Enacting the help not harm act, restricting use of state funds to promote gender transitioning, prohibiting healthcare providers from providing gender transition care to children whose gender identity is inconsistent with the child's sex, authorizing a civil cause of action against healthcare providers for providing such treatments, requiring professional discipline against a healthcare provider who performs such treatment, prohibiting professional liability insurance from covering damages for healthcare providers that provide gender transition treatment to children and adding violation of the act to the definition of unprofessional conduct for physicians.
SB 63 enacts the “Help Not Harm Act,” a measure focused on minors and gender-related healthcare. The bill prohibits healthcare providers from performing or prescribing specified gender transition treatments for children when the child’s perceived gender or sex is inconsistent with the child’s sex, including certain surgeries, cross-sex hormones, and puberty blockers. It also bars state funds, Medicaid coverage, and state facilities or employees from being used to provide, promote, or subsidize those treatments or related advocacy for children.
The bill creates a broad enforcement structure. It authorizes private civil lawsuits by affected children and their parents, imposes strict liability for covered violations, allows recovery of damages and attorney fees, and requires professional discipline, including revocation of a provider’s license for violations. It also excludes liability insurance coverage for damages arising from prohibited treatment and amends Kansas physician discipline law to classify violations as unprofessional conduct.
SB 63 would significantly alter Kansas law governing pediatric gender-affirming care by prohibiting specified medical interventions for minors and tying violations to licensing consequences, civil liability, and insurance exclusions. It also restricts the use of state resources, including public funds, state medical assistance programs, and state property or employees, in connection with such care. The bill amends K.S.A. 65-2837 to add violation of the act to the definition of unprofessional conduct for physicians and repeals the existing section, thereby integrating the new restrictions into the state’s professional discipline framework.
The voting history shows strong partisan and ideological division, but ultimately enough support for enactment. The Senate passed the bill on emergency final action by a 32-8 vote, the House rejected multiple proposed amendments by wide margins, and the House then passed the bill 83-35. Both chambers later voted to override a veto, indicating sustained legislative support despite opposition. The pattern suggests the bill was backed by a clear majority while remaining highly controversial.
The central point of contention is the bill’s prohibition on gender transition-related medical care for minors, especially puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and certain surgeries. Opponents appear to have sought amendments in the House, but those amendments were repeatedly rejected, suggesting disagreement over the scope, exceptions, or enforcement of the bill. The bill’s strict liability standard, mandatory license revocation, private right of action, and restrictions on state-funded healthcare and public facilities are also likely to have been contentious because they create strong penalties and limit provider discretion. Supporters framed the measure as child protection, while opponents likely viewed it as an intrusion into medical decision-making and access to care.