RELATING TO HEALTH CARE FOR MINORS.
HB2513 would create a new part in chapter 453, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to prohibit healthcare providers from performing or offering certain medical procedures on minors when the purpose is to help the minor identify with or live as a sex different from the one assigned at birth, or to treat distress arising from that discordance. The bill defines covered procedures broadly to include surgeries and the prescribing, administering, or dispensing of puberty blockers or hormones, and it applies both to treatment performed in Hawaii and to treatment provided to a minor located in Hawaii through telehealth.
The bill includes exceptions for treatment of congenital defects, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury, and it allows some ongoing treatment that began before the bill’s effective date to continue only through January 1, 2027, if a physician certifies that stopping would be harmful. It also states that consent by the minor or parent is not a defense, and it overrides common-law rules on minor consent for the prohibited care. The measure further bars distribution of hormones or puberty blockers outside the chapter’s requirements and expressly excludes psychological practice, professional counseling, and social work from its scope.
HB2513 would also create multiple enforcement mechanisms. It authorizes a private right of action for an injured minor or, in some cases, a parent or next of kin, with compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a long limitations period. It also gives the attorney general authority to investigate and sue for injunctions, disgorgement, and civil penalties of $25,000 per violation, and it directs licensing authorities to take emergency action against providers found to have violated the law. The bill would therefore significantly expand state regulation of gender-related medical care for minors and expose providers to civil, administrative, and licensing consequences.
The bill’s stated rationale is that minors are not fully mature, that permanent medical decisions should be based on the best available evidence, and that recent international and U.S. legal developments support restricting gender-affirming care for minors. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of restrictions on such care and frames the measure as a child-protection and public-health response. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether the state should prohibit or sharply limit gender-affirming medical treatment for minors, especially puberty blockers and hormone therapy, and whether the bill’s definitions are too broad or medically contested. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of parental consent, the long civil liability window, and the use of private lawsuits and licensing sanctions to enforce the ban. Supporters would view these provisions as necessary safeguards, while opponents would likely argue they interfere with medical judgment, family decision-making, and access to care for transgender youth.
HB2513 would add a new statutory framework to chapter 453 governing gender-affirming care for minors, effectively banning specified medical procedures and hormone-related treatments when used for gender transition purposes. It would also create new civil causes of action, empower the attorney general to enforce the ban, and require licensing authorities to treat violations as threats to public health, safety, and welfare. In practice, the bill would affect healthcare providers, minors, parents, telehealth providers, and regulatory agencies, while carving out limited exceptions for other medical conditions and certain preexisting treatments.
The bill text reflects a strongly restrictive stance toward gender-affirming care for minors and presents the measure as a protection for children from irreversible medical decisions. Because no committee transcripts or vote records were provided, the broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call data. Based on the bill’s findings and structure, the proposal is clearly framed as pro-restriction and likely to be supported by those favoring limits on pediatric gender-related treatment and opposed by those defending access to such care.
The central controversy is the prohibition on medical procedures, puberty blockers, and hormones for minors when used for gender transition-related purposes. Opponents are likely to object to the bill’s broad definitions of “medical procedure,” “sex,” and excluded diagnoses, as well as its rejection of consent as a defense and its override of common-law minor consent rules. Supporters are likely to emphasize the exceptions for congenital defects, precocious puberty, disease, and ongoing treatment, while critics may argue those exceptions are too narrow and that the private right of action, attorney general enforcement, and licensing sanctions create substantial legal risk for providers.