Kansas law restricting gender‑affirming care for minors goes into effect after veto override

The Kansas legislature this month enacted Senate Bill 63, known as the Help Not Harm Act, which restricts use of state funds to promote gender transition and broadly prohibits certain gender‑transition treatments for minors, the Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board’s (BSRB) executive director told the Social Work Advisory Committee.

The bill was debated in both chambers and overridden after a gubernatorial veto, and has been published in the Kansas Register. “It was presented to the governor’s office. The governor vetoed the bill. Now on Tuesday, February 18, the Senate overrode the veto on a vote of 31 to 9 and the House overrode the veto on a vote of 85 to 34,” David Fye, executive director of the BSRB, said at the committee’s public meeting.

Committee members and BSRB staff said the law’s text is brief and contains broad language referencing “healthcare providers” and “healthcare services,” making it unclear which parts of the statute apply to licensees the BSRB regulates. “This bill had some different language that said it would take effect upon publication in the Candace Register. … So it did get published in the Kansas Register, as of Thursday of last week. And so, it is now effective,” Fye said.

Nut graf: The committee heard that the law is now in force but that the board has not issued guidance because the statute’s language is not specific to the professions regulated by the BSRB. Committee members were advised to follow developments and to consult their own legal counsel about case‑level questions.

Board staff said the BSRB held a special board meeting with legal counsel to review the statute and that, publicly, the board has not yet offered interpretive guidance. “This is a complex bill. It is difficult to understand what, if any, subjects relate to BSRB providers. So we are trying to work through this bill and make sure that we have a good understanding of it,” Fye said.

Committee members described uncertainty about several terms in the law, including what constitutes “promote” or “advocate” and whether documentation or routine clinical discussion could be interpreted as violating the new statute. One member noted that many mental‑health clients present with co‑occurring symptoms such as anxiety or depression that clinicians would continue to treat. The committee also discussed that several amendments that would have clarified the bill’s relationship to BSRB licensees were defeated during legislative consideration.

The advisory committee recorded no formal action on the statute at this meeting. Fye said the board will continue to monitor litigation, administrative inquiries, and possible complaints that test how the law is applied. He also recommended that clinicians who need specific legal advice contact private counsel. "We encourage everybody that if they do have questions, they may wish to speak with their own legal counsel to get perspective that way," Fye said.

Ending: Committee members were asked to stay informed and to expect future discussion at BSRB meetings; the advisory committee’s next regular meeting was scheduled for April 8.