New Bill Allows Lawsuits Against Doctors Providing Gender-Affirming Care to Minors, Blocks HHS Funding to States Supporting Such Care

The "Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act of 2025" throws a massive wrench into gender-affirming care for trans youth, and it's got some serious implications for healthcare access and states' rights. Here's the breakdown:

Malpractice Mayhem

This bill, effective immediately upon enactment (SEC. 6), greenlights individuals to sue medical practitioners who provided them with gender-transition procedures before they turned 18. And we're not talking about a short window – these lawsuits can be filed up to 30 years after the individual turns 18 (SEC. 2). Think about it: a doctor who provided care to a 16-year-old could be facing legal action when that person is 48. This opens the door to compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney's fees (SEC. 2). The bill casts a wide net, applying if any part of the process involved interstate commerce – basically, if anything crossed state lines, from the patient to the payment to the medical instruments (SEC. 2).

Imagine a young person, supported by their parents and doctors, receiving gender-affirming care that helps them thrive. Decades later, even if they're doing well, they (or someone acting on their behalf) could sue the doctor who provided that essential care. This could make doctors incredibly hesitant to offer any gender-affirming services, fearing decades of potential legal battles. It's a recipe for defensive medicine, where doctors prioritize avoiding lawsuits over providing the best possible care.

Federal Funding Face-Off

Section 4 takes aim at states. If a state requires medical practitioners to perform gender-transition procedures (which is unlikely, given existing conscience protections), that state loses all federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services. This is a huge deal. HHS funding supports a massive range of programs, from Medicaid and Medicare to public health initiatives. Essentially, the federal government is telling states: "restrict gender-affirming care, or lose vital funding for countless other health services." This isn't just about gender-affirming care; it's about the federal government potentially coercing states by threatening their essential funding.

Defining "Sex" and "Procedure"

The bill defines "biological sex" in a very specific, and frankly outdated, way: based solely on chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia at birth (SEC. 5). This completely ignores the lived realities of transgender individuals, whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth. The definition of "gender-transition procedure" includes puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries (SEC. 5) – basically, the standard medical treatments for gender dysphoria. There are exceptions for individuals with intersex conditions and for treating certain medical issues (SEC. 5), but the overall message is clear: the bill targets and restricts common, evidence-based medical care for trans youth.

The Big Picture

This bill isn't just about protecting minors; it's a direct challenge to gender-affirming care and a power play against states that support it. By creating a long-term legal threat for doctors and weaponizing federal funding, the "Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act" could significantly reduce access to essential healthcare for transgender youth, potentially leading to serious negative mental health consequences. The broad language, particularly around interstate commerce, also opens the door to potentially expansive interpretations and federal overreach into healthcare decisions.