According to the Legislative Budget Board, the fiscal implications of HJR 112 are minimal, with no significant financial impact anticipated for the state or local governments. The only identified cost is the publication of the constitutional amendment, which is estimated at $191,689. This expense is standard for proposed constitutional amendments and is expected to be covered using existing state resources without requiring additional appropriations.

Furthermore, the resolution does not impose any new financial obligations or administrative burdens on local governments, ensuring that its implementation does not lead to increased expenditures at the municipal or county level. Overall, apart from the minor cost associated with publication, HJR 112 is fiscally neutral and does not present any long-term financial concerns for the state or local entities.

HJR 112 proposes a constitutional amendment affirming the inherent right of parents to care for, have custody of, and make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children. The resolution prohibits state or local government interference with these rights unless such action is essential to furthering a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. If approved, the measure will be placed on the November 4, 2025, ballot for voter consideration.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HJR 112 based on the resolution’s strong alignment with the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. By codifying parental rights in the Texas Constitution, the amendment reinforces the fundamental role of parents in raising their children without unnecessary government intervention. It upholds personal responsibility by ensuring that parents retain decision-making authority rather than deferring to state oversight. Additionally, it supports limited government by restricting state interference to cases where there is a compelling interest, such as protecting a child from harm. The measure does not have any direct impact on free enterprise or private property rights.

The resolution also aligns with key policy positions of the Republican and Libertarian parties, both of which advocate for strong parental rights and minimal government involvement in family matters. While the Texas Democratic Party generally supports individual rights and privacy, its stance on parental rights in education and healthcare may lead to differing interpretations of this amendment's implications. Despite potential political variations, the measure's broad protection of parental decision-making authority makes it a strong candidate for approval.

• Individual Liberty: The resolution strengthens individual liberty by affirming that parents have the inherent right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and upbringing of their children. This constitutional protection ensures that family decisions remain in the hands of parents rather than government authorities, reinforcing the idea that individuals, not the state, are best equipped to make personal life choices. It limits the government’s ability to infringe on family autonomy, protecting a core aspect of personal freedom and self-determination.
• Personal Responsibility: The resolution promotes personal responsibility by recognizing and codifying the principle that parents, rather than the state, are responsible for their children's upbringing. By placing the authority for critical life decisions in the hands of parents, the resolution also places on them the duty to care for and guide their children. This fosters a culture of accountability within families and discourages dependence on governmental institutions to manage or oversee familial matters.
• Free Enterprise: The resolution does not have a direct or substantial impact on free enterprise. Its focus is on the rights and responsibilities of parents in raising their children, not on the regulation of businesses, markets, or commerce. There may be some indirect effects if future policy interpretations expand parental rights into areas like education choice or healthcare access, but the resolution itself does not alter the framework for economic freedom or commercial enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The resolution does not affect private property rights, as it solely addresses parental rights concerning the upbringing of children. No changes are proposed regarding the ownership, use, or protection of private property. As such, property rights remain unaffected, and this liberty principle neither gains nor loses ground under the resolution.
• Limited Government: The resolution is a clear reinforcement of limited government principles. It explicitly restricts the ability of the state or its political subdivisions to interfere in the parent-child relationship, unless such intervention is absolutely necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest. This high standard for government action ensures that the state’s power is minimized in matters traditionally reserved for private family life, preserving a strong boundary between personal affairs and governmental authority.

• SJR 34 (Same As)