H.R.2387 - No Harm Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.2387, the "No Harm Act," seeks to prohibit the use of federal funds for sex-trait altering treatments for minors. It also aims to prevent federal agencies from taking regulatory actions that promote such treatments. The bill amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to include sex-trait altering treatments under the definition of female genital mutilation.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would significantly restrict access to gender-affirming care for minors by limiting funding and creating legal liabilities. Medical institutions providing such treatments could lose federal funding. States could face penalties for policies supporting these treatments without parental consent.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially protects children from irreversible medical procedures, according to proponents.
- Reinforces parental rights in making medical decisions for their children.
- May reduce the financial burden on taxpayers by preventing federal funds from being used for these treatments.
- Could prevent potential long-term health complications associated with sex-trait altering treatments.
- Supports healthcare providers' right to conscience by allowing them to decline to participate in such treatments.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Restricts access to medical care for transgender and gender non-conforming youth.
- May lead to increased mental health issues and suicide rates among affected youth due to lack of access to care.
- Could create legal challenges and discrimination against transgender individuals and their families.
- Hinders medical innovation and research in the field of gender-affirming care.
- May disproportionately affect low-income families who rely on federal funding for healthcare.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. Supporters might argue it aligns with the Tenth Amendment, reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states and the people, allowing states to regulate medical procedures. Opponents could argue it infringes upon individual rights to privacy and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The civil action provisions could raise questions about standing and the separation of powers.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).