Representative Mary Gay Scanlon (D., Pa.) was caught flatfooted during a hearing on child gender transition on Thursday after one of her Republican colleagues used her defense of parental rights to attack blue-state laws that limit the ability of parents to prevent their children from transitioning.
Scanlon, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and limited government, began the hearing with an impassioned argument against laws restricting so-called gender affirming care for minors, arguing that the government has no place to interfere in a decision that should be left to children, their parents, and their doctors.
Representative Tom McClintock (R., Calif.) then turned the tables on Scanlon, pointing out that her argument should also be applied to blue-state gender “sanctuary laws,” such as the legislation signed by California governor Gavin Newsom in September 2022, which facilitates child gender-transition tourism from other states, allowing kids to receive so-called gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
“Long before governments existed, there were mothers and fathers who had children, so the family is the most fundamental governing unit, it’s established by nature itself,” McClintock said. Parents, he said, have a natural right to raise their children according to their own best judgment, as long as no harm is done.
“It sounded like [Scanlon] too opposes government replacing parents’ judgment over the decision on transgender procedures for their children,” he added, asking Scanlon whether she concurred.
After remaining silent for several moments, Scanlon was eventually presented a note by one of her aides, She then doubled down, insisting that parents should have control over their kids’ healthcare.
“What I said was that parents have the ultimate right to make decisions concerning appropriate medical care for their children,” the Pennsylvania congresswoman reiterated. However, she disagrees with Republicans over what “appropriate” care constitutes, she said.
“I think we’re in agreement,” McClintock said. “We can take that off the table. Both parties oppose the government making decisions over whether a child will be subjected to transition procedures contrary to the wishes of the parents. Do I understand that correctly?”
“I believe that’s generally the legal standard, yes,” Scanlon said again.
“Ok that’s great!,” McClintock said. “If both parties support a law that forbids performing these transgender procedures on a minor without the full informed consent of the parents, Mr. Chairman, I believe we should advance a bill right away.”
Scanlon then backed away from her position, claiming that McClintock was “mischaracterizing” her parental-rights argument.
A new California law prohibits state courts and lawyers from enforcing subpoenas imposed by other states demanding that health-care providers disclose when they perform transition-related procedures on minors. Under the gender-transition law, California courts will effectively sideline out-of-state parents by securing “temporary emergency jurisdiction” over any child who travels to the state to receive the invasive medical interventions.
Newsom used similar logic to Scanlon’s when signing California’s gender “sanctuary” law, arguing that parental freedom is important, but only if it’s being exercised to help kids pursue gender transition.
“In California we believe in equality and acceptance. We believe that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted for getting the care they need — including gender-affirming care,” Newsom said. “Parents know what’s best for their kids, and they should be able to make decisions around the health of their children without fear. We must take a stand for parental choice.”