Today, both the Senate Committee on Public Health & Welfare and the House Committee on Health & Human Services held hearings on SB 63 and HB 2071. Both bills will be voted on tomorrow.

What are SB 63 & HB 2071?

They are essentially the same bill. Both seek to ban access to gender-affirming care for minors. Additionally, they would prohibit state-run buildings and employees from “promoting” medical or social transitioning — including using different pronouns or names or changing gender presentation.

Although the bills claim to respect First Amendment rights, there is potential for significant government overreach to target thousands of service providers that work with children and teenagers across Kansas.

The Main Takeaways

• A bill revisor in the House Committee mentioned that there were over 400 pieces of testimony. That’s amazing! It seems likely that the majority of the testimonies are in opposition to HB 2071. And that is only HB 2071 — we did not hear how many pieces of testimony were submitted to the Senate Committee.
• The oral testimonies in favor of these bills featured the same cast for the most part. Nearly all of those who testified in favor of the bills were not from Kansas. A large number of them are directly tied to well-established anti-trans organizations, including an appearance from a director at the Heritage Foundation.
• Most of the opposition testimony was from cis people. We saw all kinds of professionals show up — doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, and therapists. There were also two mothers of trans children: one whose son is still on hormones, and one whose son unfortunately died by suicide before he was able to start any kind of medical transition.
• The House Democrats did a solid job with the line of questioning! Shout-outs to Representatives McDonald, Meyer, Oropeza, and Wikle for asking poignant questions about the reality of accessing gender-affirming care as a minor and pointing out the ways in which this bill blatantly discriminates against trans people.
• Common themes: Much of the pro-testimony revolved heavily around ableist ideas. More specifically, they were fixated on the idea of autistic girls “being transed,” as if autistic people cannot have autonomy over their bodies and identities. Relatedly, they referred to HRT as “drugs” repeatedly and framed usage of HRT as if it was a substance use disorder. At one point, the director from the Heritage Foundation referred to gender-affirming surgery as “amputations.” We should question why the anti-trans side is fixated on using various disabilities to convey a sense of disgust and moral revulsion to the bodies of trans people.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, the House and Senate Committees will both vote on these bills.

To be completely honest: despite how well we all did with submitting testimony, the chances that the committees will pass at least one of the bills on is incredibly high. That means that the bills will move onto the next chamber. So, HB 2071 would then be voted on by the House while SB 63 would be voted on by the Senate.

But this is not the end. What we just learned from these hearings is that there are quite literally hundreds of Kansans — most of whom are cis — who oppose this legislation and the ways that it impacts their careers. Now is the time for us to start reaching out to various professional organizations and talking to our representatives. We need them to know now to Vote No.

What Can I Do?

• Find your local organization that serves teachers, psychologists, teachers, social workers, nurses, doctors, and so on and encourage them to take a public stance against this bill. Even if the bill becomes law, these public statements can help reassure people of which professionals are safe to be around.
• If the Committees vote the bills through, then start reaching out to your legislators! You need to make contact sooner rather than later.
• Making contact can include going in person too! If you go in person, you must remain calm and civil. However, it is far harder to ignore people who are physically present as opposed to an email, letter, or voicemail.
• If you are a professional that is impacted by this bill, start planning now what you will do if it becomes a law. Include as many coworkers as you can.

How Can I Be More Convincing?

Unfortunately, a lot of the arguments that move us don’t move everyone. While I encourage sharing your story however you feel makes the most sense, using different tactics can increase the number of people that listen to you. Here are some ideas:

• Kansas will lose workers. During the HB 2071 testimony, a teacher and a provider both mentioned in their testimonies that their colleagues have indicated that bills like this will cause them to leave the state. Kansas is already in a teacher shortage crisis. Furthermore, losing health care providers and teachers does nothing to help support Kansas youth.
• This bill will cause poorer academic outcomes. Two different teachers explained how stress that comes from discriminatory legislation like this results in worse school performance and students dropping out altogether. Poorer academic outcomes leads to even more negative socioeconomic outcomes.
• This bill is an overreach of government power. We know that Kansas is opposed to the government dictating what we can and can’t do with our bodies — that’s why we overwhelmingly voted to protection abortion as a right. Bills like this override the expertise of doctors and decisions that are reaffirmed by parents.
• The litigation that will follow this bill will be a financial and bureaucratic nightmare. As the ACLU of Kansas pointed out, there will inevitably be lawsuits. Depending on federal rulings, these lawsuits could be repetitive or unnecessary — and yet Kansas will have to foot the bill.
• Kansans overwhelmingly reject this bill. Look at the testimony on both sides. The majority of proponents are non-Kansans who are paid to testified at hearings like this. The majority of opponents — who vastly outnumbered the proponents — are Kansans who took time off of work and paid for their own gas money to testify.

How does Trump’s newest Executive Order impact this?

As I was writing this, Trump released a new Executive Order banning federal funding of gender-affirming care for minors. While we do not know all the details yet, my initial understanding is that this does not necessarily ban it altogether. Additionally, I anticipate a lawsuit in the very, very near future. Thus, these bills — SB 63 and HB 2071 — are still relevant and still bills we can fight against.