It has been said that the making of laws is a bit like the making of sausage—and neither should be watched in action. In the case of SB 1440, recently approved by the Texas legislature, this saying carries particular force. Unfortunately, SB 1440 is just the kind of disastrous legislative result that one has come to expect from our allegedly conservative Texas Republican leadership.

A gubernatorial veto should be a no-brainer if Rick Perry wants to protect parental rights in Texas.

The genesis of the bill was innocent enough. Its author, Sen. Kirk Watson (D), sought to facilitate the execution of certain uncontested judicial orders relating to child support and protection. The bill was so uncontroversial that it was eventually placed on the Local and Consent Calendar in the House (reserved for undisputed bills). Unfortunately, SB 1440 got caught in the crosshairs of a completely unrelated effort—Democratic efforts to prevent voter ID legislation from coming to a vote on the House floor. Democrats succeeded in killing the voter ID bill, but they also inadvertently killed many other pieces of legislation, including a second bill authored by Watson and approved by the Senate: SB 1064.

SB 1064 was much more controversial than SB 1440. SB 1064 sought to give more power to the Department of Family and Protective Services during child abuse investigations, and it proposed to eliminate many protections for parents and their children. The bill should have been allowed to die a peaceful death, but unfortunately Rep. Patrick Rose (D) decided to jump into the fray. He amended the uncontroversial SB 1440 by adding the entire text of SB 1064 to its provisions.

Rose surely knew that such controversial provisions are not supposed to be added to a bill on the Local and Consent Calendar. Nor should his sneaky maneuver have been allowed to succeed. The chair of the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D), should have prevented this type of amendment. She failed in her responsibility to keep the Local and Consent Calendar clean of these types of disputed bills. For its part, the Republican leadership should have been more attentive, but it failed to notice (or did not care to notice) that such controversial provisions were being tacked onto an otherwise inoffensive bill. SB 1440, as amended, passed the House unanimously on May 27. The Senate concurred in the amendments on May 30. SB 1440 now sits on Governor Perry’s desk, awaiting his signature or veto.

Under current law, the court may order a parent to make a child available for a Child Protective Services interview, upon good cause shown. But if SB 1440 becomes law, everything changes. CPS will be authorized to go into a home and remove a child from his parents’ care, potentially without notice or a hearing. The previously existing requirement that CPS show "good cause" was deliberately eliminated. Instead, a mere affidavit by a CPS worker will do. No provision protects parents by ensuring that CPS workers can’t base such affidavits on a single, uncorroborated, or anonymous tip. The legislation similarly removes a "good cause" requirement for the release of a child’s medical records. An affidavit presented by a CPS worker could provide sufficient grounds for CPS to demand such information. Medical workers would be required to comply, with or without parental consent.

No doubt Watson, Rose, and other sponsors of this legislation believe that they are protecting children who are being abused. And maybe an argument can be made that a handful of children will get out of abusive situations a day or two earlier than they would have otherwise. But the benefits are marginal at best. And Watson and Rose forget that their duties extend beyond protecting children who are being abused by their parents. These legislators also have a duty to protect innocent parents and their children from potential abuses by the government.

The sweep of SB 1440 is too broad. Government bureaucrats could easily abuse the system put in place by its provisions. Even well-intentioned bureaucrats could be used abusively by those with malicious intent: The bill fails to protect innocent parents and children from those who submit false anonymous tips to CPS.

Supporters of SB 1440 claim that they are protecting innocent children caught in abusive situations. In reality, they are creating a danger that many, many more innocent children will become victims of an out-of-control government bureaucracy.

SB 1440 violates principles that we hold dear in this country. It contravenes the Fourth Amendment right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It disregards the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. And it flouts the strong presumption in favor of parental rights. Government must prove its need to insert itself between a parent and a child before it may do so.

The Texas Republican leadership should be ashamed of itself for allowing such outrageous, anti-family provisions to get tacked onto SB 1440. Hopefully, Perry will rescue them from their egregious mistake. His veto would make an important statement about parental rights in Texas.