Laurel Clement

60% of Texans incarcerated in prison remain at units without access to higher education programs.

The good news? Texas is seeing significant expansion in higher education opportunities for incarcerated Texans following the passage of SB 2405 by Senator Tan Parker and Representative Terry Canales.

Research consistently shows that access to education in prison settings reduces recidivism, improves employment outcomes after release, and generates meaningful returns for taxpayers. The evidence is clear, and Texas is responding.

Learn more from our "Opening More Doors" report. Link in comments. 👇

A recent case out of the Texas Superme Court regarding counselor liability. They remanded or sent back the case to the trial court...so no decision yet. I will follow up and let you know how the case concludes.

ALDACO v. WOOD
Docket: 24-1069
Opinion Date: June 26, 2026

After experiencing ongoing struggles with gender identity, a young adult sought a double mastectomy and was informed by the surgical clinic that a letter from a mental health practitioner was required to proceed.

The petitioner requested this letter from her therapist, who had previously counseled her on unrelated matters. The therapist provided a letter recommending the surgery on February 22, 2021. Their therapeutic relationship ended on May 14, 2021. The petitioner underwent surgery on June 11, 2021, subsequently suffered medical complications, and later regretted the procedure. In 2023, she filed suit against the therapist and the therapist’s employer, alleging negligence and fraud in the issuance of the recommendation letter, and sought to hold the employer vicariously and directly liable.

The case was first adjudicated in a Texas district court, where the respondents sought summary judgment, arguing that the petitioner’s claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations for health care liability claims under Section 74.251(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The district court granted summary judgment and severed the claims, making the decision final as to the therapist and her employer. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations began to run on the date the recommendation letter was provided.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the lower courts erred in their interpretation of the statute of limitations. The Court held that, under Section 74.251(a), a claim is timely if filed within two years of the completion of the relevant health care treatment or the occurrence of the tort. Here, treatment concluded on May 14, 2021, and the alleged injury occurred on June 11, 2021, when the surgery was performed. Because the petitioner gave notice of her claims within two years of these events, her suit was not time-barred. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Below is an article about the case from the perspective of the Plaintiff, the person suing. It is posted for educational reasons. I do not know all the facts and I do not take a position on this issue.

Woman Sues Doctors Who 'Pushed' Her Gender Mutilation Procedures and Treatments The lawsuit alleges nine clinics and doctors participated in advising and coercing her into receiving a double mastectomy and cross-sex hormone treatments.

So why does an ROI end with the termination of services?

The ROI ends with termination with the client because the "contract" that you had with the client to provide services ends with termination. So any waivers or ROI's that you got during the contract period ends with the end of the contract... or the termination.

Additional information: if you are under the SW Board... the longest that an ROI can be good for is a year. And then you must renew.

Warshack is one of the pioneers!

Charles C Thomas Publisher This compilation of selected writings by respected scholar and author Richard Warshak will prove to be helpful to professionals and parents dealing with the issue of parental alienation.  Written in a clear, accessible style with minimal professional jargon, the fifteen chapters in this volume repr...

SUPER BIG! This is only a district court ruling. It still needs to go through the appeals process.

The Institute for Justice secured a big win for free speech and economic liberty on behalf of Elizabeth Brokamp, a licensed professional counselor in Virginia who was barred from providing teletherapy to clients in Washington, D.C.

Elizabeth has more than 25 years of experience helping people through some of life’s most difficult moments. She lives and works in Northern Virginia, just across the D.C. border.

Before the pandemic, D.C. residents could travel to her Virginia office for in-person counseling. But when therapy moved online—at a time when counseling was needed more than ever—D.C. officials told Elizabeth she could no longer talk with those same clients from the comfort of their own homes.

Laws like this exist across the country, preventing qualified therapists and other professionals from helping people just because their client is sitting in another state.

That is exactly the kind of irrational and unconstitutional law IJ exists to fight. Elizabeth doesn’t prescribe medication. She doesn’t perform medical procedures. She simply listens, asks questions, and offers advice. And, under the First Amendment, that speech is protected—even if it crosses state or district lines.

Thankfully, the court saw the problem clearly. As U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly wrote, “When she speaks, that is protected speech.”

The court also recognized that D.C.’s restriction did far more than cost Elizabeth her business: It deprived her and her clients of conversations they could never get back. Speech silenced today cannot simply be restored tomorrow.

When IJ first opened its doors, lawyers and legal scholars completely scoffed at the idea that the First Amendment protects the speech of licensed professionals. Now, courts at all levels have ruled that speech doesn’t stop being protected just because it’s part of your occupation or profession.

D.C. may appeal this ruling, and if it does, IJ will be happy to defend this win and create even more powerful precedent at the appellate level. Link to PDF ruling:

ij.org