Tennessee Senate Bill SB1989

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Engrossed: 3/12/26
• Enrolled: 4/15/26
• Passed: 4/27/26
• Chaptered: 5/5/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36, Chapter 6; Title 37, Chapter 1 and Title 39, Chapter 15, relative to children.

Summary

SB1989 amends Tennessee law to protect a parent’s or legal guardian’s decisions to raise, guide, and instruct a child in a manner consistent with the child’s biological sex. The bill specifically states that actions such as using titles or pronouns consistent with biological sex, consenting to lawful medical or mental health services to support living consistent with biological sex, or declining services for the purpose of gender transition may not be used as the basis for findings of abuse, severe abuse, dependency and neglect, custody removal, shelter care, termination of parental rights, or other child welfare interventions under Title 37. The bill also provides that a child’s disagreement with a parent’s or guardian’s sex-based upbringing or related medical or mental health decisions cannot, by itself, be treated as unruly behavior or used to support certain juvenile court dispositions. In addition, it amends the child abuse statutes in Title 39 to clarify that such parenting decisions do not, on their own, constitute a violation of those provisions. Finally, in custody cases, courts are directed not to treat a parent’s intent to raise a child consistent with biological sex as a negative factor in determining the child’s best interest, while preserving the court’s ability to consider other relevant custody factors. The bill’s impact is to narrow how child welfare agencies and courts may respond to disputes involving a child’s gender identity, pronouns, and related medical or mental health care. It affects statutes governing abuse and neglect, unruly children, custody determinations, and child protection proceedings, and it limits the use of these sex-based parenting choices as grounds for state intervention. The measure does not legalize conduct otherwise prohibited by law and expressly preserves existing prohibitions on abuse and neglect. The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is supportive among lawmakers who advanced it, as shown by strong committee and floor votes in both chambers. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 7-1, then cleared the Senate floor 27-6, and later passed the House 78-16 before becoming law. The vote margins suggest substantial support, though not unanimity, indicating the issue remained politically and socially divisive. The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of gender identity-related parenting decisions and whether those decisions should be insulated from child welfare, juvenile court, and custody consequences. Supporters appear to view the bill as protecting parental rights and limiting state interference, while opponents likely object to the bill’s effect on transgender or gender-nonconforming children and the discretion of courts and child welfare officials. The bill’s language centers on the phrase “biological sex,” making it a focal point for debate over parental authority, child welfare standards, and gender-affirming care.

Impact

SB1989 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 36, 37, and 39 to bar certain child welfare, juvenile court, and custody actions from being based solely on a parent’s or guardian’s decision to raise a child consistent with the child’s biological sex. It limits findings of abuse, dependency and neglect, unruly-child determinations, custody removals, and related proceedings when the conduct at issue involves pronouns, titles, or medical and mental health decisions tied to biological sex, while preserving other bases for intervention under existing law.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been generally favored by a majority of legislators, as reflected in its committee approval and comfortable passage in both chambers. The vote totals indicate meaningful support but also a notable minority of opposition, suggesting the measure was controversial even as it advanced successfully. No committee transcript was provided, but the voting pattern points to a politically charged issue with clear partisan or ideological divisions.

Contention

The central controversy is whether the state should shield parents from child welfare or custody consequences when they reject gender transition-related care or use sex-based pronouns and titles. Supporters likely framed the bill as a parental rights and child protection measure, while critics likely viewed it as restricting protections for transgender youth and limiting professional and judicial discretion in abuse, neglect, and custody cases. The bill also raises concern about how broadly “biological sex” will be applied in family law and child welfare settings.