Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Healthcare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves measure restricting use of state funds for transgender medical treatments for inmates
Summary
SB 185 bars state funds for gender‑reassignment surgeries and certain hormone therapies for state inmates, with narrow exceptions. The measure passed 37–15 after extensive debate and a failed amendment to grandfather existing therapy.
The Georgia Senate approved SB 185 on a 37–15 vote, blocking the use of state funds and resources for gender‑reassignment surgeries and related treatments for state inmates while allowing limited medical exceptions.
Senator Robertson (Senator Robertson, 20th District), the bill’s sponsor, told colleagues the measure addresses a policy gap in the Department of Corrections: “This legislation was written … to say we will not do surgery to change someone's sex,” Robertson said, arguing that prisons must maintain clear limits on state‑funded care. The bill directs the Board of Corrections to adopt rules and carve out limited exceptions, including treatments for medically verifiable disorders of sex development and narrowly defined continuation of previously prescribed hormone therapy for the purpose of transitioning off treatment.
Opponents said the bill is punitive and risks violating constitutional protections and federal guidance. Senator from the 40 First (floor minority) said denying hormone therapy is “willful infliction of even more pain” on incarcerated people with gender dysphoria and called the measure “unconstitutional.” Several senators warned of litigation and cited federal Department of Justice guidance and case law.
An amendment from Senator Perrin (40th District) to permit continuation of certain hormone therapies for inmates already receiving them was debated and brought to a vote as Amendment 1; it failed. Final passage followed committee substitute adoption and recorded votes on the floor: the bill passed 37–15. Supporters said the bill makes state policy explicit and narrow; opponents said it singles out a medically recognized diagnosis and risks constitutional challenges.
Ending: The sponsor and supporters said they expect regulatory language from the Board of Corrections if the bill becomes law; opponents signaled plans to pursue legal remedies and said the state’s obligations under the Eighth Amendment and recent federal guidance must be respected.
