Health professionals and advocates rallied on Capitol Hill to oppose two House bills—HR 498 and HR 3492—that would restrict gender‑affirming care for minors. One bill, introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, would criminalise parents and providers and has passed the House; the other, from Rep. Dan Crenshaw, would strip Medicaid coverage for transgender youth. Clinicians warn the measures would increase suffering and suicide risk and urge laws be shaped with medical expertise.
Health Workers Warn House Bills Banning Gender‑Affirming Care For Children ‘Will Hurt People’
Supporters of gender-affirming care in Emeryville, California, on 8 December 2025.Photograph: Jessica Christian/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
Nicholas Mitchell paused, inhaled, and reached for a congressional office door, uncertain how staffers would react. This time, a Democratic policy aide gave him five minutes. Mitchell used the time to press the case against two newly announced measures—HR 498 and HR 3492—that would sharply restrict gender‑affirming care for minors.
Both bills were scheduled for a House vote. One, introduced by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene as one of her final acts before leaving the House, would make providing gender‑affirming care to people under 18 a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. That bill passed the House 216–211, with three Democrats joining Republicans. It is widely viewed as unlikely to pass the Senate.
The companion measure, introduced by Representative Dan Crenshaw, would eliminate Medicaid coverage for gender‑affirming care for minors. Under the proposed law, transgender children on Medicaid could lose access to puberty blockers, hormone therapies and, in rare cases, surgical interventions—while cisgender children’s care would remain unaffected.
Clinicians Say The Bills Will Harm Young Patients
Mitchell, a psychiatrist, and Odile Saint‑Flour, a nurse who uses they/them pronouns, joined a small group from the grassroots organisation Bulletproof Pride to canvas lawmakers after the bills were announced. Both argued the measures would cause real harm.
“They would be causing a lot of needless suffering,” Mitchell told a congressional aide. “We’ve seen repeatedly that good, open access to gender‑affirming care has been extremely effective in lowering the rates of suicide amongst trans youth.”
Saint‑Flour, who works with inpatient and outpatient psychiatric patients, highlighted the disproportionate mental‑health burden borne by trans people. “Trans people make up a very small percentage of the population, but they’re very over‑represented in psychiatry because the suicide rate is incredibly high,” they said. “Society telling people they shouldn’t exist has a profound effect on the whole community.”
Recent data cited by advocates underscore those concerns: a Trevor Project survey found that in 2024 about 46% of transgender and nonbinary young people seriously considered suicide, and roughly 12% attempted suicide—rates substantially higher than those reported by the broader student population.
Why Providers Fear Broader Ripple Effects
Mitchell also recalled leaving Texas after restrictive abortion laws created legal uncertainty across clinical practice. Hospital lawyers and providers interpreted new rules conservatively, limiting care for pregnancy complications and related conditions. He warned that even narrowly framed bans on gender‑affirming care can produce similarly wide and damaging ripple effects.
“Even if these things are practised in their most narrow way, it will still be hurting people,” Mitchell said. “That suffering by itself is reason to not pass these bills.”
Experts stress that gender‑affirming care is a broad category. For most young patients it consists primarily of supportive practices—using chosen names and pronouns, providing mental‑health care, and, when clinically indicated, considering puberty blockers or hormones in consultation with specialists. Surgical interventions for adolescents are rare.
On the Capitol steps, Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender member of Congress, criticised the timing and priorities of lawmakers. She said Republicans were inserting government into private medical decisions while leaving urgent health‑policy issues—such as expiring Affordable Care Act premium tax credits—unaddressed.
“Government should never insert itself into the personal healthcare decisions of patients, parents and providers,” McBride said. “That is a basic right that should be afforded to all Americans, including transgender people and their families.”
Mitchell, Saint‑Flour and other clinicians urged that laws affecting medical care be drafted with input from patients, clinicians and medical experts to avoid unintended harm and protect vulnerable young people.
