Enacting the help not harm act, restricting use of state funds to promote gender transitioning, prohibiting healthcare providers from providing gender transition care to children whose gender identity is inconsistent with the child's sex, authorizing a civil cause of action against healthcare providers for providing such treatments, requiring professional discipline against a healthcare provider who performs such treatment, prohibiting professional liability insurance from covering damages for healthcare providers that provide gender transition treatment to children and adding violation of the act to the definition of unprofessional conduct for physicians.

2025-2026 Regular Session

Kansas bans gender-affirming medical care for minors, creates civil liability for providers, mandates license revocation, and bars malpractice insurance coverage for such treatments.

Motion to override veto prevailed; Yea 31, Nay 9

#childrenandminors #civilprocedureandcivilactions #healthprofessionsandpractices #namedacts

Legislative bill overview

SB 63 prohibits healthcare providers in Kansas from offering gender-affirming medical treatments to minors and eliminates state funding for such care. The bill creates civil liability for providers who deliver these treatments, mandates professional discipline including license revocation, and bars malpractice insurance from covering damages related to such care.

Why is this important

This legislation directly affects healthcare access for transgender youth in Kansas and establishes legal consequences for providers offering gender-affirming care. The bill reflects a broader national debate about medical autonomy, parental rights, and the appropriate role of government in healthcare decisions for minors, with significant implications for both medical professionals and families seeking such care.

Potential points of contention

Medical consensus gap: Major medical organizations (AMA, AAP, AACAP) support age-appropriate gender-affirming care as evidence-based treatment, while the bill restricts it entirely, creating conflict between legislative action and professional medical guidance

Liability and insurance implications: Removing malpractice insurance coverage effectively eliminates access to care by making providers uninsurable, which some argue is a backdoor ban rather than regulation

Due process concerns: The bill allows civil suits and professional discipline without establishing clear evidentiary standards for what constitutes violation, raising questions about fairness in enforcement

Interstate complications: Minors may travel to other states for care, and providers face unclear liability for telehealth services delivered across state lines