LANSING, Mich. – A new package of bills seeking to ban gender-affirming medical treatments for minors has been introduced in both chambers of the Michigan Legislature, drawing fierce criticism from civil rights advocates and LGBTQ+ supporters while receiving strong backing from conservative lawmakers and medical skeptics.
The proposed legislation—House Bills 4466 and 4467, and Senate Bills 289 and 290—was introduced by State Sen. Thomas Albert (R-18) and State Rep. Brad Paquette (R-37). If passed, the bills would prohibit physicians and healthcare providers from administering or recommending treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or gender-confirming surgeries to individuals under the age of 18. In addition, the bills would allow patients to file lawsuits against their doctors up to 20 years after receiving such treatment as minors, a provision that could lead to loss of medical licenses.
Supporters of the bills argue that minors are not developmentally equipped to make irreversible decisions about their bodies and claim that gender-affirming care can have lasting harmful effects. At a press conference in Lansing, Jamie Reed, a former case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center, shared her concerns based on her experience in the field.
“It is critical that legislative bodies step in to protect children in this state from these dangerous and reckless practices,” Reed said. “I was complicit in harming patients because the protocol itself harms patients. There is no safe or legal way to sterilize the child, and there is no safe way to medically disrupt the function of the endocrine system.”
Opposition to the legislation has been swift and vocal. Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan’s LGBTQ+ Project, denounced the bills as “cruel, callous, dangerous, and discriminatory.”
“We are going to oppose it with every fiber of our being,” Kaplan said. “Do your job and quit bullying transgender youth – they are some of our most marginalized and vulnerable populations.”
Critics of the legislation, including parents of transgender youth, argue that gender-affirming care is essential for their children’s mental health and safety. Tess Miller, a member of the St. Johns Call–In Coalition and mother of a transgender son, said the bills have already had a chilling effect on access to care.
“When my son came out as trans in 2020, I realized that no matter how comfortable I was making him feel in the world, if he wasn’t comfortable on the inside, then there was a chance he might not be able to live a healthy, productive life,” Miller said. “This care is necessary.”
State Rep. Emily Dievendorf (D), a vocal opponent of the bill package, criticized it as being rooted in ideology rather than science.
“This package represents more attacks on our kids that ignore science and facts, go against best practices for medical care, and aim to dehumanize our most vulnerable neighbors,” Dievendorf said in a statement. “This package is going nowhere fast and exists solely to defend hate and bigotry. Let’s make hate abhorrent again.”
As the debate intensifies, activists warn that legislation targeting transgender youth not only undermines medical consensus but also distracts lawmakers from more pressing economic issues facing Michigan residents.
“What are you doing to solve the real problems for the residents in the state of Michigan?” Kaplan said. “Trans youth make up less than half a percent, maybe 1% at most of Michigan’s population. This is not policy—it’s scapegoating.”
The bills are expected to face significant challenges in the Democratic-controlled legislature, but their introduction has already stirred a contentious public discourse that is unlikely to fade anytime soon.
Would you like a summary or bullet-point version of the article as well?
