Bill Overview
Title: Protect Children’s Innocence Act
Description: This bill places restrictions on the provision of gender affirming care. Gender affirming care includes performing surgery, administering medication, or performing other procedures for the purpose of changing the body of an individual to correspond to a sex that differs from the individual's biological sex. Specifically, the bill makes it a felony to perform any gender affirming care on a minor and it permits a minor on whom such care is performed to bring a civil action against each individual who provided the care. Additionally, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for gender affirming care or for health insurance that covers such care. Such care may not be provided in a federal health care facility or by a federal employee. The bill also prohibits qualified health plans from including coverage for gender affirming care. Further, plans that include coverage for such care are not eligible for federal subsidies. Finally, the bill prohibits institutions of higher education from offering instruction in gender affirming care. It also makes any non-U.S. national ( alien under federal law) who performs gender affirming care on a minor deportable and inadmissible to the United States. The restrictions under this bill do not apply to the provision of care under certain circumstances such as when an individual does not have normal sex chromosome structure, sex steroid hormone production, or sex steroid hormone action.
Sponsors: Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals worldwide in need of or providing gender affirming care
Estimated Size: 200000
- The bill affects individuals seeking gender affirming care, which involves medical treatments for transitioning. The primary focus is on those under the age of 18, who are considered minors.
- Such legislation would impact healthcare providers who provide gender affirming care, restricting their ability to perform these services.
- The provision prohibiting instruction in gender affirming care would affect educational faculties and students pursuing studies related to this field.
- By restricting federal funding for gender affirming care, the legislation impacts health insurance coverage, influencing individuals who rely on such coverage.
- The bill would also affect non-U.S. nationals providing care, as they could face deportation and become inadmissible to the U.S.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts minors seeking or receiving gender affirming care, as well as healthcare providers who offer such services. Its effects extend to postsecondary educational institutions that offer instruction related to gender affirming care. As such, individuals working in these fields or pursuing professions related to gender affirming care are directly affected.
- Since the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for gender affirming care, it may indirectly affect individuals who rely on public health insurance coverage for such treatments. Private insurance holders might experience changes if plans adjust coverage policies to comply with federal regulations.
- Ultimately, this creates ripple effects within the broader LGBTQ+ community as the potential for reduced access to gender affirming care affects mental health and social acceptance.
Simulated Interviews
High school student (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was just beginning to feel comfortable with myself and now I feel like everything could fall apart.
- It's already hard being at school, and this makes it so much scarier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Endocrinologist (Austin, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy forces me to restrict services that I believe are essential for some of my patients.
- I've dedicated my career to helping people; this really limits how I can do that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Graduate student (New York City, New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the future of mental health care for transgender youth who are already marginalized.
- Policies like this rollback progress and can increase the stigma against trans identities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
University student (Birmingham, Alabama)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels like my future is being decided by people who've never met me.
- I'm scared for what this means not just for me, but for younger trans kids too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Insurance policy analyst (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These restrictions are bound to complicate how we build insurance plans and could lead to higher costs in other areas.
- Ultimately, beneficiaries will feel the burden.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Pediatrician (Jackson, Mississippi)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It deeply concerns me that politics are interfering with medical judgment and care that should be based on individual needs.
- This could drive professionals away from practicing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
High school student (Miami, Florida)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm just turning 18 and aware of how fragile my medical plans are because of this policy.
- This is crushing and makes me feel very uncertain about my next steps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Lawyer (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill encourages legal challenges and can tie up resources that should be used to advance equal rights, not diminish them.
- There's potential for increased discrimination.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
University professor (San Francisco, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restriction on education around trans issues affects the future of informed and empathetic care among practitioners.
- These are steps backward, not forward, creating potential for harm.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Family nurse practitioner (Little Rock, Arkansas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the mental health implications for young people denied care that's vital to their identity.
- This policy stops progress dead in its tracks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's restrictions on federal funding could create an immediate and ongoing cost impact on individuals seeking gender affirming care who may need to rely on alternative funding or insurance.
- The changes might provoke legal challenges and require legal clarifications, thus incurring additional costs.
- Institutions of higher education revising curricula to exclude instruction on gender affirming care may face resistance or require resource adjustments.
- Adjustments to health insurance policies to exclude gender affirming care from coverage could affect premium calculations and plan offerings significantly.