What’s the Matter With Kansas: An Action Alert
Anti-GAC for Minors Bill Could Resist a Veto in Early 2025 With Your Help
It’s surprising that Kansas, a state that has blazed a trail in the realm of “sex realism” with laws like SB180, which legally defines gender strictly by biological sex at birth, has not yet passed a ban on “gender-affirming care” (GAC) for minors. This state has aggressively legislated on transgender issues, including bans on changing gender markers on legal documents and restrictions on natal male athletes’ participation in female sports, measures effective from July 2023 that reflect a clear legislative trend toward defining gender and sex in traditional terms. Kansas’ approach extends to its “parental rights” law, which allows parents to opt their children out of lessons or activities involving LGBTQ-themed materials. Despite this comprehensive legislative stance, the absence of a GAC ban for minors is a notable exception, distinguishing Kansas from many other red states where such restrictions are firmly in place or have been passed but are facing legal challenges.
This year, however, marks a potential turning point with the introduction of House Bill 2071 (HB2071) and Senate Bill 63 (SB63) in the 2025-2026 Regular Session, branded as the “Help Not Harm Act.” This bill seeks to change Kansas’ legislative landscape by restricting state funding for gender transitioning, banning healthcare providers from administering GAC to minors, and imposing both civil and professional penalties on those who do.
Governor Laura Kelly’s veto of a similar bill in 2024, which resisted an override by just two votes in the Kansas House, highlighted the state’s intricate political dynamics. Influential moderate Republicans like Rep. Susan Concannon, who did not seek reelection, and Rep. Jesse Borjon, had previously voiced concerns over the bill’s ambiguity, its broad potential impact on mental health services, and the ethics of government intervention in medical decisions. The debate was also colored by misinformation around the impact of GAC on youth suicide rates.
Now, with HB2071/SB63 introduced as a “Committee Bill,” it reflects a more unified push, bolstered by the 2024 election outcomes. Scheduled for a hearing on January 28, 2025, this legislation seeks to explicitly ban puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for minors, while also setting up mechanisms for civil lawsuits, professional discipline, and insurance exclusions for related damages. Whistleblower Jamie Reed’s scheduled testimony will add weight to this legislative effort.
The political climate has evidently shifted, with this bill potentially strong enough to override any veto by Governor Kelly, who has consistently opposed such measures. Its language is more focused, aiming to reassure critics by explicitly not impacting mental health counseling. This legislative effort in Kansas mirrors a broader discourse on how best to support young individuals navigating complex issues of identity, ensuring they receive the protection and care they need. As the Supreme Court considers cases like U.S. v. Skrmetti, which could further define the legal landscape for gender medicine across states, the implications of such state-level actions become even more pivotal, potentially influencing how similar laws are viewed and implemented nationwide.
Call to Action: The passage of HB2071/SB63 could happen in just a few weeks if there’s strong support. From the initial committee hearings on January 28, 2025, through to potential votes in both the Kansas House and Senate, and even accounting for a veto by Governor Kelly which might be overridden swiftly, the whole process could be expedited. You can find the Kansas House Roster here and the Kansas Senate Roster here to voice your support for the protection of minors from irreversible gender procedures. Feel free to use one of our sample letters, or write one of your own. Your active participation is crucial in this pivotal moment.
I strongly encourage the LGBT Courage Coalition to avoid using phrases like “restrictions on transgender athletes’ participation in sports.” This phrase is inaccurate and misleading because it implies that “transgender athletes” are being restricted in a way that no one else is. In order to be accurate when reporting on the sports issue, the sex of the athlete must be noted because the “restriction” isn’t based on transgender status at all, but rather on sex. The argument is that males shouldn’t be in female sports. The debate fundamentally has nothing to do with transgender status.
Thank you for this! I will be happy to send letters. I'm guessing the best way to send is individually to each representative? Rather than a group email?