Senate bill banning state funding for gender‑affirming care for some patients passes committee after tie vote

Senate Bill 39, which would prevent state taxpayer funds from paying for gender‑affirming surgeries and hormone treatment when that care differs from the patient’s sex assigned at birth, passed the Appropriations Committee after a tie vote broken by the chair.

Senator Burt Tillery, presenting the bill, told the committee the measure would limit State Health Benefit Plan coverage for gender‑affirming care. "What it states is that the Georgia taxpayer funds will not be used for transgender surgeries and care," Tillery said, and described an amendment that reorganizes and narrows parts of the bill.

Committee members asked detailed medical and legal questions. Representative Jennifer Clark and others pressed the sponsor on definitions in the bill and on why the draft specifically referenced partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS) rather than the broader category of androgen-insensitivity conditions; Clark said many people do not learn of such conditions until later in life and asked how the bill would affect their access to care. The sponsor replied that the bill aims to allow medical care for congenital conditions when treatment aligns with sex assigned at birth but to bar state payment for care intended to change sex characteristics from that assignment.

Several legislators objected to the policy on medical and constitutional grounds. Representative Angela Davis said she opposed the bill because it "seeks to dehumanize transgender people and restrict the rights of adult and pediatric trans transgender patients to fully assess the medical care that they need." Representative Jones noted the State Health Benefit Plan covers more than "half a million state employees, teachers, retirees, and their dependents," and framed the vote as a choice about how state health dollars are used.

Public witnesses testified on both sides during a lengthy public-comment period. Legal counsel Amanda K. Seals, who represented plaintiffs in a settlement identified in the hearing (Rich v. Georgia), warned the committee the bill would impair contractual obligations and likely prompt litigation; she said the state had paid about $4.1 million in settlements related to similar exclusions. Local physicians and medical groups, including Dr. Jason Snyder and multiple medical-professional organizations referenced by witnesses, offered clinical evidence that gender‑affirming care improves mental‑health outcomes for some patients. Advocacy organizations including Georgia Equality and the Human Rights Campaign urged the committee to oppose the bill, citing legal risk, cost of litigation and harms to patient access.

Supporters, including Mac Parnell of the Georgia Fagan Freedom Coalition, argued the measure restores prior coverage norms and limits state spending on care they said should not be covered by the State Health Benefit Plan.

After public testimony the committee took a voice/hand vote. A tie was recorded — eight in favor and eight opposed — and the committee chair voted to break the tie, producing a final committee outcome in favor of advancing SB 39. The transcript shows the chair casting the deciding vote; detailed roll-call names and an individual roll-call tally were not recorded in the transcript.

The bill, as presented in committee, would: (1) prohibit state funds from being expended for gender‑affirming care as defined in the text (the bill lists hormone therapy and surgical procedures among covered categories), (2) permit some treatment for congenital conditions described in the draft, and (3) restrict coverage under the State Health Benefit Plan for procedures or treatments that differ from the patient’s sex assigned at birth. The committee record includes multiple legal and constitutional arguments noting prior court rulings (including Bostock v. Clayton County and federal litigation involving state exclusion clauses) and a recorded settlement amount related to prior litigation.

Committee members and witnesses repeatedly noted that the bill does not criminalize care but would limit state payment; opponents argued limits on payment would in practice restrict access for people who rely on employer-sponsored coverage.

The committee advanced the bill; subsequent steps in the legislative process and possible litigation were identified by several witnesses and lawmakers as likely next developments.