Overview
Title
To prohibit Federal funds from being used for sex-trait altering treatments for minors, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 2387 is a rule that wants to stop places like hospitals from using money from the government to give kids certain treatments that can change their bodies, unless their parents say it's okay. It also gives parents and doctors the right to say no to these treatments if they don't think it's a good idea.
Summary AI
H.R. 2387, titled the “No Harm Act,” seeks to prohibit the use of federal funds for sex-trait altering treatments for minors. It disallows funding for medical institutions that provide such treatments and schools that support these treatments without parental consent. The bill ensures parents have the right to decline these treatments for their children and requires informed consent before any procedure. Additionally, it offers protections for healthcare providers who choose not to participate in these treatments and allows civil actions for violations related to the outlined provisions.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as H.R. 2387 or the "No Harm Act," is designed to prohibit the use of federal funds for certain medical treatments related to altering sex traits in minors. The bill encompasses a range of measures that aim to restrict financial assistance to any entity or institution involved in providing or endorsing such treatments without parental consent. It further allows individuals, including taxpayers, to bring civil lawsuits against the government or relevant agencies that violate these restrictions. The bill also introduces definitions for terms related to gender transition and specifies exceptional cases where these rules do not apply.
Summary of Significant Issues
A notable concern surrounding the bill is its broad and potentially ambiguous definition of what constitutes "sex-trait altering treatments." The lack of specific detail could result in inconsistent interpretations and enforcement across different regions and institutions. Additionally, the bill grants wide-ranging rights for individuals to file lawsuits against the government, which might spur a surge in legal cases, thereby adding to the judicial workload and potentially increasing governmental legal expenses.
Another critical issue is the bill's occasional statement that federal funding prohibitions apply "notwithstanding any other provision of law." This could create legal conflicts with existing laws that protect or endorse certain treatments, leading to complexities in how these prohibitions are applied. Sections that redefine legal and medical standards regarding gender-affirming care might also inspire significant debate over civil rights, medical ethics, and the interpretation of gender identity.
The extended time frame for bringing claims — up to 30 years after a minor becomes an adult — might lead to long-term uncertainties and financial liabilities for healthcare providers and institutions. Lastly, the requirements for parental consent may prove challenging in situations where parents are unavailable or disagree, further complicating minors' access to timely medical care.
Impact on the Public
Broad Impacts:
The bill could significantly influence the landscape of healthcare services provided to minors, particularly in how gender-affirming treatments are funded and administered. By barring federal financial support for specific treatments, the bill might restrict access to healthcare institutions that depend on such funding. Additionally, the legislative focus on parental consent underscores the importance of family involvement in minors' medical decisions but might overlook instances where such consent is impractical or detrimental to the child's health.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders:
Healthcare Providers: Providers might experience heightened legal exposure due to the extensive timelines allowed for litigation. The mandates for informed consent and the possibility of triple damages in cases of malpractice claims could deter providers from offering or even discussing gender-related treatments, potentially hindering these conversations in clinical settings.
Educational Institutions: Schools, particularly those benefiting from federal aid, may face funding challenges if they fail to comply with the bill's regulations on obtaining parental consent before facilitating related treatments for students.
Parents and Minors: While granting parents significant authority over their children's medical treatments might align with many families' values, it could also impede necessary medical interventions for minors, particularly in cases where parents are not supportive of gender-affirming healthcare.
State Governments: State governments that have policies in place that contradict the bill may face the loss of specific federal funds, impacting their ability to provide a range of services to their residents.
In conclusion, the "No Harm Act" represents an effort to control federal spending on particular medical treatments for minors, emphasizing parental involvement while raising concerns about interpretation, enforcement, and the potential for increased litigation and financial repercussions for healthcare providers and state infrastructures.
Issues
The term 'sex-trait altering treatment' is not clearly defined within the bill, leading to potential ambiguity in interpretation and enforcement across multiple sections, including Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. This could result in varied applications of the law and conflicts with existing legal and medical standards.
The bill allows any person, including taxpayers, to bring civil actions for violations of prohibitions on federal funding of sex-trait altering treatments for minors, as stated in Secs. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. This broad provision for civil action could lead to numerous lawsuits, increased legal costs, and administrative burdens on the courts.
