A Republican bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act of 2025 establishes a private right of action for individuals who undergo gender-transition procedures while under the age of 18. It holds medical practitioners liable for physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological harms resulting from such procedures or related treatments. Individuals may bring civil actions for damages, relief, or legal costs up to 30 years after they turn 18. The bill also protects a practitioner's right to refuse these procedures based on conscience or medical judgment. Additionally, it denies Federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services to any State that requires practitioners to perform these procedures.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill establishes a specific private right of action for individuals to seek damages for medical harms.
- Scored +4
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill uses federal funding leverage to influence state-level medical requirements.
The opposite· 3 of 9
- Scored -8
Would LGBTQ people be better off under this?
The bill creates significant legal and financial risks for those undergoing gender-transition procedures.
- Scored -7
Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people?
The bill targets gender-transition procedures and creates legal vulnerabilities for those receiving them.
- Scored -5
Would children be better off under this?
The bill targets medical procedures performed on individuals under the age of 18.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Legal Recourse for Harmed Individuals: Under Section 2(a), individuals who undergo gender-transition procedures as minors can hold practitioners liable if they suffer physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological harms.
-
Extended Timeframe for Lawsuits: Section 2(b) allows an individual to bring a civil action for up to 30 years after they reach the age of 18, providing a long window to seek compensatory or punitive damages.
-
Protection of Medical Freedom: Section 3 ensures that no federal law can require a medical practitioner to perform a gender-transition procedure, protecting their medical judgment and freedom of conscience.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial Risk for Medical Practitioners: Section 2(a) and 2(b) create liability for practitioners, allowing individuals to sue for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees due to harms related to gender-transition procedures.
-
Loss of Federal Funding for States: Under Section 4, any State that requires medical practitioners to perform gender-transition procedures on individuals would become ineligible to receive Federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services.
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 creates significant legal and financial risks for those undergoing gender-transition procedures. Would children be better off under this? — The bill targets medical procedures performed on individuals under the age of 18. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The bill creates a long-term legal window for young adults to sue over procedures received as minors. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The threat of losing federal funding may impact state-level social service budgets. Would women be better off under this? — The bill's focus on biological sex may affect healthcare access for certain individuals.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill establishes a specific private right of action for individuals to seek damages for medical harms. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill uses federal funding leverage to influence state-level medical requirements.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — The bill threatens to strip states of Federal HHS funding, which could impact Medicaid allocations. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill creates liability risks that may discourage practitioners from providing gender-transition care.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The bill targets gender-transition procedures and creates legal vulnerabilities for those receiving them.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill increases legal liability and financial risk for medical practitioners through a private right of action.
- 1/23/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jim BanksRepublican · Indiana
Markwayne MullinRepublican · Oklahoma
Tim SheehyRepublican · Montana