HB2387, titled the “No Harm Act,” would prohibit the use of federal funds for what the bill defines as “sex-trait altering treatment” for minors. The bill’s definition is broad and includes puberty blockers, gender transition hormone therapy, and gender-affirming surgeries, while carving out exceptions for certain disorders of sex development, emergency care, treatment of complications caused by prior procedures, and mental health or social services that are not themselves sex-trait altering treatments. It also bars federal funds from being used to promote such treatments through regulatory or subregulatory action.
The bill goes beyond funding restrictions and creates multiple private rights of action. It would allow taxpayers, minors, parents, health care providers, and others to sue the federal government, states, and providers in federal court for alleged violations, with remedies including damages, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and treble damages in some cases. It also adds a new interpretation to the federal female genital mutilation statute, stating that “necessary to the health of the person” does not include change of gender or sex, or affirmation of gender or sex. Additional provisions would deny federal funds to medical institutions and schools that provide or facilitate these treatments to minors without parental consent, and would protect health care providers who refuse to participate in or arrange such care.
If enacted, the bill would significantly affect federal spending conditions tied to health care, education, Medicaid, and TANF-related funding streams by restricting support for institutions, states, schools, and agencies involved in gender-affirming care for minors. It would also amend federal criminal law by narrowing the health exception in the female genital mutilation statute as applied to gender-related care, and it would create new federal civil liability exposure for providers and government entities. The bill would likely affect hospitals, clinics, schools, insurers, state agencies, and health professionals, while also expanding parental consent requirements and provider conscience protections in this area.
The bill’s title and structure indicate strong support from sponsors for restricting gender-affirming care for minors and emphasizing parental control and provider conscience rights. No committee transcript or vote data is available in the provided record, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to summarize beyond the bill text itself. Based on the text, the measure is framed as a child-protection and informed-consent bill by supporters, while its design suggests it is intended to sharply limit access to gender-related medical care for minors.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad definition of prohibited “sex-trait altering treatment,” its use of federal funding cutoffs to pressure states, schools, and medical institutions, and its creation of private lawsuits against providers and government entities. Opponents would likely object that the bill restricts medically accepted care for transgender minors, interferes with clinical judgment, and could expose providers and institutions to litigation. Supporters would likely emphasize parental consent, informed consent, and conscience protections, as well as the bill’s exceptions for disorders of sex development and emergency or non-transition-related care.