The bill creates a new federal crime for anyone who knowingly performs or attempts to perform a gender‑related medical treatment on a person under 18, subject to several commerce‑based jurisdictional hooks. It also defines a long list of surgical procedures, hormone therapies, and puberty‑suppressing drugs as ‘‘gender‑related medical treatment.’n
Separately, the bill bars federal payment or participation for those services: it amends Medicare coverage and enrollment rules and prohibits the obligating or spending of any federal funds (including trust funds) for gender‑related medical treatment for minors or for health coverage that includes such treatment. The net effect would be to remove federal finance and programmatic access for these services while exposing providers to potential criminal liability under federal law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new §116A to Title 18 that criminalizes providing a specified set of surgeries, hormones, or puberty blockers to minors, tied to interstate commerce or other federal jurisdictional predicates. It amends the Social Security Act to exclude those services from Medicare coverage and to terminate or bar Medicare enrollment for providers who furnish them. It also forbids obligation or expenditure of any federal funds or trust funds for gender‑related medical treatment for minors or for coverage that includes such care.
Who It Affects
Pediatric and adolescent clinicians (endocrinologists, surgeons), hospitals and clinics that treat gender‑diverse minors, Medicare‑enrolled providers, federal health programs that finance pediatric care, and families seeking gender‑related care for children. Advocacy groups and state regulators would also see new federal enforcement hooks.
Why It Matters
This bill combines criminal law, federal reimbursement rules, and a sweeping funding ban to attack a category of medical care—so it reaches beyond simple coverage policy into provider licensure and criminal enforcement. For health systems and compliance teams, it creates exposure on three separate fronts: criminal liability, loss of Medicare participation, and loss of federal funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill builds three enforcement levers around a single policy objective: make certain gender‑related medical interventions for under‑18s unlawful, cut federal financing for those interventions, and remove Medicare program access for providers who perform them. The core criminal provision (§116A) is written as a general prohibition with a list of defined procedures and drugs; however, it is conditioned on the statute reaching the conduct through ordinary commerce‑related predicates (travel in interstate commerce, use of interstate channels, payments or communications across state lines, interstate use of items or instruments, or effect on interstate commerce).
That is how the bill attempts to place what would otherwise be state‑regulated medical practice into federal criminal jurisdiction.
The bill’s definitional section is unusually detailed. It enumerates dozens of specific surgical procedures (for both people described as female and male), lists exogenous sex steroids (testosterone, estrogen) and various puberty blockers (GnRH agonists and other synthetic suppressants) as covered treatments, and supplies working definitions of ‘‘female,’’ ‘‘male,’’ ‘‘sex,’’ and ‘‘gender’’ that equate gender with biological sex while explicitly excluding ‘‘gender identity’’ and related terms.
The criminal text carves a narrow set of exceptions for classical disorders of sex development (DSDs) and for minors who seek or received the treatment (the minor is not criminally liable); it also exempts treatment to address infection, injury, disease, or a disorder caused or worsened by earlier gender‑related treatment.On the financing side, the bill amends Medicare’s coverage statute to add those treatments for minors to the list of non‑covered services and adds a new Medicare‑participation sanction that requires termination of enrollment and bars re‑enrollment for providers who furnish the disallowed treatments (the Medicare changes take effect 90 days after enactment). Finally, the bill states a broad prohibition: no federal funds or trust funds may be obligated or expended for gender‑related medical treatment for minors or for health benefit coverage that includes such treatment.
That last sentence reaches well beyond Medicare and would affect any federal program or fund with statutory authority to pay for or subsidize health benefits.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new federal offense in §116A makes knowingly performing or attempting to perform gender‑related medical treatment on a minor punishable by a fine, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.
The criminal statute is actionable only where a federal nexus exists — for example, interstate travel, use of interstate channels (including communications or payments), interstate shipment of items used in the procedure, or conduct that otherwise affects interstate commerce.
The bill’s definition of ‘‘gender‑related medical treatment’’ is explicit and long: it lists dozens of surgical procedures (e.g.
vaginectomy, phalloplasty, orchiectomy, vaginoplasty), exogenous estrogen or testosterone, and puberty blockers (including GnRH agonists and other synthetic suppressants).
Medicare changes: beginning 90 days after enactment the bill adds these treatments for minors to Medicare’s non‑covered items and requires termination and bar of enrollment for providers who furnish them (regardless of whether the patient is a Medicare enrollee).
Section 4 imposes a blanket ban on obligating or expending any federal funds or trust funds for gender‑related medical treatment for minors or for health benefits that include such treatments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a federal crime for providing gender‑related treatments to minors
This provision is the nucleus of the bill: it criminalizes knowingly performing or attempting to perform ‘‘gender‑related medical treatment’’ on anyone under 18, with a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment. The statute does not assert universal federal jurisdiction; instead it lists multiple commerce‑style circumstances (travel, use of interstate facilities, payments, communications, interstate items, territorial jurisdiction) that will give federal courts subject‑matter jurisdiction. Practically, that means DOJ would prosecute only cases with a federal connection rather than ordinary in‑state medical practice absent cross‑border nexus.
