Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Health Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nebraska committee hears hours of testimony on bill to ban puberty blockers, cross‑sex hormones for under‑19s
Summary
Sen. Kathleen Kauth’s LB 7 32 — a proposed ban on puberty blockers and cross‑sex hormones for people under 19 — drew hours of emotional testimony from medical groups, parents and young people. Proponents said evidence of benefit is weak; opponents, including major medical associations, said the bill would harm patients and families. The committee did not vote.
Lincoln — The Nebraska Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee heard more than five hours of testimony Feb. 2 on LB 7 32, a bill introduced by Sen. Kathleen Kauth that would bar the prescription of puberty blockers and cross‑sex hormones to people under 19.
Kauth, the bill’s sponsor, framed LB 7 32 as a public‑health safeguard. "LB 7 32 discusses the full ban on puberty blockers and cross‑sex hormones," she told the committee in her opening statement, arguing that recent litigation and international reviews show weak evidence of long‑term benefit and potential irreversible harms to young people. She said the Nebraska Board of Health sent a letter of support and urged committee members to advance the bill.
The hearing became a wide‑ranging contest of evidence, expertise and personal testimony. Supporters of the bill — including parents, some clinicians, and advocacy groups — described long‑term physical risks they associated with medical transition care for minors and argued lawmaking is needed to protect children. Proponents pointed to international actions and systematic reviews, and claimed current practice risks permanent physiological changes.
Opponents included the Nebraska Medical Association, the Nebraska Nurses Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association and national medical organizations represented by local clinicians. Dr. Elizabeth Constance, a board member of the Nebraska Medical Association, told the committee the NMA opposes LB 7 32 because it would "replace the expertise of medical professionals and the intuition of parents with a government mandate," and said existing clinical pathways are intended to be cautious and individualized.
Many physicians and therapists who addressed the committee urged lawmakers to preserve clinician‑patient decision making and to recognize the existing statutory safeguards in Nebraska, including the 40 hours of required mental‑health counseling in place under the 2023 Let Them Grow Act. "Under Nebraska's current system, care for minors is governed through professional licensure, ethical standards, informed consent, parental involvement, and regulatory oversight," testified Dr. Ashley Clark of the Nebraska Psychological Association.
Parents and young people gave strongly personal testimony on both sides. Several parents said their children suffered long‑term harm after medicalized transition; others said gender‑affirming care was life‑saving for their children. A number of transgender young people described being at risk for self‑harm when denied treatment and asked lawmakers to leave medical decisions to families and clinicians. "I am a transgender woman. I am only 15," one testifier said as she described the mental‑health harm she attributed to prior restrictions.
Committee members pressed witnesses on studies, methodology, and implementation details. Questions centered on the evidence base for benefits and harms, how telehealth is used in prescribing, the statutory 20‑year window for attorney‑general civil enforcement included in the bill, and the practical effects of exceptions (for example, for precocious puberty, congenital defects or injury) that appear in the draft text.
No formal vote was taken at the hearing. Committee members will decide whether to advance the bill to debate, amend it, or take other action. The committee did not set a date for further action during the session.
What lawmakers heard: support for LB 7 32 emphasized the experimental nature of treatments for minors and potential irreversible harms; opposition stressed professional guidance, individualized care, family autonomy and the risks of forcing treated patients off medications. Several medical organizations and clinicians cautioned that abruptly removing care for patients already in treatment could cause physical and mental‑health harms.
The committee record includes lengthy oral testimony and a large number of written positions filed online. The hearing concluded with the bill’s sponsor reiterating her call for a vote and committee members thanking the many Nebraskans who traveled to speak.
The Health and Human Services Committee did not vote on LB 7 32 at the Feb. 2 hearing; members may hold additional hearings or take the bill up for amendment or committee action at a later date.
