I am still on the road, still fighting bad actors, and still spending my days buried in real cases, real families, and real constitutional problems. Today’s show was shorter, but the subjects were heavy. We walked through three big questions: Who really controls your children when medicine, courts, and child protective systems collide. What the new parental rights amendment in Texas really does, and why it may be far more dangerous than advertised. Why the recent elections should be a very loud alarm for anyone who cares about liberty going into the midterms, including President Trump. Let me unpack all of that in a way you can share with friends, legislators, and school boards. When “Medical Neglect” Becomes a Weapon Under United States law, the Supreme Court has long recognized that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children. Cases like Troxel v. Granville explicitly describe parental authority over upbringing as one of the oldest liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause. At the same time, states are allowed, and in some cases required, to protect children from abuse and neglect, including medical neglect. Ethical and legal commentary has consistently framed state intervention as justified when a child faces serious risk of harm and parents refuse necessary treatment. Here is where the problem begins in the real world. On paper, the idea is simple: if a parent is truly neglecting a child, the state can step in temporarily to prevent serious harm. In practice, however, child protective systems often operate with broad discretion, financial incentives tied to keeping children in custody, and a very low bar for what some professionals call “medical neglect.” Scholars and advocates have documented how families struggle to challenge removals, face qualified immunity barriers, and rarely find counsel who understands how to fight agencies that overreach. That means a scenario like this is not hypothetical: A child receives aggressive, expensive treatment that is not working. A parent decides to stop a failing protocol and try an alternative approach. The original physician, frustrated to lose control and revenue, reports the parent for “medical neglect.” Child Protective Services arrives, files for an emergency order, and a judge hears only the agency and the physician in an ex parte hearing, without the parent present. The child is removed, placed under state custody, and subjected to the very treatment the parent believed was harming the child, while the parent rushes to find an attorney in 24 to 48 hours. That is what I call medical kidnapping. The legal tool was originally intended to rescue children from genuine abuse. It is now often used as leverage in disputes between families and powerful medical or pharmaceutical interests. Texas Just Amended Its Constitution: What Does “Nurture and Protect” Really Mean? Now place that background next to what just happened in Texas. Texas voters have approved a constitutional amendment, often referred to as Proposition 15, that adds explicit “parental rights” to the state constitution. According to the official summary, it affirms that parents have the right to exercise care, custody, and control of their children, and that they bear the responsibility “to nurture and protect” them. On the surface, that sounds like exactly what many of us have been demanding. The problem is in the details that do not appear in the amendment. The phrase “nurture and protect” is not defined in the text. That means courts, agencies, and school systems will be left to interpret what those words require. Commentators across the spectrum have already noted that vague duties like “nurture” and “protect” can be used in two very different ways. They can be cited to shield parents from unnecessary interference, or they can be invoked by the state to claim that a parent who refuses a contested medical treat