House Bill 502, titled the Gender-Affirming Rights Act, would repeal North Carolina’s existing statutory prohibition on gender transition procedures for minors and repeal the related ban on the expenditure of state funds for those procedures. In place of the repealed provisions, the bill creates a new Article in Chapter 90 establishing a state policy recognizing a fundamental right for individuals to make autonomous decisions about their gender and related gender-affirming health care.
The bill defines gender-affirming care broadly as services or products prescribed or provided by a health care professional to support and affirm a person’s gender identity, including treatment for gender dysphoria. It also defines health care professional and LGBTQ for purposes of the new article. The bill further states that local governments may not regulate these rights more restrictively than the state framework set out in the article.
If enacted, HB502 would remove current state-law restrictions on gender transition procedures for minors and on the use of state funds for those procedures by repealing Article 1N of Chapter 90 and G.S. 143C-6-5.5. It would also add new statutory protections for gender-affirming care, limit local government authority to impose stricter rules, and require licensed health care professionals to complete continuing education or professional development on cultural competency or specialized clinical training focused on LGBTQ patients. The bill would affect health care providers, minors seeking gender-affirming care, state and local governments, and potentially insurers or public programs indirectly through the removal of funding restrictions.
The bill’s text reflects strong support for gender-affirming care and LGBTQ rights, framing access to such care as a fundamental right and emphasizing nondiscriminatory treatment. However, the available legislative history shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s pro-expansion policy approach. Its referral to the House Rules Committee suggests it remained in the early stages of the legislative process.
The central point of contention is the repeal of the existing prohibition on gender transition procedures for minors and the removal of the ban on state spending for those procedures, which would likely draw opposition from lawmakers or advocates who support those restrictions. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s requirement that health care professionals receive LGBTQ-focused training and its limitation on local governments’ ability to adopt stricter rules. Supporters would view these provisions as necessary protections for patient autonomy and access to care, while opponents may see them as an expansion of controversial medical and policy mandates.