Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 265.
This bill replaces 18 U.S.C. §116 to create federal crimes for performing genital or bodily mutilation and for "chemical castration" of any person under 18, punishable by fines and up to 10 years imprisonment.
It defines a broad list of covered surgeries and procedures (including many gender‑affirming surgeries and cosmetic procedures) and defines chemical castration to include puberty blockers and supraphysiologic cross‑sex hormones.
Jurisdiction is tied to interstate‑commerce or related predicates; the bill disallows a religious‑practice defense for female genital mutilation and lists narrow medical and intersex exceptions.
High political controversy, major federalism and constitutional questions, and weak compromise features lower enactment chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive criminal-law amendment with strong definitional and mechanistic detail but limited attention to fiscal, intergovernmental, and oversight implications.
Progressives emphasize harm to transgender youth and medical chilling effects
Progressives emphasize harm to transgender youth and medical chilling effects
Likely strongly opposed.
The bill criminalizes common transgender‑affirming medical care for minors and broadly defines prohibited treatments, overriding medical judgment and parental decisions.
It will be seen as harmful to transgender youths and likely to chill providers.
Mixed.
Supports protecting minors from nonmedical, harmful procedures but worries the bill creates blunt federal criminal law over medical practice.
Concerned about vagueness, federalism, and practical enforcement.
Likely broadly supportive.
Views bill as protecting children from irreversible gender‑transition surgeries and hormone treatments, and as closing loopholes allowing harmful procedures.
Sees federal criminal penalties as effective deterrent.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High political controversy, major federalism and constitutional questions, and weak compromise features lower enactment chances.
On Passage
On Motion to Recommit
Progressives emphasize harm to transgender youth and medical chilling effects
High political controversy, major federalism and constitutional questions, and weak compromise features lower enactment chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive criminal-law amendment with strong definitional and mechanistic detail but limited attention to fiscal, intergovernmental, and oversi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.