House amends 'Forbidding Abusive Child Transitions Act'
Article/LGBT Issues and Government
Updated to show that the House passed an amendment to the bill and did not pass the bill itself.
The House came together as a whole to vote on an amendment for House Sub for Senate Bill 233, the Forbidding Abusive Child Transitions Act on Tuesday. The amendment was offered by Rep. Ron Bryce (R-Coffeyville). The bill, as amended, would make it so that healthcare providers would be prohibited from treating children for gender transitions and provides a civil cause of action to healthcare providers that give such treatments. It further restricts the use of state funds to promote gender transitioning and prohibits professional liability insurance from covering damages for healthcare providers that provide gender transition treatment to children that are 17 years of age or younger. It also makes violating the act considered ‘unprofessional conduct’ for physicians and requires professional discipline against a healthcare provider that performs such treatments. A statute of limitations of ten years from the time the child turns 18 years old will be used to hold a healthcare provider “strictly liable to such child if the treatment or effects of such treatment results in any physical, psychological, emotional or physiological harms.”
Many Representatives came up to speak in favor or against the bill.
“I think it’s been made very clear by almost everybody that’s been up here speaking that this is questionable,” Rep. Ford Carr (D-Wichita) said. “Is this something that can be reversed? Is it, you know, we’re not sure. So then, that means we have to be smart enough to make a decision for other people. Statistically speaking, when it comes to being smart or intelligent based on an IQ test, I’m going to outscore about 85 percent of you in here and I know I’m not smart enough to make this decision, so this decision should ride with those parents. I don’t think this body should be responsible for making these sort of decisions.”
Rep. Melissa Oropeza (D-Kansas City) also spoke against the bill.
“Broadly speaking, gender affirming care is a model of medical care that supports and affirms an individual’s gender identities,” Rep. Oropeza said. “Notice in this statement, not once did I say medicine. Not once did I say surgery, because that’s not all that gender-affirming care is. There is so much more to this type of specialty healthcare. Gender-affirming care is approached as a multidisciplinary process including endocrinology, voice and communication, primary care, reproductive health, mental health, sexual health, mental health care professionals, psychiatrists, social workers, therapists, counselors, etcetera, and possibly medication, and possibly surgery. This is not top on the list. There is no one size fits all in gender-affirming care.”
Rep. Bill Clifford, a Republican from Garden City spoke in favor of the bill.
“Physicians in this body have endured quite a bit already in committee,” Rep. Clifford said. “So, I’d like to assure you that among us, we have over 100 years of practice. One of us is retired, but two of us retain active Kansas licenses. What does an active physician license mean? It means that you can practice medicine and surgery completely. There’s no specialty of gender-affirming care under the ABMS, the American Board of Medical Specialists. There are 22 specialty boards. Under those boards, pediatrics has 20 subspecialties. Not one mentions transitioning children.”
Rep. Bryce was able to close for Substitute for SB 233, which he started by mentioning the new ban on puberty blocking drugs in England which occurred during the House Chamber Proceeding.
“I think part of the confusion that we’ve seen with conflicting studies and opinions about studies is, in the United States it’s a very, very politicized issue, obviously” Rep. Bryce said. “So, the studies are surveys of transgender people that get their attitudes, I think the good Representative mentioned, an increase in feeling of wellbeing was one of the endpoints in one of the studies. That’s very, very subjective as you might anticipate. If a young person goes through the time, pain, the expense, the family goes through the whole ordeal of transitioning, and then you ask the child ‘do you feel better?’ There’s a lot of bias there.”
“In the United States, the model of care for gender dysphoric children is the affirmative model,” Rep. Bryce further stated. “…The affirmative model says we must change reality to meet what’s in the child’s head. The studies that I will just briefly go over… the reason these are important is in Northern and Western Europe, and as evidenced by the recent newsflash in England, these studies look at objective data such as suicide…. When you look at objective data with the transitioning modalities: Puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones, transgender surgery—these treatments do no good for reducing suicide once you take into account coexisting psychiatric illnesses.”
Rep. Bryce listed the different ways healthcare for minors with gender dysphoria has changed in countries that used more objective research.
“I think that’s part of the problem when we have a conflict between two different studies. Some are looking at subjective, like in the United States where there really are no objective studies. Then other countries that have been at it much longer at transitioning kids, they’ve actually done the studies. The National Health Services, which is apolitical, have done these studies. They’ve decided they’re pulling back money because they don’t work. Denmark, they no longer offer surgical treatment to children under the age of 18. Instead of transitioning 65 percent of gender dysphoric children, they only transition six percent, mostly during experimental studies. In Finland, they found that children given psychological support alone did better than children given puberty blockers. Germany, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones did not show a clear sign in improving gender dysphoria or the mental health in minors who identify as transgender. In 2022 in Norway, Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board said it is recommended that puberty blockers and opposite sex hormone treatment and surgical gender confirmation treatment for children and young people be defined as ‘experimental.’ Sweden, Swedish health officials in 2022 issued guidelines limiting the use of puberty blockers, hormones, and mastectomies for minors, only in exceptional cases. The goal is to administer hormone interventions in research settings only. In the United Kingdom, they have decertified cross-sex hormones…. What the scientific studies consistently show is that puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones, and transgender surgeries are not helpful in children with gender dysphoria.”
The House voted to pass the amendment to House Sub Bill for SB 233. They will be voting on the bill today.
To read the bill, click here.
Thanks for reading. Be sure to like, share, and subscribe. You can also help support independent journalism in Kansas by buying me a coffee at buymeacoffee.com/kscon.
The Kansas Constitutional now has its very own website. You can find even more stories at ksconstitutional.com
Great snapshot of the debate on this bill.