The Idaho House of Representatives voted in February to ban gender-affirming medical procedures for minors.
House Bill 71, entitled the Vulnerable Child Protective Act, passed with 58 representatives in favor and 12 opposed, largely a party-line vote. The bill amends actions which qualify as felonies under the child genital mutilation definition in State Code 18-1506. If passed, authorizing or performing medical interventions including genital-altering surgeries, hormone treatments and puberty-delaying medications would be classified as a felony.
HB71 was drafted by Blaine Conzatti, president of the Idaho Family Policy Center.
“We believe the medical community should operate by the Hippocratic oath to do no harm and unfortunately these procedures do irreparable harm to children,” said Conzatti.
The official IFPC position is that medical interventions for gender dysphoria are never medically necessary. The IFPC is a conservative Christian group focused on Idaho policy.
Conzatti wanted Idahoans to know that HB71 was drafted 3 and a half years ago in partnership with a working group of medical professionals who believe that hormone treatments are just as dangerous for minors as surgical procedures.
An exemption in the state code exists if the medical interventions are deemed necessary for the patient’s health. The bill clarifies that care aimed at affirming a child’s perception of their sex is not necessary to their health.
“As a parent, I wouldn’t want people telling me what I could allow my children to access for their best mental health and their physical health. And I think a lot of parents feel that,” said Julia Keleher, Director of the University of Idaho’s LGBTQA Office.
HB71 also includes an exemption for the treatment of those with ambiguous sex characteristics or abnormal sexual development. Surgical alteration of a child with intersex presentation would still be legal if passed.
Additionally, the bill communicates the findings of the legislature regarding treatment for gender dysphoria to clarify the intent of the legislation. The bill provides information about the impacts of care on gender dysphoria and suicidal ideation and says that studies show medical interventions do not improve mental health of gender diverse patients.
The bill also states that no long-term studies or clinical trials exist which evaluate the safety of medical treatments.
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, however, says differently. WPATH recommends that any gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers or hormonal treatments, be administered only after patients are assessed on biopsychosocial well-being and after patients and their families are informed on the benefits and risk factors associated with any medical interventions.
WPATH does not recommend any medical intervention for prepubescent children. The earliest recommended medical intervention is the use of puberty-delaying medications for children who have reached Tanner Stage II of puberty, which generally begins at age 11 to 12.
HB71 criticizes WPATH for removing age recommendations for surgical procedures despite risk to children. While there is no age recommendation, WPATH does recommend patients undergo at least one year of hormone therapy prior to surgical procedures. WPATH acknowledges a lack of empirical knowledge on the long-term outcomes of medical interventions for children who receive gender-affirming care.
“Trans healthcare is life-saving,” says Tallysin McDougall, a freshman at UI and a member of the Gender and Sexuality Alliance.
McDougall is worried that banning these procedures for minors often used to improve gender dysphoria sets a dangerous precedent which could lead to a ban on gender-affirming care for adults. He also fears that the passage of HB71 is “going to put a lot of kids in danger of suicide.”
“It’s not solving a problem that exists. It’s just creating more fear and contributing to the general oppression of LGBTQ people in the U.S.” says Ashley Keeley, another UI student and GSA member. She is concerned about additional stigma and oppression of transgender people that could result from the bill.
This bill is similar to House Bill 675 from the 2022 legislative session, which also passed the House but was held in the Senate State Affairs committee and did not come to a floor vote. HB71 is also part of a collection of bills addressing LGBTQ rights this session.
HB71 was referred to the Senate State Affairs Committee on Feb. 15. It has not yet received a committee hearing.
Katie Hettinga can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @katie_hettinga