Danielle Smith’s proposed legislation on gender identity isn’t just about policy—it’s a moral stand on how we protect and nurture our children. Her message cuts to the heart of what every parent knows: when it comes to significant, life-altering decisions, especially about medical treatments, parents must have a voice.
Smith’s proposal is not just timely—it’s necessary. It’s about reinforcing the role of parents in their children’s lives and making sure that, in matters of such gravity, they are given a seat at the table.
What Smith is saying could, and should, be applied more broadly. She rightly contends that minors need time, guidance, and protection before making irreversible decisions about their bodies—whether through gender reassignment surgery or hormone treatments. But why not apply this same reasoning to all major medical procedures for minors?
In other areas of life—whether it’s a tattoo, a body piercing, or school staff administering Tylenol—parental consent is required. Yet, despite widespread public support for requiring parental consent, minors in Alberta are currently able to obtain an abortion without it. Yet, If a parent’s permission is needed for something as benign as a school trip to the zoo, shouldn’t it be required for a life-altering decision like abortion? No child should face the burden of a life-or-death decision alone.
Parents have a vested interest in both the present and future of their children (and grandchildren). Their guidance isn’t an obstacle; it’s a safeguard, ensuring that decisions as serious as abortion aren’t made in isolation but within the context of family, love, and responsibility.
Parents are not bystanders in their children’s lives, and minors in these situations need all the support they can get. Parents can provide the emotional, moral, and practical support that minors often lack on their own.
Opponents of Smith’s policy argue that it “targets” transgender youth, that it singles them out for special treatment. In a way, they’re right. Smith is addressing a specific issue, but the logic she’s using can and should apply to all children, not just those struggling with gender dysphoria. If Smith made parental consent and oversight the standard for all medical procedures involving minors, it would eliminate even the perception that transgender youth are being unfairly targeted. It would reinforce that this isn’t about one group—it’s about protecting all young people by giving a voice to parents.
Parents are uniquely equipped to care for their children, with an inherent understanding of their needs and best interests. Unlike the state, which operates from a distance, parents bring personal investment and intimate knowledge, ensuring that decisions are made with love, responsibility, and the long-term well-being of the child in mind.
Broadening the scope of parental involvement in healthcare decisions for all minors would not only align with official UCP policy (206.5b), but would also create a more coherent and comprehensive approach to how we care for our children.
This is about more than just policy—it’s about protecting our children and reaffirming the role of the family. Let’s make sure that in every case—whether it’s surgery, hormone treatments, or abortion—parents are there to guide, support, and protect their children.
In the end, it’s simple: Parental involvement isn’t just a safeguard—it’s a moral imperative. And it’s time to make that the law.
Richard Dur is an award-winning political consultant with extensive experience working on campaigns across Canada. In addition to his professional work, he serves as the volunteer Executive Director of Prolife Alberta, an organization dedicated to advancing pro-life public policy in the province.
