Kansas committee hears hours of testimony on SB 63, the "Help Not Harm Act," which would ban gender‑affirming medical care for minors

The Public Health and Welfare Committee introduced RS 0711 — Senate Bill 63, titled the Help Not Harm Act, and heard more than 20 public speakers for and against the proposal.

Jenna Moyer of the Revisor of Statutes Office gave a bill brief, describing the measure as a narrower version of a bill from last year and saying it "prohibits a healthcare provider from knowingly performing certain surgical procedures or prescribing, dispensing, or administering hormone treatments or puberty blockers for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria" in minors, while identifying limited exceptions and effective dates.

The measure would, according to the bill brief, bar use of state funds to subsidize or promote social transitioning, medication, or surgery for a child as treatment for gender dysphoria; prohibit providers from prescribing or administering defined medications or performing defined surgeries for that purpose; include carveouts for children with a verified diagnosis of a disorder of sex development and for a limited weaning/tapering period ending December 31, 2024; and impose disciplinary and civil consequences, including possible license revocation and limits on professional liability coverage. The bill is drafted to take effect July 1, 2025.

Supporters who testified to the committee described physical harms they attribute to medical transition or urged that the state protect minors. Chloe Cole, introduced as a detransitioned 20‑year‑old, told the committee she underwent medical transition between ages 12 and 16 and said providers "failed me in several ways" and that she was "pushed towards medical transition when I was just a child." Jamie Reed, identified as a former pediatric gender‑care clinician and a public whistleblower, said of the treatments: "these are interventions based on poor research, poor evidence, and poor outcomes." Several faith‑based and family‑policy groups also spoke in support of the bill.

Opponents said the bill would harm transgender youth, interfere with medical decision‑making, and raise constitutional and practical problems. Anthony Alvarez, who identified himself as a 20‑year‑old transgender man from Kansas, said starting transition as a minor was life‑saving for him: "Being able to start transitioning as a minor allowed me to begin my life as soon as possible." DC Heegert, attorney for the ACLU of Kansas, told the committee the bill "likely violates constitutional rights of Kansas children, parents, therapists, doctors, and teachers" and cautioned that the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to address similar litigation soon.

Several teachers, school social workers and clinicians warned about the bill's language on "promoting" or "advocating" transition in publicly funded settings and said that vagueness could chill normal school and counseling interactions. Isaac Johnson, an LMSW and school social work intern, said the definition of promoting transitioning is "vague" and could force adults to shut down conversations that help at‑risk students. Multiple educators said the measure would make it harder to provide supportive, day‑to‑day care to students.

Committee members asked a small number of clarifying questions during the allotted time. A senator asked whether the bill's carveouts mean treatments remain available for non‑transition reasons; proponents clarified that the bill is written to ban procedures "for the purpose of" gender transition while allowing the same treatments when used for medically defined conditions such as precocious puberty. No formal committee vote on the bill was recorded during the hearing; committee staff introduced the bill as a committee bill after the chair said there were no objections.

The hearing featured personal testimony that conflicted on clinical evidence and policy: supporters emphasized individual patient harm and urged legislative restrictions; opponents warned of legal risk, cited major medical associations that endorse gender‑affirming care, and contended the bill would reduce access to care and to school‑based supports. Several witnesses and the bill brief stressed the measure would create civil causes of action and professional discipline grounds for providers who violate the prohibition.

The committee concluded the hearing after public testimony and did not take a committee vote during the session.

The bill text and the Revisor's brief the committee received identify the measure as RS 0711 / Senate Bill 63 (Help Not Harm Act) and set an effective date of July 1, 2025. The brief lists defined terms for "healthcare provider," the specific prohibited medications and procedures, exceptions in section 3 subsections C and D, civil remedies and professional discipline amendments referenced in the bill brief.