Minnesota House Bill HF146

Minnesota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/23
• Refer: 1/9/23
• Report Pass: 2/27/23
• Engrossed: 3/27/23
• Refer: 3/27/23
• Report Pass: 4/12/23
• Enrolled: 4/26/23
• Passed: 4/27/23
• Chaptered: 4/27/23

Caption

Gender-affirming health care; use of subpoenas to gather information prevented; child custody and child welfare provisions amended; and warrant, arrest, and extradition provisions amended.

Impact

If HF146 is enacted, it would amend several provisions of the Minnesota Statutes to clarify jurisdictional rules concerning child custody determinations. Notably, the bill would assert that Minnesota’s laws provide a protective framework for children who seek gender-affirming health care, and any legal actions from other states regarding custody in these contexts would not be recognized. This change reinforces the message that Minnesota aims to be a safe haven for individuals seeking such healthcare, thereby potentially increasing the state’s appeal for families in similar situations.

Summary

House File 146 (HF146) addresses complex issues surrounding gender-affirming health care, focusing primarily on child custody and related legal matters. The bill aims to ensure that Minnesota courts do not enforce out-of-state laws that seek to remove children from parents or guardians due to their provision of gender-affirming care. By establishing a firm stance against such external interventions, the bill seeks to protect both the rights of individuals in Minnesota and the well-being of children receiving this type of healthcare within the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HF146 is largely supportive among progressive legislators and advocacy groups who view it as a necessary measure to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly minors. However, there are opposing views, mainly from conservative factions and some parental rights advocates, who express concerns that the bill may undermine parental authority and state interests in child welfare matters. The divide highlights broader societal debates regarding gender identity, healthcare rights, and the role of state versus parental control.

Contention

Key points of contention involve the balance between protecting youths and maintaining parental rights, with critics worried that the bill could set a precedent for limiting state enforcement of parenting rights when it comes to controversial medical treatments. Additionally, the bill’s provisions preventing cooperation with subpoenas related to actions taken under out-of-state laws pose concerns for some about potential legal repercussions for parents and healthcare providers supporting and providing gender-affirming services.