A bill to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors received nearly three hours of testimony Monday in its designated House committee, the first major action on the legislation since it passed out of the Senate in early February.
Senate Bill 99 — part of a national wave of bills seeking to curb transgender health care and, more broadly, LGBTQ expression and public accommodations — would prohibit health care providers in Montana from providing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to anyone under age 18. The bill also bans a list of surgical procedures, such as mastectomies, which medical experts have testified are rarely or never practiced on teens in Montana.
Other parts of SB 99, sponsored by Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, prohibit public funds such as Medicaid from directly or indirectly paying for the list of banned medical procedures. The bill also generally bars state employees and facilities from “knowingly” providing gender-affirming medical care or being used to “promote or advocate the use of social transitioning,” such as using pronouns or clothing that affirms a minor’s gender identity.
Proponents and opponents clashed during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, echoing arguments presented to the Senate in January. Opponents, who outnumbered proponents in both hearings, blasted the bill as unconstitutional, discriminatory, and an infringement on medical choice and parental rights. Supporters of SB 99, including national conservative policy groups supporting similar bills in other states, generally decried gender-affirming medical care for minors, with some going as far as to equate the interventions to child abuse.
During his introductory statements on Monday, Fuller presented the bill as a means of safeguarding vulnerable children from making medical choices and succumbing to social influences beyond their complete comprehension.
Fuller argued that health professionals, bound by their oath to avoid causing harm, should not be allowed to modify a child’s physical appearance without their full consent. Such actions were deemed morally wrong and unacceptable. Fuller further emphasized that the state of Montana bears the responsibility and authority to safeguard children from such practices, urging the passage of necessary measures.
Instead of depicting it as a sudden change, transgender teenagers, parents, and medical experts emphasize a gradual process that involves several stages. This includes social transitioning, using puberty blockers to temporarily delay the onset of puberty, and potentially undergoing hormone therapies to address long-standing gender dysphoria.
Dr. Kathryn Lowe, a pediatrician from Bozeman representing the state chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, explained that determining the most suitable medical options for each adolescent is a usually lengthy and gradual process. This involves numerous professional evaluations that can span across months or even years. Additionally, it is important to note that the prescription of these medications requires the consent of both parents.
During the committee session, a different member from the pediatrician group provided lawmakers with a compilation of 20 state medical organizations and hospitals that stand in opposition to the bill. The list includes prominent entities like the Montana Medical Association, the Montana Psychological Association, and the Montana Association of Pediatric Psychiatrists.
My right to health care and essential medical care is going to be taken away by this bill.
Bozeman resident Phoebe Cross, 15
Several of the approximately 40 opponents, who have personal experience with gender-affirming care, voiced their frustration and anger towards lawmakers for contemplating a bill that could potentially disrupt the essential medical support their families depend on.
Fifteen-year-old Phoebe Cross, hailing from Bozeman, expressed that they belong to the demographic SB 99 aims to support. They shared their challenging experience with profound depression during their puberty, but with the assistance of testosterone, they have managed to find solace and even rediscover the ability to smile when facing their reflection in the mirror.
According to Cross, this bill will deprive me of my right to access health care and crucial medical treatment. He expressed his frustration, stating that he has consulted numerous medical professionals in order to undergo testosterone therapy. He emphasized that he has received approval from multiple therapists, specialists in gender-affirming care, and general physicians, all of whom strongly support his decision to pursue testosterone therapy, as it has had a life-saving impact on him.
During the committee hearing, parents of transgender children addressed the Republican majority committee, highlighting common concerns. Several parents shared their experiences of diligently researching and consulting multiple medical experts when their children expressed gender nonconformity or dysphoria. They also emphasized the disparity that would arise if the bill were to pass into law, as cisgender children would still have access to procedures like breast reductions or enhancements, while these options would be prohibited for transgender minors.
Minors who struggle with decision-making should not be subjected to this particular surgical procedure forced upon them.
Helena resident Ruth Rater
Jessica Vangarderen Weingarten, a mother from Belgrade with a transgender daughter, expressed her disappointment at the discomfort some people have in accepting transgender individuals. She argued that by voting for the bill, they would be making it more difficult for transgender people to exist. She also emphasized that the bill would strip away the only treatment that has brought any relief to her daughter, and she found it hard to believe that there were no alternative options being offered.
Around 30 supporters, consisting of Montana parents and grandparents, stood behind Fuller, expressing their concerns and anger regarding the accessibility of gender-affirming treatments for minors, irrespective of parental consent.
Ruth Rater, a resident of Helena, expressed her concerns about minors undergoing surgical procedures, stating that her daughter had trouble making simple decisions like choosing her sandwich fillings or deciding what to wear to school when she was growing up. Rater requested that people take into consideration the fact that if individuals cannot watch R-rated movies until they are 17, they should not be subjected to this type of surgical procedure when they struggle with decision-making regarding their identity.
Democratic lawmakers on the committee, including Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, repeatedly objected when proponents testified that transgender minors were being “mutilated” by gender-affirming care. Zephyr said the procedures some proponents talked about where services she herself had obtained. Committee chair Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, said the objections were noted but did not prohibit the use of the phrase in testimony, saying opponents were expressing their opinions.
Lawmakers may decide to amend SB 99 to weed out some of the controversial provisions. Rep. Casey Knudsen, R-Malta, drafted two such changes that he told Montana Free Press on Monday are aimed at clarifying how the law would impact medical providers who accept public insurance and create a smaller window for when patients can sue over alleged harm.
The bill was not debated or voted on by the committee following the hearing. Regier mentioned that a decision could potentially be reached this week, depending on any additional amendments that committee members may be contemplating.
SK Rossi, a lobbyist representing the Human Rights Campaign, expressed their lack of surprise if SB 99 successfully passed the committee and reached Gov. Greg Gianforte’s desk. They viewed this as another significant milestone in the ongoing struggle of the LGBTQ community to promote civil rights.
Rossi expressed confidence in their eventual victory, stating that the continuous focus on transgender individuals and their bodies, as well as the requirement to discuss personal matters in public settings, will only expose the harshness of these bills and procedures. As a result, public opinion will increasingly align with their cause. Rossi firmly believes that the bill is unconstitutional and will be challenged legally. They argue that the bill’s fundamental principle of unequal treatment towards transgender individuals cannot be rectified.
