PROHIBIT SEX-REASSIGN-UNDER 18
HB3819 would amend Illinois law to prohibit “sex-reassignment procedures” for patients under 18 years of age. For patients 18 and older, the bill requires voluntary, informed, written consent on forms adopted by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, and it specifies that the physician must personally provide certain disclosures before the procedure is performed. The bill also limits who may administer these procedures to physicians.
The bill defines “sex-reassignment procedures” broadly, while carving out exceptions for certain medically verifiable disorders of sexual development, treatment of complications caused by prior sex-reassignment procedures, and procedures needed to prevent imminent death or major bodily impairment. It also directs the Department to adopt rules, including emergency rules, to implement the new requirements.
HB3819 would create a new Section 67 in the Medical Practice Act of 1987 and tie compliance to professional discipline. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation would be required to revoke the license of any physician who willfully or actively violates the under-18 prohibition. The bill also amends the Hospital Licensing Act and the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act so that violations of the new section can support fines, denial, suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of facility licenses.
In practical terms, the bill would add a new layer of state regulation over gender-affirming care, affecting physicians, hospitals, and ambulatory surgical treatment centers. It would also expand the state’s enforcement authority by linking the new restrictions to licensing consequences and emergency rulemaking, making the policy effective quickly if enacted.
The bill’s caption and text indicate a strongly restrictive approach, and the available context shows no recorded committee discussion or votes. Based on the bill language alone, the likely point of contention is the prohibition on care for minors and the mandatory license revocation and facility penalties, which would be viewed as significant by supporters of access to gender-affirming care and as necessary protections by supporters of the bill.
HB3819 would add a new statutory prohibition in the Medical Practice Act of 1987 against sex-reassignment procedures for anyone under 18, and would require written informed consent procedures for adults. It would also authorize emergency rulemaking by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and the Department of Public Health. Related amendments to the Hospital Licensing Act and Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act would make violations of the new section grounds for fines and for denial, suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of facility licenses, while the Medical Practice Act would require revocation of a physician’s license for willful or active violations involving minors.
There is no committee transcript or vote record provided, so no direct legislative debate can be measured from the available context. The bill’s caption, structure, and enforcement provisions suggest it was introduced from a strongly restrictive policy position on gender-affirming care for minors. The absence of recorded support or opposition in the supplied materials means sentiment can only be inferred from the bill text itself, which indicates a highly polarized subject likely to draw strong reactions on both sides.
The main point of contention is the bill’s categorical ban on sex-reassignment procedures for patients under 18, which would directly affect access to gender-affirming medical care for minors. A second major issue is the severity of enforcement: physicians who violate the ban would face mandatory license revocation, and hospitals and ambulatory surgical treatment centers could face fines or licensure actions. Supporters would likely frame the bill as a child-protection and informed-consent measure, while opponents would likely argue it interferes with medical judgment, patient care, and access to treatment for transgender and gender-diverse youth. The bill’s broad definition of prohibited procedures and its limited exceptions would also likely be contested.