First of all, no government should force parents to send their children to a public school. Nonetheless, if there is such legislation, and there are parents who have moral disagreements about the way public schools are funded and at the same time cannot afford private education, they have no business complaining if they still choose to bring children into this world under those circumstances.
...if the state changes the rules such that some aspect of its schools are unacceptable, parents are forced to take on the expense of educating their children...
Here is where I cannot seem to get my point across to you. The expenses of educating children should be prepared for, allocated, and ready to be dispensed by every American BEFORE THE DECIDE TO HAVE CHILDREN. If they cannot afford such provisions, then they have no leg to stand on if they have moral disputes with the funding of public schools that they willingly participate in by having kids they cannot afford.
"...while still paying onerous taxes to educate everyone else's children as well. Sounds pretty unfair to me and counter to the principles of freedom."
We can get into whether or not people who do not have children in public schools should have to pay for them with their taxes. On that issue, and the question of the validity of public schools in the first place, I suspect we may actually agree. But it sounds like you and I will go to our graves on our opposing definitions of freedom. If you believe freedom means subjecting everyone who benefits from the subsidies generated by state lotteries to the moral convictions of the very few, then God bless you, but I fear for the state of our country. And there is little value in arguing this point further.
Sadly, I believe it is you who are missing the point. How, exactly am I to retroactively decide not to have children so as not to have my sixth-grader subjected to the proceeds of something I might consider immoral (not saying I do)? Of course people who are planning families and object to lottery proceeds should factor that into their decisions, but what about the hundreds or thousands of parents with such beliefs who have children already in the schools? The value you place on your entertainment does not and should not exceed the burden placed on families who must now take on the expense of removing their children from the public schools.
That is Mr. Hood's point. Clear?