Minnesota House Bill HF3151

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/7/25
• Refer: 4/7/25

Caption

Gender-affirming medical care and certain counseling for minors prohibited in the state of Minnesota, and penalties for violations established.

Impact

The impact of HF3151 on state laws is profound, as it introduces new regulations regarding the provision of medical care to minors. It prohibits not only the administration of gender-affirming treatments but also the use of public funds for such services. Exceptions to the bill are limited, allowing for necessary medical care unrelated to gender identity, mental health counseling without affirmation of a different gender, and necessary medical interventions for minors with intersex conditions under stringent conditions. This establishes a legislative framework that fundamentally alters the healthcare landscape for transgender minors and raises significant ethical considerations within the medical community related to youth autonomy and informed consent.

Summary

HF3151, also referred to as the Zywiec Act, seeks to prohibit gender-affirming medical care and certain counseling for minors in the state of Minnesota. The bill defines gender-affirming care to include medical or surgical interventions aimed at affirming an individual's perceived gender identity, which differs from their sex assigned at birth. HF3151 establishes clear definitions for minors, healthcare providers, and relevant terms like biological sex and intersex conditions to delineate its scope and applicability effectively. It specifies that any healthcare provider that knowingly provides such care to a minor will face strict penalties, including significant fines, revocation of their professional license, and possible imprisonment for up to a decade.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HF3151 include potential challenges to children and families seeking gender-affirming care, the autonomy of healthcare providers, and broader issues of individual rights versus state intervention in medical decisions. Advocates against the bill express concern that it severely limits access to necessary medical care for minors struggling with gender identity, arguing that it undermines the expertise of healthcare providers. Meanwhile, proponents of the bill argue that it protects minors from making irreversible decisions and emphasizes the biological aspects of identity over personal or familial feelings about gender, contributing to a national debate on gender identity and medical ethics.