Narrow clinical exceptions and non‑criminalization of minors
The statutory exceptions permit treatment when medically indicated for specified disorders of sex development and ‘‘irresolvably ambiguous’’ biological sex characteristics, and for treatment necessary to address infection, injury, disease, or disorders caused or worsened by prior gender‑related treatment. The bill also makes clear that a minor who seeks or receives such treatment is not criminally liable. Those exceptions are narrowly drawn and tethered to diagnostic criteria and genetic/biochemical testing in the DSD carve‑outs.
Medicare coverage exclusion and provider‑enrollment penalties
The bill inserts a new non‑coverage paragraph into §1862(a) and appends a new §1866(l) requiring the Secretary of HHS to terminate enrollment and bar re‑enrollment of any provider or supplier who furnishes the prohibited treatments to minors (except under the listed exceptions). These changes become effective 90 days after enactment. The enrollment bar is written broadly — it applies regardless of whether the care was provided to a Medicare beneficiary — meaning the bill uses Medicare program rules to impose a nationwide administrative penalty on providers.
Broad prohibition on federal funding and coverage
Section 4 forbids obligation or expenditure of any federal funds, and any funds in any trust fund established by federal law, for gender‑related medical treatment for minors or for health benefits coverage that includes such treatment. The language is program‑agnostic: it does not limit the prohibition to Medicare, so any federal program (including grants, contracts, Medicaid if read broadly, federal employee benefits, or other trust‑funded programs) could be affected depending on agency implementation and legal challenges.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Advocacy groups and individuals opposed to gender‑affirming medical interventions for minors — the bill gives them federal criminal and funding tools to restrict access and to press enforcement across state lines.
- Insurers and payers that exclude gender‑related treatments from pediatric coverage — the funding prohibition strengthens their position by aligning federal policy with exclusionary coverage choices.
- Providers who treat only classical disorders of sex development (DSDs) or those who do not offer gender‑related interventions — they face less competition and fewer reimbursement disputes for DSD care because the bill preserves defined medical exceptions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Pediatric endocrinologists, surgeons, and multidisciplinary clinics that provide gender‑affirming care to minors — they face criminal exposure (where federal nexus exists), loss of Medicare enrollment, and potentially the loss of federal grant funding or participation in federal programs.
- Hospitals and health systems that employ affected providers — they risk losing Medicare billing privileges and may incur compliance costs, operational disruption, and patient access issues if clinicians are forced to stop offering the care.
- Families and minors seeking gender‑related medical treatment — they would likely see reduced access, increased out‑of‑pocket costs, or need to travel out of state or out of country for care not covered by federal programs.
- Federal and state health programs and agencies — implementing, defending, and enforcing the funding ban and Medicare enrollment penalties will create administrative burdens and potential legal exposure, particularly where federal rules intersect with state Medicaid programs or ERISA‑regulated plans.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward but hard to resolve: the bill seeks to protect minors from certain medical interventions by harnessing criminal law and federal financing, but doing so intrudes on medical decision‑making, parental authority, and long‑established state control over medical licensure and practice; it also risks denying clinically appropriate care for a small set of intersex conditions and creating broad, chilling effects on pediatric care delivery.
The bill raises multiple implementation and legal puzzles. First, the federal criminal hook is built on commerce‑based predicates rather than a freestanding federal police power; that means DOJ must identify interstate travel, use of interstate channels, communications, payments, or items in every prosecution.
In practice many adolescent referrals, telemedicine contacts, prescription shipments, or insurer payments cross state lines, which could broaden federal reach, but the need to establish a nexus will shape enforcement patterns and may produce uneven application across jurisdictions.
Second, the statutory definitions are medically specific yet conceptually contested. The list‑style definition of covered treatments and the bill’s statutory redefinition of ‘‘gender’’ as a synonym for ‘‘sex’’ and its explicit exclusion of ‘‘gender identity’’ will create interpretive fights over borderline procedures, off‑label drug use, and multidisciplinary care protocols.
The DSD exceptions, though present, rely on diagnosis through genetic or biochemical testing and narrowly enumerated presentations; clinicians who treat complex cases that fall outside those boxes may face uncertainty and a chilling effect. Finally, the funding prohibition is sweeping: it reaches ‘‘any funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law’’ and trust funds, which could ensnare a wide range of federal programs.
How agencies interpret that language — particularly with respect to Medicaid (a joint federal‑state program), federal employee benefits, and grants to states or safety‑net providers — will be contested and likely litigated.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.