Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill would add a federal criminal prohibition (up to 5 years imprisonment and fines) on health professionals who knowingly perform or aid gender transition procedures on persons under 18. It defines "gender transition" and lists many hormonal, surgical, cosmetic, and implant procedures considered "gender transition procedures," while exempting certain intersex/DSD treatments, life‑saving procedures, precocious puberty treatment, and male circumcision.
Progressives emphasize harms to transgender youth and medical access.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive criminal law change that is highly specific about prohibited conduct and jurisdiction but limited in implementation, fiscal, and oversight detail.
This bill would add a federal criminal prohibition (up to 5 years imprisonment and fines) on health professionals who knowingly perform or aid gender transition procedures on persons under 18.
It defines "gender transition" and lists many hormonal, surgical, cosmetic, and implant procedures considered "gender transition procedures," while exempting certain intersex/DSD treatments, life‑saving procedures, precocious puberty treatment, and male circumcision.
Jurisdiction is tied to interstate commerce and related connections.
Highly contentious cultural issue, federalization of medical practice, and civil/criminal exposure make bipartisan build unlikely; legal challenges probable if enacted.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive criminal law change that is highly specific about prohibited conduct and jurisdiction but limited in implementation, fiscal, and oversight detail.
Progressives emphasize harms to transgender youth and medical access.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize harms to transgender youth and medical access.
This persona would likely view the bill as a federal ban that harms transgender and gender‑nonconforming minors and restricts accepted medical care.
They would see criminal penalties for clinicians and broad definitions that could chill evidence‑based care.
They would stress civil‑rights and health access implications and foresee legal challenges.
This persona would be cautious and pragmatic, recognizing child‑protection aims but concerned about federal criminalization, legal vagueness, and states' roles.
They would focus on clarity of definitions, unintended consequences for medical practice, and likely budgetary or litigation costs.
They might prefer narrower, noncriminal approaches and stronger federalism safeguards.
This persona would likely support the bill as protecting children and affirming biological sex distinctions in federal law.
They would applaud criminal penalties for clinicians and the extensive procedural list, seeing the measure as addressing perceived medical experimentation on minors.
They may still seek clearer enforcement provisions and protections for parental rights.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Highly contentious cultural issue, federalization of medical practice, and civil/criminal exposure make bipartisan build unlikely; legal challenges probable if enacted.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize harms to transgender youth and medical access.
Highly contentious cultural issue, federalization of medical practice, and civil/criminal exposure make bipartisan build unlikely; legal ch…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive criminal law change that is highly specific about prohibited conduct and jurisdiction but limited in implementation, fiscal, and oversight detail.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.