Texas Senate Bill SB1383

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Relating to prohibited nonconsensual genital surgery on certain minors with intersex traits.

Impact

The bill will have significant implications on the legal and medical practices concerning the treatment of intersex individuals in Texas. It prohibits the performance of nonconsensual surgeries, ensuring that any medical treatment is not only deemed medically necessary but also agrees with the intersex child's consent. This aligns with growing advocacy efforts aimed at safeguarding the rights of intersex individuals and providing them with autonomy over their bodies and medical decisions. The legislation mandates that all parties involved remain informed and participate in the decision-making process, thereby promoting a health care model that considers the child’s best interest.

Summary

SB1383 is a proposed legislation in Texas aimed at regulating medical procedures related to intersex traits in minors. Specifically, it prohibits nonconsensual genital surgeries on intersex children who are under the age of 18. The bill establishes definitions for various terms related to intersex children and outlines the conditions under which medical procedures relating to intersex traits may be performed, emphasizing the requirement for informed consent from the child and, when applicable, court authorization. By enacting this legislation, lawmakers intend to protect the rights and wellbeing of intersex children from unwanted medical interventions.

Contention

A point of contention surrounding SB1383 may arise regarding the interpretation of what constitutes 'medically necessary' treatments and how consent is gauged, especially in cases where minors are involved. Additionally, there are concerns relating to the potential bureaucratic delay in approving court petitions for procedures that some may argue are necessary for the child’s health. The requirement for a court's approval could lead to disputes over medical decisions, potentially prolonging the process in situations where timely medical intervention is crucial. Proponents of the bill see it as a protective measure, while opponents might argue it could hinder timely access to essential treatments.