Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
This bill amends the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to bar states from receiving CAPTA funding if the state takes adverse action or otherwise discriminates against parents, guardians, or legal representatives who oppose medical, surgical, pharmacological, psychological interventions, or social practices (including clothing, name, or pronoun use) to affirm a minor’s claimed gender identity. The prohibition applies when the parent believes the claimed gender identity is inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex as determined at or before birth, regardless of any medical diagnosis.
Progressives emphasize harm to transgender minors and medical overrides
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and focused substantive statutory change that conditions CAPTA funding on States' treatment of parents who oppose certain interventions or social changes for minors, and it supplies a private right of action as an enforcement mechanism.
This bill amends the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to bar states from receiving CAPTA funding if the state takes adverse action or otherwise discriminates against parents, guardians, or legal representatives who oppose medical, surgical, pharmacological, psychological interventions, or social practices (including clothing, name, or pronoun use) to affirm a minor’s claimed gender identity.
The prohibition applies when the parent believes the claimed gender identity is inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex as determined at or before birth, regardless of any medical diagnosis.
The bill also lets affected parents sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enjoin funding and require returned funds.
Highly contentious subject, strong legal risk from conditional-spending challenges, and weak compromise features lower legislative prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and focused substantive statutory change that conditions CAPTA funding on States' treatment of parents who oppose certain interventions or social changes for minors, and it supplies a private right of action as an enforcement mechanism. Its principal legal effects and remedy are specified, but many operational details necessary for predictable administration and enforcement are absent.
Progressives emphasize harm to transgender minors and medical overrides
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize harm to transgender minors and medical overrides
Likely strongly opposed.
They would view the bill as federal conditioning that undermines medical judgment, child welfare protections, and rights of transgender minors.
They would see it as prioritizing parental opposition over evidence-based care and youth safety.
Mixed/concerned.
Would acknowledge parental-rights arguments but worry about vague language, federal-state tensions, and impacts on child welfare and medical practice.
Would seek clearer definitions and narrow safeguards for minors.
Generally supportive.
Views the bill as protecting parental rights and preventing states or institutions from forcing gender-affirming medical or social changes on minors.
Sees federal funding leverage as appropriate enforcement.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Highly contentious subject, strong legal risk from conditional-spending challenges, and weak compromise features lower legislative prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize harm to transgender minors and medical overrides
Highly contentious subject, strong legal risk from conditional-spending challenges, and weak compromise features lower legislative prospect…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and focused substantive statutory change that conditions CAPTA funding on States' treatment of parents who oppose certain interventions or social changes f…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.