SCR 42 is a non-binding policy statement and does not carry the force of law; therefore, it does not directly authorize new programs, require rulemaking, or appropriate state funds. As such, there is no immediate fiscal impact associated with its passage in terms of state budget outlays or administrative costs.

However, the indirect fiscal implications could become relevant depending on how this resolution influences future legislation or executive agency practices. For example, if subsequent policies or rules are adopted to enforce sex-segregated access to public facilities, state agencies and political subdivisions may incur implementation costs related to signage, staffing, compliance, or legal review. Public schools, shelters, prisons, or health facilities might also face litigation risks or administrative burdens if enforcement of such definitions results in civil rights challenges or conflicts with federal guidance.

Moreover, should the resolution prompt executive or legislative actions that conflict with federal anti-discrimination laws—such as Title IX or Title VII—it could potentially jeopardize federal funding for education, healthcare, or other state-administered programs if Texas is found to be noncompliant with federal civil rights standards.

In summary, while SCR 42 itself has no direct fiscal impact, its symbolic position could create downstream costs or risks if it serves as a policy basis for binding legislation or executive action in future sessions.

SCR 42 affirms a biologically grounded policy by recognizing that the State of Texas shall acknowledge only two sexes: male and female. The resolution asserts that sex is an immutable and observable biological characteristic, not subject to change or reinterpretation. It further resolves that Texas will protect women’s rights by basing state language and policies on clear, scientific definitions rooted in biological fact.

This resolution supports individual liberty by ensuring that the law reflects reality, not ideology. It secures the right of Texans to live, work, and raise families in a society governed by objective standards. In doing so, it also strengthens personal responsibility, ensuring that institutions, schools, and public services operate on a coherent, biologically consistent foundation. By resisting legal ambiguity and reinforcing a fixed understanding of sex, the resolution allows individuals and institutions to act responsibly without fear of arbitrary or conflicting demands.

From a property and economic standpoint, SCR 42 protects the rights of business owners and private institutions to maintain biologically consistent policies on their premises. Whether in athletic competition, facility access, or health care delivery, the resolution provides a framework that supports free enterprise and shields private entities from ideological imposition. It also reflects a commitment to limited government by ensuring that state policy does not drift into abstract or unscientific realms but remains accountable to natural law and constitutional principles.

In sum, SCR 42 strengthens liberty in Texas by standing on the firm ground of biological truth. It rejects ideological confusion in favor of clarity and stability, empowering individuals, safeguarding women, and limiting government overreach. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SCR 42 as it reflects a principled defense of science, liberty, and common sense.

• Individual Liberty: The resolution reinforces the right of individuals to live in a society grounded in biological truth. By affirming that human beings are biologically male or female—immutable facts determined at birth—it promotes clarity in law, public policy, and institutional practice. This supports individual liberty by ensuring that personal rights, legal protections, and public expectations are based on scientifically verifiable realities, not fluid social constructs. This clarity also enhances individual liberty by protecting women’s rights in sex-specific spaces such as shelters, bathrooms, sports, and prisons—where biological distinctions have material implications.
• Personal Responsibility: A biologically grounded policy encourages individuals and institutions to act responsibly based on fixed and knowable characteristics. It removes ambiguity from policy implementation and supports the notion that responsibility is rooted in reality, not subjective interpretation. Upholding clear biological standards reinforces the idea that responsibility is tied to the nature of one's being, not personal beliefs or identities.
• Free Enterprise: Businesses benefit from clarity in regulatory language. By establishing a firm definition of sex, the resolution reduces legal uncertainty and potential liability. Employers, schools, and healthcare providers can make decisions rooted in biology without fear of conflicting mandates or ideological enforcement. This protects economic freedom and provides a stable legal framework in which businesses can operate. While the resolution is non-binding, its message can help discourage regulatory drift that imposes unclear or contradictory obligations on private enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The resolution reinforces the rights of private property owners to maintain biologically grounded policies on their premises without interference. Whether a private school, gym, shelter, or other facility, owners can establish sex-based rules aligned with nature and science, knowing the state supports that foundation. This protects private discretion and shields property owners from being compelled to accommodate policies that contradict biological fact.
• Limited Government: Rather than expanding government control, the resolution limits the state’s ideological reach by anchoring public policy to objective biological realities. It resists trends that would insert vague, subjective standards into law and affirms the state’s duty to operate within the bounds of material truth. Far from increasing government power, the resolution clarifies the state’s posture in a way that limits confusion, litigation, and ideological overreach.