GOP bill to outlaw puberty blocking meds surfaces roiling undercurrent in Georgia House

Yahoo

19-03-2025

The bill to ban puberty blockers faced skepticism from Democrats on the committee as well as Committee Chair Sharon Cooper, a Marietta Republican. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder
The fate of a Senate bill banning puberty-blocking medications for minors with gender dysphoria is unclear after a rocky House Committee hearing Tuesday.
Savannah Republican Sen. Ben Watson's Senate Bill 30 was not scheduled to get a vote in the House Public and Community Health Committee but the meeting ended early after the bill faced skepticism from Democrats on the committee as well as Committee Chair Sharon Cooper, a Marietta Republican.
The bill would bar doctors from prescribing puberty blockers to children with gender dysphoria, a feeling of distress that comes from one's gender identity not matching one's body.
Dr. Michelle Zeanah, a Statesboro-based pediatrician, joined the committee by Zoom to speak in favor of the bill.
'In Georgia, adolescents under the age of 16 are not able to consent to sexual activity,' she said. 'Adolescents under the age of 18 are not able to consent to a tattoo or genital piercing. And most OBGYNs think that young mothers under the age of 25 cannot really give informed consent to having their tubes tied to prevent additional pregnancies. So I really don't think that we should be allowing children and adolescents the opportunity to make a life-altering decision that affects them forever because they don't really understand how to give consent, and they don't understand the decisions that they're making.'
Children are not allowed to seek treatment for gender dysphoria without parental permission.
Zeanah specializes in treating children with autism, which she said is relevant because children with autism are more likely to be transgender.
But the doctor's testimony was met with skepticism from Democrats on the committee, including Columbus Rep. Tremaine 'Teddy' Reese.
'You feel strongly enough that the parents should lose their rights, per state law, with the child they have raised from birth, waking up in the morning when they were two or three months old to give them milk and change their diapers, the person who knows them better than anybody on this committee, anybody in this state, that they should have the right taken away from them to determine how they decide to proceed with their child's life,' Reese said.
'I think that children should be protected from making life-altering decisions that could be very harmful,' answered Zeanah.
'Children should be protected from their parents, that's what you're saying, by strangers that know nothing about what's going on in the household,' Reese said.
Watson, who is also a physician, said the bill cleans up another law passed two years ago that outlawed hormone therapy but specifically kept puberty blockers legal. He said new information has come to light indicating that puberty blockers are harmful, and he said parents have confided in him that they wish their children had never been allowed to start them.
'Because though their children suffered from gender dysphoria, the evidence-based treatment is such that they should receive counseling for quite some time, that unfortunately has not been the case, and that puberty blockers were initiated and transitioning was happening,' he said. 'If puberty blockers had not been initiated, or are not initiated, then you allow a natural process called puberty that we've all been through. And that is a lot of fluctuation of hormones, I think that we all can testify.'
Watson added that his bill would still allow puberty blockers for treatments other than gender dysphoria.
'This does not keep puberty blockers from being used when little girls are starting their menstrual cycle at age 6 or 8 years old,' he said. 'That does happen, and puberty blockers are used. It is also used in other situations, in mental health situations, when you're blocking the estrogen or testosterone, the psychiatrists do that. It doesn't prevent that, but it does prevent it in a mental health issue with gender dysphoria or gender confusion. And that's what this does.'
Johns Creek Democratic Rep. Michelle Au, who is also a physician, said the bill limits doctors' discretion and could bar them from prescribing puberty-blocking medications even for cisgender patients.
Watson pointed to lines in the bill that carve out people 'born with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development' as still being eligible for treatment.
Au said there are conditions that do not fall under that category which are commonly treated with medications that could be deemed hormone-blocking drugs. She gave examples including galactorrhea – lactation not associated with pregnancy or breastfeeding – which can afflict men, women and children, and can be caused by a brain tumor.
Au said she fears the bill could cause doctors to risk running afoul of the law simply by offering standard treatments.
'I generally have a problem with legislation that legislates the practice of medicine, as you sometimes do too, like we've worked together, right? You get this, but that's the situation you're putting doctors in when they're trying to do their job. It makes it hard for us to do our job.'
Cooper called the meeting short because she and other members of the panel were required to attend a House Rules Committee to vote on lawsuit damage award limit legislation, but before leaving, she told Watson she had problems with his bill, including that it would go back on the state's protection of puberty blockers from the bill banning hormone therapy two years ago.
'I have a real problem with anything going retroactive,' she said.' Whether it's changing the tax code, going back and penalizing people like they did in the U.S. Senate years ago, or taking away something, as a state, we said was okay, and let families and children, parents, come together and make a decision. And then we're saying we should take that away when people are in transition.'
Cooper also said she doesn't want the bill to specify that parents who feel their children have been improperly treated could seek a civil or criminal trial against doctors.
Cooper said the unintentional fallout could be comparable to that from the state's abortion law.
'We're having trouble recruiting OBGYNs because of the criminal part of the law,' she said. 'Just regular OBGYNs who just want to deliver healthy babies. Well, when you put something like that in the end that says nothing is to prohibit them being sued criminally or civilly then it scares all of them. And then, will they be too scared to (treat) a child with an early period? Are they going to be scared to use the blockers that they're going to need?'
Cooper suggested Watson appeared peeved at the questioning.
'I get the feeling you're a little upset with us for even questioning, I hope that's not the way it is, it's just that, it's different, we haven't had, and I've been listening to my committee members talk to me about this and what was going to happen, and I'm just trying to give them an opportunity to express how they feel about it, to ask the questions they need to ask, and I hope you'll bear with us, it means some extra time, and perhaps changes that will make the bill better or take care of some of the concerns, or maybe not.'
Before she left the committee, Cooper and Watson could be seen having an animated discussion behind the dais.
Cooper originally said she would reconvene the meeting after the vote on lawsuit reform and allow people to testify. About a dozen people signed up to speak before the meeting.
But when the Rules meeting went late, Cooper returned and officially adjourned the meeting.
'We are not in charge of all the committees that are meeting, and right now Rules rules the roost, and so I think it would just be better if we reconvened at another time,' she said. 'I have no idea when that will be because, as I say, we're at the end of session, and the time is of the essence, and we need to move. But I will be back, thank you very much for coming. I apologize for your travels, and I do intend, and we will have a fair hearing.'
If the bill gets another hearing, it will then need to get a vote and pass the committee. If the committee passes it without changes, it can head to the House for a final vote. If they make modifications, it will need to go back to the Senate in addition to the House. The deadline for either path is April 4.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE