New Federal Bill Creates $250K Lawsuits Over Gender-Affirming Care Received as a Minor

This new piece of legislation, titled the Gender-Affirming Child Abuse Prevention Act, creates a powerful new federal avenue for civil lawsuits. If you received any form of “gender-related medical treatment” before you turned 18, this bill allows you to sue the medical provider who performed the care. If successful, you could collect actual damages, plus a set $250,000 for each instance of treatment, along with all your attorney’s fees. This is a massive liability hook aimed directly at providers who offered care that was legal and medically approved at the time it was administered.

The Retroactive Liability Hook

The most eye-opening part of this bill is that it is entirely retroactive. It doesn’t matter if the treatment was performed five or fifteen years ago; the provider could still be sued today. The bill defines “gender-related medical treatment” broadly, including various surgeries (like mastectomies or phalloplasties), as well as hormone therapies (like testosterone or estrogen) and puberty blockers. The only exceptions are for treatments related to disorders of sex development (DSD) or treatments needed to fix damage caused by previous gender-related care. For medical professionals and hospitals, this instantly creates a huge, unexpected legal risk for past services. Think about the potential malpractice insurance costs alone—they could skyrocket across the board, potentially affecting the cost of all specialized medical care.

The $250,000 Question: Who Gets Sued?

The bill allows the person who received the care as a minor to sue. If that person is incapacitated or deceased, a legal guardian or representative can step in. The key target is the medical provider—the doctor, clinic, or hospital—who performed the procedure or prescribed the medication. Because the damages are fixed at $250,000 per instance, not per person, a minor who received hormone therapy over several years might have multiple “instances” of treatment, meaning the total damages could quickly climb into the millions of dollars in a single successful lawsuit. This kind of financial exposure could force many providers out of this field, even if they never face a lawsuit, simply due to the risk.

Federal Reach and Interstate Commerce

To make sure these cases land in federal court, the bill leans heavily on the “interstate commerce” clause. This isn’t just about the patient or doctor crossing state lines. The bill defines a connection to interstate commerce if any payment for the care involved an interstate channel (like a bank transfer), if any communication (like an email or phone call) crossed state lines, or even if an item used in the treatment had previously traveled interstate. Given how interconnected modern healthcare is, this broad definition means almost any case involving a medical procedure or prescription could be brought to a federal court, regardless of where the patient and provider are located. This is a very aggressive use of federal power to create a specific class of legal action.

Defining Sex and Gender

Finally, the bill includes very specific definitions for “sex” and “gender.” “Sex” is strictly defined as biological determination (male or female). “Gender” is defined as males, females, or the natural differences between them, and the bill explicitly states that it does not include concepts like gender identity, gender expression, or gender roles. This language is crucial because it legally anchors the entire civil action around a strict biological framework, setting a clear boundary for what treatments are being targeted under this Act.