The issue isn't whether there is a parental right to do anything. The issue is whether there is a state power to override parental decisions.
If such a power exists, it must be possible for it to be delegated to the state by individuals. What person, acting as an individual, could tell another parent what kind of care is allowed, or required, for that parent's children?
Note that once you cross that line -- the one where you pretend that the state has a power it cannot have, so you can avoid an outcome that you do not like -- you eventually end up with DCFS.
Which is to say, either no parenting decisions are up for a vote, or all of them are. There is no in between. (As Ron Paul used to say, you can't give up less than 100% of a principle.)
On the other hand, if what you really want is to get rid of gender-affirming surgery, all you have to do is stop using tax money to pay for it, and stop forcing insurance companies to pay for it. That is, you stop government from exercising other powers that no individual could delegate to it. The gender surgery business (for both kids and adults) would be out of business by next week.
That is, by correcting two wrongs (eliminating abuses of government power), you get a right (eliminating a tragic consequence); whereas by adding a third wrong (adding a new abuse of government power), you get an ever-growing number of wrongs (all the things people do to each other once they can punish parents for doing things they don't like).
It's amazing how that works, isn't it? Think of all the other things we currently fight about that would just go away if we focused on eliminating seminal abuses of government power, instead of splitting constitutional hairs regarding how their unintended consequences should be regulated.
I will never understand why parents would do this to their children. So sad.
> There is no parental right to harm children
The issue isn't whether there is a parental right to do anything. The issue is whether there is a state power to override parental decisions.
If such a power exists, it must be possible for it to be delegated to the state by individuals. What person, acting as an individual, could tell another parent what kind of care is allowed, or required, for that parent's children?
Note that once you cross that line -- the one where you pretend that the state has a power it cannot have, so you can avoid an outcome that you do not like -- you eventually end up with DCFS.
Which is to say, either no parenting decisions are up for a vote, or all of them are. There is no in between. (As Ron Paul used to say, you can't give up less than 100% of a principle.)
On the other hand, if what you really want is to get rid of gender-affirming surgery, all you have to do is stop using tax money to pay for it, and stop forcing insurance companies to pay for it. That is, you stop government from exercising other powers that no individual could delegate to it. The gender surgery business (for both kids and adults) would be out of business by next week.
That is, by correcting two wrongs (eliminating abuses of government power), you get a right (eliminating a tragic consequence); whereas by adding a third wrong (adding a new abuse of government power), you get an ever-growing number of wrongs (all the things people do to each other once they can punish parents for doing things they don't like).
It's amazing how that works, isn't it? Think of all the other things we currently fight about that would just go away if we focused on eliminating seminal abuses of government power, instead of splitting constitutional hairs regarding how their unintended consequences should be regulated.