Child’s brain development should be considered in all bills

At the initial meeting of the 2024 legislative session, the Senate Education Committee introduced a student loan bill. This proposal aims to establish a bill of rights for borrowers and institute an Office of Student Loan Ombudsman. The sponsors argue that current private student loan market regulations are insufficient.

During the committee meeting, the issue of brain development and the field of neuroscience was raised by one of the committee members, Sen. David Sokola. The senator points out that young people’s brains don’t fully develop until later, and that their judgment and capabilities are not fully formed until perhaps 25 years old.

As a father, uncle and friend of parents with children, I feel the senator makes a valid point.

Overall, Delaware has passed laws to protect minor children from themselves. For example, they cannot get tattoos, smoke, own a gun, use tanning salons, open bank accounts, drive unrestricted until 17 or even go to the dentist or other medical provider without parental consent. 

One might think that legislators would apply the science and logic of a child’s brain development across the spectrum of all public policy, but unfortunately, they don’t. 

The following are examples of misguided policies and proposals concerning minor children (under 18):

• Children who are just 14 years old can get free needles from Delaware to inject dangerous drugs, as well as free naloxone, fentanyl testing strips and condoms
• A child under 16 can get an abortion without parental consent by seeking a judicial bypass
• A child can hide their efforts to change their gender and new names and behaviors from their parents while attending school
• Children could vote at 16, possibly limiting the change to school board elections and referendums (HB 96), if proponents successfully change the law
• If the gender-affirming healthcare bill (HB 230) becomes law, children would be permitted to use drugs and surgery to alter their lives forever and change their gender without having to engage or inform their parents.

Could some Delaware legislators appear more concerned with sophisticated marketing and loan servicing actions than a parent's right and responsibility to raise and oversee their minor children?

When examining two bills, some legislators have taken contrasting approaches to validate their support. The student loan bill (SB 132) emphasizes legislative support for protecting minors based on the developing brain; however, the gender-affirming healthcare bill potentially allows a child to make life-altering decisions despite acknowledging their limited cognitive development.

Dangerous and sophisticated marketing to minor children “who really aren’t quite ready to make some of those decisions” is rampant in our society and goes well beyond college loans. Therefore, Delaware laws and policies should reflect the brain development issues raised by Sen. Sokola. 

Legislators must put parents and families first, not those who would limit, interfere with and endanger their children with life-altering decisions when their brains and judgment are not yet developed and easily manipulated.