A Republican bill with 8 Republican cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Education and Workforce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "No Harm Act" seeks to prohibit the use of Federal funds for sex-trait altering treatments for minors. It restricts funding for medical institutions that provide these treatments and prevents Federal funds from supporting regulatory actions that promote them. The bill establishes parental rights to decline such treatments and requires specific informed consent processes. It also provides for civil actions regarding violations, medical malpractice liability, and protects the right of conscience for healthcare providers. Additionally, it prohibits Federal funds for schools that provide such treatments without parental notification and consent.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion?
The bill strengthens the right of conscience for healthcare providers to decline specific treatments.
- Scored +5
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill expands federal oversight by prohibiting the use of federal funds for specific medical and educational activities.
The opposite· 3 of 9
- Scored -10
Would LGBTQ people be better off under this?
The bill specifically targets and prohibits the funding of gender-affirming care, a central part of life for many in the LGBTQ community.
- Scored -8
Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people?
The bill targets and restricts gender-affirming treatments, which negatively impacts the rights and healthcare access of the LGBTQ community.
- Scored -5
Would children be better off under this?
The bill restricts access to medical treatments that some children may require for their well-being.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Parental Rights and Control: The bill grants parents the right to decline any sex-trait altering treatment for their minor children (Section 6).
-
Informed Consent Protections: It requires healthcare providers to hold a consultation with parents and provide a printed list of potential side effects, including permanent risks to fertility and sexual function, at least 72 hours before treatment (Section 7).
-
Protection for Providers: Healthcare providers are protected from being penalized or discriminated against if they decline to perform, refer, or participate in sex-trait altering treatments (Section 9).
-
Legal Recourse for Harm: The bill allows individuals to bring civil actions for physical, psychological, or physiological harm caused by these treatments, including the possibility of treble damages and attorney's fees (Section 8).
-
Accountability via Civil Action: It allows various parties, including taxpayers, to bring civil actions against the United States or specific agencies for violations regarding the use of Federal funds (Section 2 and Section 3).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions on Medical Institutions: Medical institutions, including hospitals, clinics, and medical schools, may lose access to Federal funds if they provide sex-trait altering treatments to minors (Section 5).
-
Financial Impacts on States: States may lose specified Federal funds, such as those under title XIX of the Social Security Act, if they have policies providing these treatments without consent from both parents or policies that separate minors from parents based on refusal of treatment (Section 6).
-
Limitations on Regulatory Actions: Federal funds cannot be used for any regulatory or subregulatory action that promotes sex-trait altering treatments to minors (Section 3).
-
Impact on School Funding: Schools may lose Federal funds if they allow personnel to provide or support such treatments without notifying parents and receiving written approval (Section 10).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill specifically targets and prohibits the funding of gender-affirming care, a central part of life for many in the LGBTQ community. Would children be better off under this? — The bill restricts access to medical treatments that some children may require for their well-being. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The bill restricts access to gender-affirming care which affects young adults transitioning. Would students be better off under this? — The bill imposes restrictions on school-based support and parental control that may affect student welfare and autonomy.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion? — The bill strengthens the right of conscience for healthcare providers to decline specific treatments. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The bill targets and restricts gender-affirming treatments, which negatively impacts the rights and healthcare access of the LGBTQ community. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The bill imposes restrictions on medical autonomy and gender-affirming care for minors.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill restricts access to gender-affirming medical treatments through funding prohibitions and required parental consent.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — The bill threatens to withhold federal funds from schools that support certain treatments without parental consent.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal oversight by prohibiting the use of federal funds for specific medical and educational activities. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — While it mandates parental rights, it limits state-level medical policies through the threat of losing federal funds.
- 8/15/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/7/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 3/27/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/26/2025
- Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1283)
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Education and Workforce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Sheri BiggsRepublican · South Carolina
Andrew ClydeRepublican · Georgia
Scott FranklinRepublican · Florida
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
Andy HarrisRepublican · Maryland
Mary MillerRepublican · Illinois
Mark MessmerRepublican · Indiana
W. SteubeRepublican · Florida