WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5440

Allowing healthcare workers to refuse to perform procedures related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning for religious or conscientious objection

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jonathan Pinson

Allows healthcare workers to refuse to perform gender-affirming procedures for religious or conscientious reasons, with possible referrals.

To House Health and Human Resources
#health
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5440

Summary of HB 5440 (2026, West Virginia)

Title

Allowing healthcare workers to refuse to perform procedures related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning for religious or conscientious objection

Purpose and intent

  • The bill authorizes healthcare workers (including physicians, nurses, and other licensed or permitted personnel) to decline to perform procedures related to gender-affirming care or sex reassignment for religious or conscientious reasons.
  • The primary aim is to protect the conscience rights of healthcare workers who object to providing gender identity–related medical services.

Key provisions and changes

  • Authorization of Refusal: Healthcare workers may refuse to participate in procedures connected to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning on the basis of religious beliefs or conscientious objection.
  • Scope of Protected Actions: The bill covers activities directly involved in performing such procedures. It may also pertain to related stages or components of care, depending on how the final language defines “perform” or “related to.”
  • Notice and Referrals: The bill likely requires or allows a mechanism for notifying patients and, where feasible, providing referrals to other providers who can deliver the requested care. (Note: The exact language on mandated referrals is not provided in the text excerpt.)
  • Non-Discrimination: Provisions may outline that protected refusals cannot be used to discriminate on other bases (e.g., race, sex, disability) or to justify professional discipline for otherwise lawful acts. The precise balance with patient access protections would be specified in the bill’s text.
  • Professional Standards: The bill would not alter existing licensing requirements or professional standards for providing care to all patients; rather, it creates a conscience-based opt-out for providing specific procedures.

Who would be affected

  • Healthcare workers who object to providing gender-affirming procedures on religious or conscientious grounds.
  • Healthcare facilities and practices employing such workers.
  • Patients seeking gender-affirming care who may encounter providers who refuse to perform related procedures.
  • Medical staff involved in referrals or coordination of care for patients seeking gender-affirming services.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and Assignment: Filed on February 11, 2026; referred to Health and Human Resources and then Judiciary committees, with House considerations.
  • Sponsorship: Primary sponsor (House) and a co-sponsor listed as Jonathan Pinson.
  • Legislative path: As a House bill, it would need passage by the House, then potential consideration by the Senate, and ultimately receive the Governor’s signature or veto override. Any specified effective date or transition provisions would be stated in the final bill text.

Practical considerations and potential impacts

  • Access to Care: The bill could affect patient access to gender-affirming services in settings where a significant share of providers opt out. Provisions on referrals will influence how quickly and smoothly patients can obtain care elsewhere.
  • Provider Protection: It strengthens protections for clinicians with moral or religious objections, potentially reducing legal risk for those who decline to provide certain services.
  • Patient Protections: Depending on the final text, there may be requirements to ensure patients are informed about objections and have timely access to alternative providers; failure to refer could raise concerns about access to care.
  • Implementation Details: The effectiveness and impact will hinge on definitions (e.g., what constitutes “performing a procedure related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning”), the scope of allowed refusals, and any obligations on institutions or employers.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to emphasize potential impacts on a specific group (patients, providers, or health systems) or compare it with existing state or federal conscience-protection laws.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.