HELENA — Last legislative session, Montana lawmakers passed a law – currently held up in court – that prohibits gender-affirming procedures for transgender youth. On Monday, the state Senate endorsed a bill that would define providing those procedures to children under the age of 16 as criminal child endangerment.
Senators gave initial approval to Senate Bill 164, sponsored by Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, on a 30-20 vote. If the bill becomes law, someone convicted of providing or procuring surgeries or hormone treatment to alter the perceived gender of a child under 16 could face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The maximum sentence would be up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine if a judge or jury determined there was “serious bodily injury.”
Supporters of SB 164 said Monday that it was needed to protect children from procedures that could have long-term health consequences.
“I wouldn't want to wish that on anybody, let alone children,” said Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton. “I believe it is our obligation to protect Montana's children from these circumstances.”
Opponents of the bill said it was overreaching and could lead to parents and health care providers facing charges.
“It's one thing to think that supporting a child's transition is the wrong choice; we can all have our opinions, that is fine,” said Sen. Cora Neumann, D-Bozeman. “However, protecting freedom means that parents who love their children and want to help them have their freedom to choose.”
“They're just trying to get help for their children,” said Sen. Wendy McKamey, R-Great Falls. “And if they cannot trust the help, if they cannot find the help, if they think that they're going to be penalized by trying to find this help, they're not going to seek the help.”
Opponents also argued studies have shown withholding gender-affirming procedures from transgender youth could put them at a higher risk of suicide. Those in favor of the bill argued the data is not clear on whether that is the case.
Fuller also sponsored SB 99, the 2023 bill currently facing a challenge to its constitutionality. Regardless of that case, he said he believed SB 164 would ultimately be upheld.
“I would offer to you that the state does have a compelling interest, a very compelling interest,” he said.
All but two Republicans voted for SB 164, while all Democrats voted against it.
