Committee advances bill expanding malpractice claims tied to gender‑affirming interventions for minors

A committee voted to advance House Bill 1916 after extensive testimony that sharply divided medical and counseling professionals, faith leaders and community members over whether the measure protects minors or would reduce access to mental‑health care.

Representative Mary Bentley (District 54), introducing the bill she said amends Act 274 (passed in 2023) to provide a civil cause of action for minors and parents to sue for injury allegedly caused by “gender transition procedure, gender affirming intervention, or related treatment” up to 15 years after the child turns 18. Bentley described the bill as aimed at restoring past practices she called “watch and wait” rather than “gender affirming care,” and called for a return to treatments she said historically led most youth to desist from transgender identification through puberty.

In her testimony Representative Bentley made several claims about outcomes and risks. She said, “Gender affirming care on the other hand results in 92 percent of the child patients remaining in gender confusion when they get through puberty,” and argued that “puberty blockers cause brain swelling and vision loss” and that 98 percent of children prescribed puberty blockers subsequently proceed to cross‑sex hormones. In closing she described the bill as “a carefully balanced survivor informed update” (her earlier description for another bill) and asked the committee for a favorable vote.

The committee then heard a series of witnesses who urged caution or opposed the bill. Licensed mental‑health providers and psychologists warned the bill’s language is vague and could expose ordinary therapeutic practices—such as using preferred names or reflective listening—to civil liability. Josh Garrett, a licensed professional counselor, said the bill’s definition of “intervention” is unclear and “any action can be deemed an intervention,” raising questions about whether routine therapeutic methods would create liability. Rev. Gary Cheater, a licensed professional counselor and former board appointee to the Arkansas Board of Examiners in Counseling, said counselors cannot prescribe medications and that criminalizing or enabling malpractice claims tied to “gender affirming intervention” would conflate medical and counseling roles.

Tisha Dean, a clinical psychologist, testified that psychologists do not perform surgery or prescribe medication in Arkansas and that broad language in the bill would increase uncertainty and fear among mental‑health clinicians, exacerbating an existing provider shortage. Other mental‑health witnesses raised similar concerns: they said that the bill’s broad definition could deter clinicians from treating minors and thus increase wait times and costs for all children seeking mental‑health services.

Nurses and clinicians who provided testimony in opposition said that gender‑affirming care is multidisciplinary, typically cautious and individualized, and that major medical associations support certain gender‑affirming treatments because they can reduce mental‑health distress in transgender youth. A registered sex‑offender witness and some committee members also asked clarifying technical questions about scope and professional standards.

Committee members asked detailed legal and medical questions during testimony—on whether the bill imposes strict liability or requires proof of negligence, whether typical counseling interactions would be considered “affirming,” and whether some of the medical claims cited by the sponsor are supported by peer‑reviewed research. Representative Bentley repeatedly framed the bill as restoring previously successful approaches and protecting children; witnesses countered that the bill’s vagueness would chill standard care and lead to unintended harms.

At the end of the public testimony the committee recorded a motion to end testimony and then a motion to pass HB 1916; the motion was seconded and carried on the transcript.

The committee record shows a contentious hearing with many technical questions; the transcript does not record any enacted statutory text beyond sponsor summary, and multiple witnesses asked for clearer definitions and narrower language. The committee action advances the bill for further consideration; the transcript does not include subsequent floor action or an effective date.