Protecting the Future: Why Parental Rights Have Limits

By: Chris Stanford - Stanford Legal PLLC

During my two years on the legislative committee of the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference, I learned an important lesson: the government is often a blunt tool. It frequently makes mistakes, and I am not a supporter of government overreach who thinks Nashville can solve every issue. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that our government has a fundamental responsibility to safeguard the most vulnerable members of society—our children.

Sometimes, the legislature gets it right by providing a necessary boundary for the safety of our children. In the wake of the U.S. v. Skrmetti decision, I back the legislature’s move to pause gender-affirming medical care for minors—not because I love government intervention, but because I love my neighbors and their children.

1. The Conservative Case for Limited Parental Rights

As conservatives, we talk a lot about parental rights, and for good reason—the family is the bedrock of society. But as a lawyer and a citizen, I know that parental rights are not, and have never been, unlimited. Our legal system intervenes to prevent abuse or suspected injury to children every single day. We don’t allow parents to neglect a child’s physical safety or subject them to harm simply because they believe it’s "best." When a process carries a high risk of permanent mental or physical injury, the State has a moral and legal obligation to act as a shield.

2. Guarding Against Irreversible Injury

The procedures at the heart of Skrmetti—hormone replacements and surgeries—are not like a bad haircut or a questionable wardrobe choice. They are life-altering and, in many cases, irreversible.

• The Risk of Error: As a parent, I know we can be foolish. We can be blinded by the desire to "fix" a child’s immediate distress and inadvertently cause lifelong physical and psychological damage.

• The State’s Duty: Because these medical paths can result in profound injury, the State’s protection and the limits placed on our constitutionally guaranteed parental rights are warranted here. The law exists to protect those who cannot yet protect themselves from the long-term consequences of their own—or their parents'—decisions.

  
  

3. Allowing for Adult Autonomy

The most conservative approach to this issue isn't to "ban" a choice forever, but to ensure the choice is made by the person who actually has to live with it.

• Wait for Wisdom: We are essentially saying that some choices require the wisdom and life experience that only come with adulthood.

• Respecting the Individual: By hitting "pause" now, we are respecting that child’s future right to chart their own course as a mature adult, rather than a minor influenced by the trends of the moment or the fallible decisions of their guardians.

  
  

The Legal Breakdown:

What the Supreme Court Actually Said

To understand why the Court stood with Tennessee, we have to look past the headlines and into the logic of the Majority Opinion:

What the 2025 Tennessee Law (SB1) Actually Does:

The Court clarified that Tennessee’s law is about age and medical indication, not identity.

• Targeted Caution: It forbids puberty blockers and hormones only when used for gender transition in minors.

• Permitted Uses: It still allows these same medications for children facing congenital defects, disease, or injury.

• Adults are Exempt: It imposes zero restrictions on adults.

  
  

Why the Court Ruled for Tennessee

• The "Rational Basis" Win: The Court applied "Rational Basis Review"—the most deferential legal standard. They found that Tennessee has a "rational" link to protecting kids given the risks of sterility, disease, and the uncertainty of long-term psychological effects.

• Not a "Sex" Classification: The Court rejected the idea that this was sex discrimination. They noted that the law treats all minors the same; it simply removes certain diagnoses (like gender dysphoria) from the list of approved uses for these drugs in children.

• The "Bostock" Distinction: The Court made it clear that while transgender status is protected in the workplace, that logic doesn't automatically transfer to the regulation of pediatric medicine.

  
  

The National and Global Context

The Justices (led by Chief Justice Roberts with strong support from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett) emphasized that the science is unsettled. They pointed to the "Cass Review" and changes in the UK and Sweden as evidence that Tennessee isn't an outlier—we are part of a global move toward caution in pediatric care.

Final Thought

I’ll be the first to call out the legislature when they overstep or fumble the ball. But in this case, they acted to protect the sanctity of the individual and the safety of the child. It’s a moment where the "system" worked to ensure that today’s children can grow into tomorrow’s healthy, autonomous adults.

By keeping these weighty medical questions in the hands of elected representatives rather than federal judges, the Court has allowed Tennessee to remain a "shield" for its children.