A Kid’s Right to Bodily Integrity: Jon Caldara on Why He’s Voting Yes on Proposition 135

In his opinion piece for The Gazette, Jon Caldara, president of the Denver-based Independence Institute, explains why he is voting Yes on Proposition 135.

Scope of Proposition 135

Caldara emphasizes that Prop. 135 specifically targets the permanent surgical removal of body tissue and organs on minors, rather than banning puberty blockers or hormone treatments.

Philosophical Conflict & Government Role

As a long-time advocate for personal liberty and parental rights, Caldara initially wrestled with his decision due to his skepticism of government intrusion into family life. However, he concluded that preventing permanent physical harm to children is a legitimate function of government.

Adult “Bodily Autonomy” vs. Child “Bodily Integrity”

Sovereign adults have the right to make foolish, grotesque, or permanent choices regarding their own bodies — that is bodily autonomy. Children, Caldara argues, are not miniature adults; adolescence is temporary and judgment is still developing. Society already restricts minors from making irreversible or mature decisions, such as signing contracts, buying tobacco, or getting tattoos. That is bodily integrity.

The Seat Belt Analogy

Caldara draws a parallel to seat belt mandates. While he opposes forcing adults to buckle up on freedom grounds, he strongly supports seat belt laws for children, because infants and kids cannot protect themselves from physical danger.

Limits of Parental Rights

Although Caldara strongly defends parental rights in education and upbringing, he argues that parental authority stops at putting a child in physical danger. Poor schooling choices or a bad haircut can be overcome over time — but as Caldara puts it, “amputated tissue does not grow back.”

Read Jon Caldara’s full column at The Gazette.