I Smell A Desire to Guarantee a Right to Impose Gender Reassignment

I saw this law review article complaining about Meyer v. Nebraska and Society of Sisters.  I'd these cases are unfamiliar to you, you are forgiven for your lack of nerdity.

Meyer struck down a Nebraska law that prohibited teaching K-8 students any language other than English.  (This was part of an anti-German attitude during WW1.)

Society of Sisters was a challenge of an Oregon law that prohibited Catholic schools.   (I do not remember if it was a general ban on private schools or applied only to religious schools.  Another part of the law banned public school teachers from wearing religious symbols.)  This law was struck down. 

Both of these seminal cases limiting state power through the 14th Amendment used to be considered a good thing.  So imagine my surprise at this law review article: "Mired in Meyer's Mischief A Century After Fabrication of Constitutional Parents' Rights."

The article argues that limiting state based on parental rights is a bad thing.   Even though he never raises the issue, it takes no discernment to see where this is going: making sure parents do not constitutionally challenge laws giving guardianship to the state when parents oppose gender change.  Or for that matter, wanting to send them to a school that reflects the parents' values instead of DEI or 1619 Project.

The idea that the 14th Amendment should be read as not limiting state power is very close to a matter/anti-matter collision.