Kansas Senate Bill SB233

Kansas 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/10/23
• Refer: 2/13/23
• Report Pass: 2/20/23
• Engrossed: 3/1/23
• Refer: 3/1/23
• Report Pass: 3/11/24
• Enrolled: 4/2/24
• Vetoed: 4/25/24

Caption

House Substitute for SB 233 by Committee on Health and Human Services - Enacting the forbidding abuse child transitions act, restricting use of state funds to promote gender transitioning, prohibiting healthcare providers from treating children whose gender identity is inconsistent with the child's sex, authorizing a civil cause of action against healthcare providers for providing such treatments, requiring professional discipline against a healthcare provider who performs such treatment, prohibiting professional liability insurance from covering damages for healthcare providers that provide gender transition treatment to children and adding violation of the act to the definition of unprofessional conduct for physicians and nurses.

Impact

If enacted, SB233 would fundamentally reshape the healthcare landscape for minors in Kansas by eliminating access to certain medical treatments for gender dysphoria. Proponents claim that the bill will protect children from irreversible medical procedures while critics argue that it undermines the rights of LGBT youth and their access to necessary healthcare. The legislation also holds healthcare providers liable for providing care that contradicts the bill's stipulations, thereby asserting strict regulations on medical practices revolving around gender identity, with implications for existing healthcare policies and professional standards in the state.

Summary

Senate Bill 233, known as the Forbidding Abusive Child Transitions Act, aims to severely restrict medical procedures and treatments related to gender transitioning for minors. The bill prohibits healthcare providers from treating children whose gender identity is inconsistent with their biological sex, which includes banning surgeries and hormone therapies typically associated with gender transition. It also restricts the use of state funds to promote or subsidize these treatments and establishes penalties for healthcare providers who violate these provisions. The bill reflects a significant shift in the state's approach to minors' healthcare regarding gender identity issues and emphasizes biological determinism over gender identity considerations.

Sentiment

The sentiment towards SB233 is sharply divided. Supporters are often aligned with conservative values and view the bill as a means to safeguard minors from what they consider harmful medical interventions. Conversely, opponents, including many healthcare professionals and advocacy groups, view the bill as an infringement on medical autonomy and a violation of the rights of transgender individuals. This polarization in sentiment reflects broader national debates over gender identity and the rights of transgender individuals, positioning the bill within a contentious political landscape.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the implications of restricting medical care based on biological sex as opposed to gender identity, and the set penalties for healthcare providers, which some argue could deter qualified professionals from working with youth experiencing gender dysphoria. The bill further establishes a legal framework for families to pursue civil action against healthcare providers who administer banned treatments, raising ethical concerns regarding the treatment of minors and the potential for increased stigma surrounding transgender identities. The constitutionality of such restrictions is expected to be challenged, making the law a focal point for ongoing debates about the rights of children and parental authority in healthcare decisions.