The prohibition on federal funding 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' in Secs. 2, 3, and 5 could conflict with existing laws and regulations, creating legal uncertainty and challenges for enforcement, especially regarding existing protective measures or approved treatments.
The bill introduces broad prohibitions on medical institutions and schools from providing or supporting sex-trait altering treatments to minors, potentially impacting necessary medical care and raising ethical concerns about medical autonomy and patient rights, especially in Secs. 5 and 10.
Sections 4 and 5 potentially redefine legal and medical standards relating to gender-affirming care, which could lead to significant debates over civil rights and the interpretation of gender identity within legal and healthcare frameworks.
The provision that allows for unlimited claims up to 30 years after a minor reaches the age of majority, as provided in Secs. 6, 7, and 8, introduces long-term legal uncertainties and unpredictable liabilities for healthcare providers and institutions.
The requirement for parental consent without clear guidelines for situations where parents are absent or disagree, as seen in Secs. 6, 7, and 10, might complicate medical decision-making and could place minors at risk if immediate treatment is necessary.
The bill's potential financial implications for state and federal governments as well as healthcare providers are significant, due to the potential loss of federal funding outlined in Secs. 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10, and the legal costs associated with civil actions.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section specifies that the official title of the act is the “No Harm Act”.
2. Prohibition on use of Federal funds for certain treatments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section prohibits the use of federal funds for any treatments that alter the sexual characteristics of a minor. Additionally, it allows any person to file a lawsuit if these funds are used in violation of this rule, seeking damages or other legal relief against the government or involved agencies.
3. Prohibition on use of Federal funds for certain actions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section forbids using federal funds for any regulatory actions promoting sex-trait altering treatments to minors. It also allows individuals, including taxpayers, to sue the U.S. government or its agencies if this rule is violated, seeking damages or other legal remedies in a U.S. district court.
4. Female genital mutilation to include provision of sex-trait altering treatment to minors Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends Section 116 of title 18 of the United States Code to specify that procedures related to changing or affirming one's gender or sex do not qualify as "necessary to the health of the person" for legal purposes, when it comes to providing sex-trait altering treatment to minors.
5. Prohibition on funding certain institutions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that no federal money can be given to any medical institution, such as hospitals or clinics, if they provide treatments that change a minor's sex traits.
6. Right to decline treatments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Parents have the right to refuse treatments that change their child's sex traits, and states risk losing certain federal funds if they allow treatments without both parents' consent or separate children from parents for refusing consent. Additionally, parents or minors can sue for damages if this section is violated, up to 30 years after the child becomes an adult.
7. Requirement to receive informed consent Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Under this section, healthcare providers are prohibited from giving any treatment that changes a minor's sex traits unless they meet certain requirements, including discussing the treatment and its potential side effects with the minor's parents and obtaining their written consent. Additionally, if these rules are not followed, the minor or their parents can sue the healthcare provider within 30 years after the minor becomes an adult.
8. Medical malpractice liability Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, an individual can file a lawsuit in a U.S. district court for harm caused by sex-trait altering treatments performed when they were a minor. If they win the case, they may receive attorney's fees, court costs, and triple the damages, and they have up to 30 years after reaching adulthood to do so.
9. Right of conscience for health care providers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes that health care providers cannot be punished for choosing not to engage in or support treatments that alter sex traits, and it restricts federal funds from states that mandate such treatments. Additionally, it allows health care providers to seek legal relief if they suffer harm from violations of their rights under this section.
10. Prohibition on Federal funds for providing sex-trait altering treatment to students without parental consent Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
No federal funds can be given to schools that provide sex-trait altering treatment to students unless the school informs the student's parents and gets their written approval. This includes teachers, school leaders, and other school staff involved in providing or supporting the treatment.
11. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text provides definitions related to medical and surgical treatments for gender transition, including terms like "sex-trait altering treatment," "gender reassignment surgery," and "puberty blocking drugs." It also clarifies exceptions for certain medical services and defines key terms such as "gender," "sex," and "minor."