Some policies stay in committee rooms while others enter our homes. The medical transition of minors has become painfully real for patients and families across the country. It is increasingly rare to find someone who does not know a child, a relative, or a classmate dealing with life-altering medical decisions at a young age that carry permanent consequences.
That is why, on February 24, 2026, when Congressman Bob Onder introduced the Chloe Cole Act of 2026 (H.R. 7651), it felt different.
This bill creates accountability where there has been very little. It establishes a federal right for individuals who were subjected to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgical procedures as minors to sue providers and institutions. It extends the statute of limitations to 25 years after turning 18, recognizing that many do not fully understand the extent of harm until adulthood. In addition, it closes the legal gap that has prevented many detransitioners from seeking justice.
It does not regulate adult decisions. It provides recourse when irreversible harm is done to children.
Two years ago, I met Chloe Cole and heard her heartbreaking story firsthand.
Chloe began medical transition at 12. She was placed on puberty blockers, started testosterone at 13, and underwent a double mastectomy at 15. She has described how quickly the process unfolded once “gender” became the explanation for her distress. Therapy became affirmation and gender was the answer. Risks of treatments were minimized.
When her parents hesitated, they were warned that refusal could lead to suicide. Imagine being told that loving your child means consenting to the removal of healthy body parts.
Today, Chloe lives with permanent consequences, surgical complications, unknown fertility, the inability to breastfeed, and ongoing health challenges. She grieves decisions made before she was capable of understanding their lifelong impact.
Stories like this make me angry.
Angry that fear replaced caution. Angry that confusion was treated with prescriptions instead of patience. Angry that children navigating normal adolescent insecurity were told transforation was the answer.
What should we have told them instead?
You are beautifully and wonderfully made.
Feelings are real, but they do not change biological reality.
Emotions deserve compassion, but they do not determine sex.
Distress deserves care, not irreversible intervention.
We should have slowed down and we should have paused on life-altering interventions. We should have helped children navigate distress, addressed depression, anxiety, trauma, social pressures, and the host of factors that shape adolescence. We should have stabilized, not medicalized.
Cultural Messages in the Classroom
In many schools, students are introduced to the idea that gender is separate from biological sex through tools like the “Gender Unicorn” and certain social-emotional learning materials. During some of the most fragile developmental years, normal adolescent discomfort can be reframed as being “born in the wrong body.” In some districts, schools have socially transitioned students without parental notification.
Children are impressionable. Schools should not be planting ideological seeds that steer vulnerable students toward medical pathways. That is why many states are now passing, or working to pass, legislation to remove gender ideology from classrooms and restore parental authority.
Parents who question this messaging are often shamed into silence. And when a child has already internalized that narrative, families can find themselves under intense pressure to affirm it, sometimes leading to medical decisions made in fear rather than caution.
From Activism to Authority
This did not spread by accident. Activist organizations repeated the messages relentlessly: gender is fluid, affirmation is lifesaving, the” science is settled”. Those who questioned it, were called names and accused of harming children. Repetition turned advocacy into accepted “facts” while skepticism became taboo. We saw medical organizations adopting the same framing. Policy statements were issued, clinical guidelines we updated, and hospitals opened gender clinics. What started as ideological messaging was elevated to medical consensus.
But consensus declared is not the same as consensus proven.
Now the narrative is cracking. Reporting by The New York Times has raised serious questions about whether major medical groups sidelined dissenting voices and moved ahead of the evidence. The Family Research Council has reported that multiple state Attorneys General are pressing the American Medical Association over its advocacy on pediatric gender transitions. Even the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has signaled that the evidence supporting surgical interventions for minors is not as settled as once portrayed. When Attorneys General are scrutinizing the AMA and professional societies begin recalibrating their positions, one thing becomes clear: this was never beyond question.
I think that narrative is beginning to fracture. We are already seeing legal consequences. In a widely reported case, a young woman received a $2 million settlement after suing the surgeon and psychologist who approved her mastectomy at 16 despite serious mental health concerns. When liability becomes real, behavior changes.
At its core, this is simple:
Children cannot consent to sterilization.
They cannot comprehend lifelong hormone dependence.
They cannot foresee regret at 25 when they are 12.
They needed adults to protect them; to provide time, reassurance, and patience, not puberty blockers and scalpels.
The Chloe Cole Act rests on a straightforward principle: if irreversible harm was done to a minor, accountability must follow. Children deserve protection, not profit and parents deserve truth, not terror. When the system fails, justice must still be possible.
Author:
Teri Patrick
Education Chair, M4L Polk County
