Proponents call SB218 a 'detransitioners' remedy; medical groups warn of chilling effect on providers

Senate Bill 218, filed as an act to provide a private cause of action for injuries caused by certain medical interventions for gender dysphoria and to set a statute of limitations, drew extensive testimony March 10 before the House Judiciary Committee.

Sponsor Sen. John Fuller told the committee the bill would allow civil suits for people injured by medical treatments for gender dysphoria, with a 25‑year statute of limitations and enumerated exceptions for “non‑psychological medical intervention.” He said the change is intended to give harmed patients adequate time to seek redress.

Proponents included multiple people who said they had detransitioned after receiving hormones or surgery and described long‑term physical and psychological harms. Jamie Reed, who testified earlier as a whistleblower, said the bill would let harmed patients “have their day in court.” Several witnesses described complications from surgeries and hormone treatments and said existing malpractice time limits prevented legal claims.

Opponents — including the Montana Academy of Family Physicians, the Montana Medical Freedom Alliance, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, the ACLU of Montana and leading physician witnesses — argued the bill is unprecedented in its punitive reach and would gut malpractice rules. Dr. Lauren Wilson, representing pediatric and family physician groups, explained that the measure would impose strict liability, extend the statute of limitations to 25 years, allow punitive awards and attorneys’ fees, and potentially make physicians uninsurable. She argued that current malpractice statutes already provide redress for negligence and warned that the change would “chill” practice and worsen provider shortages in rural Montana.

Several physicians and medical groups said the existing clinical pathways and consent standards apply and that if a provider is negligent, current malpractice remedies already exist. Opponents raised concerns about the bill’s practical effects on workforce and patient access: Montana already designates many counties as health workforce shortage areas, they said, and punitive extensions of liability could drive doctors out of the state.

The hearing featured extensive, often emotional testimony from people who identified as detransitioners or family members of people who died, and from clinicians describing both the risks and the benefits of care. Supporters called the bill a necessary accountability tool; opponents said it was a targeted attempt to curtail access to care and a misuse of malpractice law that would have substantial implications for medical practice in Montana. The committee did not take action on SB218 during the hearing.