S.851 - Guaranteeing Unalienable and Anatomical Rights for Dependents Act; GUARD Act (119th Congress)
Summary
S.851, the GUARD Act, seeks to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. It aims to disqualify states from receiving funding under the Act if they discriminate against parents or guardians who oppose certain medical or social treatments for minors related to gender identity. This bill focuses on cases where the minor's claimed gender identity is inconsistent with their biological sex as determined at birth.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the GUARD Act could lead to states altering their policies regarding parental rights in cases of gender-affirming care for minors. States might face the choice of either complying with the Act's provisions to retain federal funding or maintaining their current policies and potentially losing funding. This could also lead to legal challenges and varying standards of care across different states.
Potential Benefits
- Reinforces parental rights and authority in medical decisions for their children.
- Could prevent irreversible medical procedures on minors before they are old enough to make informed decisions.
- May protect children from potential long-term psychological or physical harm associated with gender-affirming treatments, according to some perspectives.
- Addresses concerns about potential coercion or undue influence in gender identity-related decisions.
- Provides a legal avenue for parents to challenge state actions they believe are discriminatory.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could limit access to gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-nonconforming minors, potentially harming their mental health.
- May increase discrimination and stigmatization of transgender individuals.
- Could create conflicts between parents, children, and medical professionals regarding appropriate care.
- May lead to legal challenges and uncertainty regarding the scope and interpretation of the Act.
- Could negatively impact states' abilities to provide comprehensive healthcare services to all children.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. Proponents may argue it aligns with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law, asserting that parents have a right to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children. Opponents might argue that the bill infringes upon the rights of transgender individuals and potentially violates the equal protection clause by discriminating based on gender identity. The bill's impact on federalism, particularly the balance of power between the federal government and the states in matters of healthcare and child welfare, could also be questioned under the Tenth Amendment.
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).