House GOP advances Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobic bill banning gender-affirming care for trans youth
In another attack on transgender youth and their families, House Republicans on Tuesday advanced a bill that would make it a federal crime to provide gender-affirming health care to minors, targeting doctors, parents, and providers with prison time for following medically recognized standards of care.
Keep up with the latest in + news and politics.
The bill, H.R. 3492, known as the 'Protect Children's Innocence Act,' was introduced by far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and backed by more than 40 Republican lawmakers. It passed the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote and now heads to the full House of Representatives. If enacted, the bill would criminalize puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries, which are already rare for transgender people under 18, even when supported by families and recommended by their doctors.
Related: Trump signs executive order banning federal support of gender-affirming care for anyone under 19
'This is just another attempt by extremist Republican politicians to further their anti-transgender agenda,' said gay California U.S. Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus. 'It is outrageous that House Judiciary Committee Republicans just voted to advance a bill that would throw parents and doctors in jail for providing medically necessary care to young trans people.'
The bill labels gender-affirming medical care as 'genital mutilation' and 'chemical castration,' while excluding gender dysphoria from the definition of legitimate health conditions. Yet the legislation carves out specific exemptions for surgeries on intersex infants, many of which are non-consensual and medically unnecessary — a practice widely condemned by human rights groups.
David Stacy, vice president of government affairs at the Human Rights Campaign, said the bill is not about protecting children but about weaponizing transgender people to score political points.
Related: Utah Republicans ignore study supporting gender-affirming care for trans youth. It's research they demanded
'Deeply personal health care decisions belong between families and their doctors, not politicians,' Stacy told The Advocate in a statement. 'No one should need Marjorie Taylor Greene's permission to get the best practice, medically necessary care that their family needs. This bill is not about public health—it's about emboldening discrimination and using the transgender community as a weapon to divide the country and try to obscure failings of the Trump administration and their enablers in Congress.'
Under the bill's sweeping provisions, even helping a trans teenager cross state lines or access telehealth services for care could result in a decade-long prison sentence. The law would not apply to cisgender youth seeking similar interventions, such as breast reduction, puberty suppression for precocious puberty, or other medically approved procedures.
Related: What to expect in this week's landmark gender-affirming care U.S. Supreme Court case
The legislation arrives at a volatile moment for transgender rights. In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning gender-affirming care for young people, but federal courts have intervened and put that order on hold. However, as soon as Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, a case challenging Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Advocates warn that a ruling upholding the law could create a legal precedent for sweeping national restrictions on trans health care, effectively turning cases like Greene's bill from political stunts into enforceable federal doctrine.
Legal scholars and public health experts have warned that such a ruling would be devastating. Writing in The Advocate, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health professor Harry Barbee called U.S. v. Skrmetti a 'public health disaster' that could codify discrimination and strip life-saving care from some of the country's most vulnerable youth. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other institutions shows that gender-affirming care significantly reduces rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among trans adolescents.
Related: Doctors warn of 'terrifying' effects as Trump creates snitch line to report gender-affirming care patients
Medical organizations representing over 1.3 million doctors, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Endocrine Society, continue to endorse gender-affirming care as evidence-based and medically necessary. They have denounced efforts like Greene's bill as politically motivated and dangerous.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom
SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary. Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond. 'We honor their service. We honor their bravery,' Newsom said of the troops. 'But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … . 'California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' I'm not sure the 'democracy is under assault' message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch. Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom's. You've practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California's governor. Newsom's strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid. No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump's red-state supporters love every swipe at this 'left coast' state. Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks. He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it's the correct version by objective accounts. On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents 'jumped out of an unmarked van' near a Home Depot parking lot and 'began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos' exercised their constitutional right to protest. Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied. Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops 'illegally and for no reason,' the governor asserted. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.' Newsom warned: 'That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.' And hundreds have been arrested. But he emphasized: 'This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that's not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.' In Trump's twisted view, if he hadn't sent in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.' Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,' the president promised. Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: 'He's lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.' It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson's manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened. But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he'll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power. He'll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He'll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it's physically impossible to deliver it. While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him. Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted. By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%. Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can't afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump's anti-immigrant demagoguery. In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state's multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink. Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown. 'Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,' he said in a statement Sunday. 'These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.' Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can't be tolerated. And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can't be tolerated either.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mat-Su mayor files to run as a Republican for Alaska governor
Jun. 12—Edna DeVries, mayor of the Mat-Su Borough, announced on Thursday that she is running as a Republican to be Alaska's next governor. DeVries, 83, has been mayor of the Mat-Su since 2021. She moved to Palmer in 1969 and was mayor of the city for over five years. She served two years as a state senator in the 1980s. In a Thursday interview, DeVries said there are many issues facing Alaska and that she wants to focus on "listening to people, transparency in government and limited government." DeVries, a conservative, said that she feels "very strongly" about election integrity and touted a 2022 ban on voting machines in the Mat-Su borough. She said that she supports following a statutory Permanent Fund dividend, and said Alaska needs to "rein in spending" to address its fiscal challenges. "We need to live within our means. And I don't see the state doing that right now," she said. DeVries said that she is a supporter of school choice. She was critical of a substantial education funding boost approved by the Legislature this year. She said that "we need to have some accountability." DeVries on Thursday filed a letter of intent with the Division of Elections to run as governor next year. That is the first step in launching a campaign, allowing the candidate to raise and spend money. DeVries said filing that letter is "sort of a testing of the waters." "Let's see what the response is out there, and get out and talk to the people to see if they see the same needs in our state as I do," she added. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, is in the penultimate year of his second term. The Alaska Constitution forbids governors from holding office for a third consecutive term. Three other Republicans have filed letters of intent to run for governor in the November 2026 election: Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, former Fairbanks Sen. Click Bishop, and business owner Bernadette Wilson.
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'
WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed skepticism Thursday about the constitutionality of President Trump's order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots. Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer heard arguments from attorneys for Trump's Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited,' Breyer, the younger brother of liberal former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said at one point in the hearing. Advertisement 3 AP 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division, disputed Breyer's characterization of the president's order throughout the hour-long hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had 'delegated' the federalizing of the Guard through California's adjutant general, as legally required. Advertisement Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a 'conduit' for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard. 'There's no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,' he argued. 'There's one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.' The California attorney general's office countered that allowing Trump's action to stand implied there would be 'no guardrails' for further abuse by the executive branch. 3 Clashes have erupted in LA over the last several days sparked by ICE raids. Barbara Davidson/NYPost Advertisement 3 A demonstrator points his finger towards members of the California National Guard during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS 'The president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it,' an attorney for Newsom said, 'whenever there is disobedience to an order.' While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump's order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown. 'I don't understand how I'm supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,' the judge responded, quibbling with Newsom's legal team over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Advertisement Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out 'very soon.' This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.
