The House debated Senate Bill 646, a measure to expand or clarify repayment of certain mental‑health professional education loans to attract more clinicians into shortage areas, including school counselors and specialists. Proponents said the program addresses an acute counseling and psychiatric shortage across many Texas counties; opponents warned the measure could use public funds to repay professionals who endorse social‑transition approaches for minors.

Rep. Davis (sponsor) described the bill as aimed at increasing access to care and building a pipeline of counselors, including in rural districts: “This program… aims to address our mental health workforce shortage by bringing professionals to areas experiencing a service gap,” she said on the floor. The debate became contentious when critics connected the issue to ongoing disputes over gender‑identity care and counseling practices in schools.

Why it matters: Members across the aisle agreed that many Texas school districts and counties lack mental‑health providers. The bill’s backers described loan repayment as a targeted recruitment tool; opponents argued it could funnel taxpayer money to professionals whose practices they find objectionable and urged structural limits or policy changes first.

Key points and outcome: The House heard statistics on the shortage — Rep. Davis noted “68 out of 254 counties do not have a licensed psychiatrist” — and advocates from health and education organizations had supported the measure at committee. Critics, citing parental complaints and professional ethics concerns, asked supporters to consider amendments prohibiting repayment to providers who engage in social transitioning of minors. The bill was postponed for further consideration at 5:00 p.m. and was not adopted during the session day.

Next steps: Lawmakers said they will continue negotiating language, including whether to narrow eligible professions or include behavioral restrictions; sponsors said they are open to targeted guardrails but urged action to address workforce gaps promptly.

Ending: The debate underscored a larger tension in education and health policy this session: how to recruit clinicians to meet rising youth mental‑health needs while negotiating highly charged disagreement over standards of care and parental rights.