On trans kids, Kobach sends mixed message on parents’ rights | Opinion
You have to give it to Kris Kobach: He’s remarkably consistent in his inconsistency.
He’s currently ticked off because a judge in Douglas County put a temporary hold on a state law known as Senate Bill 63, which bans puberty blockers and hormone therapy for children experiencing gender dysphoria.
Gender dysphoria “is the psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity,” as defined by the American Psychiatric Association.
Kobach, meanwhile, is experiencing a kind of political dysphoria, arguing against parents’ rights to decide what’s best for their children, after years of arguing the opposite.
“The judge invented a new constitutional right out of whole cloth,” Kobach thundered in a press release criticizing the judge’s decision. “The judge created a new right of parents to obtain otherwise-illegal treatments for their children.”
In response, I would direct your attention to a guest column that Kobach wrote in February 2024 (and which I published in our print and online editions) in which he defended his decision to threaten school districts if they didn’t immediately inform parents when their children don’t comply with gender norms at school (examples he cited included using a different name or pronoun).
“Such parental exclusion policies violate the constitutional rights of parents,” Kobach wrote. “For over a century, the United States Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right of parents to control the upbringing and education of their children.”
Apparently, though, parental rights are only sacrosanct for parents inclined to do what Kobach wants them to do, i.e. trying to discourage their children from expressing gender noncomforming ideas or behavior.
If parents want to actually help their children deal with a psychological disconnect between their birth sex and gender identity in a constructive way, well, so much for parental rights.
Beyond the abject hypocrisy involved, Kobach’s stances are actively dangerous for children.
Credible studies by multiple universities show that mishandling adolescent gender dysphoria leads to runaways, homelessness, sexual victimization and suicide.
Studies also show that puberty blockers and hormones can alleviate dysphoria distress, and the effects are reversible should the individual decide to stop taking them.
In a well-thought-out and documented 117-page decision, District Judge Carl Folsom did what the Kansas Legislature never does. He examined the credentials and credibility of those advocating for the ban on gender-affirming care and comparing it to those opposing it.
And the results weren’t even close.
Of the eight state witnesses who testified or submitted written testimony in a two-day court hearing, only one has ever treated an adolescent patient with gender dysphoria.
The judge quoted that witness’s testimony from a previous case, that “it would be ‘shocking’ and ‘devastating’ to require youth who are currently receiving estrogen or testosterone to stop.”
Another state witness was a plastic surgeon who testified against transition surgery for minors. Folsom ruled the testimony irrelevant (which it is), because while S.B. 63 bans such surgeries, they’re not done in Kansas anyway and literally no one has challenged that part of the law.
The state offered up a medical ethicist who has never treated anyone for gender dysphoria, who testified he also thinks birth control and in vitro fertilization are “ethically problematic.”
“Indeed, his views are, in his words, ‘radically counter to current medical orthodoxy,’” the judge wrote. “(His) opinions are inconsistent with the weight of medical research in his field, and his opinion appears motivated by his personal views as opposed to a methodology applicable in the field of medical ethics.”
In contrast, the four doctors testifying in opposition to the ban on gender-affirming care — including the medical director of the Gender Pathways Services Clinic at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City — have treated hundreds of adolescent patients with gender dysphoria and published more than 150 peer-reviewed articles on the subject.
No wonder the judge found them more credible.
But the real wisdom in the judge’s decision was that children affected by the ban and their parents are the only ones being harmed by S.B. 63, because they either had to forgo treatment or make expensive and disruptive trips to Colorado or Minnesota.
“The group for whom S.B. 63 is relevant are transgender minors with gender dysphoria who meet eligibility criteria for puberty blockers or hormone therapy under the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline, as well as parents of these youth—as these are the only persons in Kansas burdened by the law’s prohibitions,” Folsom wrote.
“The ongoing injury to Plaintiffs ‘outweighs whatever damage the preliminary injunction may cause Defendant[’s] inability to enforce what appears to be an unconstitutional statute.’”
The decision is not the final word.
It simply maintains the status quo while the constitutional challenge proceeds through the courts. But meanwhile, the kids receiving treatment can continue, and their consenting parents don’t have to take them out of state to get it.
Kobach, who goes out of his way to make life as difficult as possible for all trans Kansans — and especially trans kids — has already announced he’ll appeal the judge’s pause on enforcement of S.B. 63.
Because he’s all for parents’ rights, except when he’s against them.
This story was originally published May 21, 2026 at 4:45 AM with the headline "On trans kids, Kobach sends mixed message on parents’ rights | Opinion."
