Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gender Affirming Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Divisive testimony on bill to prohibit cross‑sex hormones for minors highlights sharply divided views
Summary
Supporters described long‑term medical and psychosocial risks and urged prohibition of hormone treatments for minors; opponents — including trans youth, parents and medical advocates — said the bill would deny life‑saving care and harm mental health. Committee heard extensive testimony for and against and did not vote.
House Bill 13-99, proposed as the “Protect the Kids Act,” drew sharply divided testimony during a late‑night March 11 hearing before the Health and Government Operations Committee.
Sponsor Delegate Lauren Arikan framed the bill as a protection for minors, saying research shows a higher prevalence of autism among some youths who later identify as transgender and raising concerns about irreversible medical interventions that she and supporters described as “experimental” for children. Arikan said she intended the legislation to bar cross‑sex hormone therapy and to address what she characterized as long‑term harms and cases of later detransition.
Supporters included attorneys and faith‑based organizations who argued that hormone regimens carry under‑studied risks, can impair reproductive capacity, and that some detransitioning patients report adverse mental‑health outcomes after surgery. Several witnesses urged the committee to prohibit hormone therapy for minors to protect parental rights and preserve physicians’ and institutions’ conscience protections.
Opponents — a mix of medical professionals, advocacy organizations, family members, and multiple young people who testified in person and virtually — urged the committee to reject the prohibition. Witnesses cited major medical associations (American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Endocrine Society and others) that support gender‑affirming care when clinically appropriate, and they said the treatments reduce gender dysphoria and mortality risk among transgender youth. Testimony included first‑hand accounts from adolescents who said hormone therapy was life‑saving and from parents who described improved mental‑health outcomes for their children after treatment.
Committee members asked for data and raised procedural questions. Several speakers cited new studies with differing findings about long‑term outcomes; one physician‑epidemiologist told the committee that while short‑term studies show some mental‑health relief, long‑term data are limited and detransition numbers are uncertain. Other witnesses and medical organizations emphasized a consensus that individualized assessments, parental consent and clinician oversight are the appropriate framework.
No vote was taken. The hearing included more than an hour of witness testimony on both sides; lawmakers said the issue raises complex medical, parental‑rights, and ethical questions that would require further review before any legislative decision.
