking, which oversees perpetual care cemeteries and is the likely regulatory body involved in implementing the bill, operates as a self-directed, semi-independent agency. As such, it funds its operations without reliance on general revenue and is prohibited from causing the state’s General Revenue Fund to incur any costs. Consequently, the agency is not subject to the standard legislative budgeting process, further reinforcing the lack of expected fiscal burden on the state budget.

Additionally, there are no significant fiscal implications anticipated for local governments. The bill does not impose any mandates or administrative burdens on municipal or county governments, nor does it require them to take on new responsibilities or incur expenses. Overall, the legislation is expected to have a negligible financial impact at both the state and local levels.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 1675, while well-intentioned and crafted as a permissive measure, raises significant cultural, philosophical, and jurisdictional concerns. At its core, the bill would authorize perpetual care cemeteries to allow the interment of cremated pet remains with human remains, either in the same casket or in a shared columbarium, and to include references to pets on human memorials. Though not compulsory, this statutory endorsement elevates a personal preference to a state-sanctioned burial practice, crossing a line that many consider incompatible with longstanding societal views on the dignity and distinctiveness of human life and death.

The primary concern lies in the symbolic effect of codifying into law a practice that places pets and humans in shared burial arrangements. Many faith traditions and cultural norms draw a clear and sacred distinction between human and animal remains in death, not to minimize the emotional bond people feel with their pets, but to affirm the unique value of human life and personhood. By legislating a practice that allows for co-interment, the state risks diluting those long-held moral boundaries. Even if this is not the bill’s intention, its passage could be interpreted as state approval of a philosophical equivalence between humans and animals in memorialization and burial, a position that some lawmakers cannot in good conscience affirm.

Additionally, HB 1675 may be seen as legislative overreach. While the bill does not impose regulatory burdens or taxpayer costs, it nonetheless expands the legal framework governing perpetual care cemeteries to cover a deeply personal, discretionary matter that arguably should remain within the domain of private decision-making. If private cemeteries wish to offer this service, they may already do so in jurisdictions without specific legal barriers. The bill’s passage, however, invites the state to weigh in on a matter of taste, tradition, and morality, not law enforcement, public safety, or market fairness. This kind of symbolic legislation, even when fiscally neutral, may contribute to a gradual and unnecessary expansion of the government’s cultural footprint.

Moreover, there is a broader concern about legislative time and priority. In a session where pressing issues related to public safety, education, infrastructure, and economic policy demand urgent attention, spending committee and floor time debating niche burial preferences may be viewed as a misallocation of public resources. A vote against HB 1675 can reflect not only disagreement with the bill’s content, but also a principled stand in favor of legislative discipline, reserving state authority for matters that truly warrant statutory intervention.

In sum, HB 1675, while not fiscally burdensome or overtly regulatory, represents a shift in how the state conceives of and validates personal memorial practices. For lawmakers guided by a worldview that emphasizes the sanctity of human life, the moral and cultural significance of traditional burial practices, and the restraint of government in symbolic or personal domains, Texas Policy Research recommends a vote of NO on HB 1675.

Individual Liberty: The bill expands personal choice by allowing individuals to arrange for the interment of pet remains with their own. However, it also formalizes a cultural shift that some view as diminishing traditional distinctions between human and animal burial, raising concerns about government involvement in symbolic personal matters.
Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility by leaving all burial decisions and associated costs entirely up to individuals and families, without imposing new obligations on the state or creating public entitlements.
Free Enterprise: The bill supports free enterprise by giving cemetery operators the option, but not the requirement, to offer new services based on consumer demand, allowing the market to decide what practices are viable.
Private Property Rights: The bill affirms private property rights by expanding what cemetery owners can lawfully allow on their premises, while imposing no mandates or restrictions on how they operate.
Limited Government: Though not regulatory or fiscally burdensome, the bill does expand the scope of government by inserting state authority into a culturally sensitive area, which some may view as unnecessary legislation in a domain best governed by private contracts and tradition.

View Bill Text and Status