Republican legislators in Kansas attempted to override Democratic governor Laura Kelly’s veto of a proposed ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, but fell two votes short of the required two-thirds majority in the state House. The bill also included a provision prohibiting state employees from promoting social transitioning for transgender youth. While the Senate had voted to override the veto, the House vote was expected to be close due to concerns raised by LGBTQ+ rights advocates about the broad application of the promoting social transitioning provision.
The proposed ban in Kansas is part of a broader trend of Republican lawmakers across the U.S. pushing to roll back transgender rights. It would make Kansas the 25th state to restrict or ban gender-affirming care for minors. Critics argue that such bans send a message that transgender residents are not welcome and could harm the state’s business climate. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups raised concerns that the provision against promoting social transitioning violates free speech rights and makes the Kansas law more sweeping than similar laws in other states. The bill also mandates revocation of medical licenses for doctors who violate the ban and prohibits gender-affirming care from being provided on state property or by recipients of state tax dollars.
Supporters of the bill argue that they are protecting children struggling with their gender identities from potentially harmful and experimental health care practices. They point to a recent decision by the National Health Service of England to stop covering puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in minors due to insufficient evidence on long-term effects and efficacy. Kansas Senate Health Committee Chair Beverly Gossage claimed that supporters of the bill are on the right side of history, while emphasizing the misgivings that many constituents have about medical treatments for children struggling with their gender identities. The bill would also prohibit Kansas’ Medicaid program from covering gender-affirming care for poor and disabled residents.
Opponents of the ban, including LGBTQ+ rights groups, parents of transgender children, and medical providers, argue that gender-affirming care is life-saving and reduces severe depression and suicidal tendencies among transgender youth. They assert that the bill’s provisions are overly broad and could discourage empathy and support for transgender students in public schools. Democratic Minority Leader Dinah Sykes spoke out against the bill in support of transgender residents, urging her colleagues to show grace and kindness. Republican state Rep. John Eplee, a family physician, stated that the bill’s language is intended to prevent state employees from promoting the use of different pronouns and pursuing gender change.
State lawmakers’ efforts to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors have sparked controversy and legal challenges across the U.S. Last year, Kansas enacted laws to bar transgender girls and women from female sports teams and restrict legal recognition of gender identities. As the debate over transgender rights continues, advocacy groups, medical organizations, and lawmakers are at odds over the best approach to providing care and support for transgender youth. The broader implications of these policies on society, the economy, and individual well-being are central to the ongoing discussion about transgender rights in Kansas and beyond.
