Yaeli Martinez Child Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 5, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes federal protections for parental rights to affirm a child's biological sex and refuse gender transition interventions, restricts federal funding for child welfare programs that do not align with these principles, and creates new avenues for legal recourse against state actors.
What it actually does
This bill aims to prevent the removal of children from parents who affirm their child's biological sex or refuse "sex-rejecting interventions." It amends federal child welfare laws (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and Social Security Act) to prohibit the use of federal funds for programs that promote such interventions or characterize parental affirmation as abuse. The bill also creates a private right of action for individuals to sue state entities for violations and modifies interstate child custody laws to prevent states from asserting jurisdiction based on a child seeking sex-rejecting interventions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill protects fundamental parental rights, safeguards children from unproven and potentially harmful medical interventions, and prevents the "weaponization" of child welfare systems against families who adhere to traditional views on sex and gender. They assert it ensures federal funds are used for evidence-based practices that support child safety and family preservation, consistent with scientific findings on gender dysphoria resolution.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill infringes on the rights of transgender and gender-diverse youth, potentially endangering them by denying access to medically necessary care and affirming environments. They may contend it could lead to increased rates of mental health crises, including suicide, among these vulnerable children, and that it overrides established child welfare best practices and professional medical guidance. They might also argue it could create legal chaos in interstate custody disputes.
The bill is lengthy and complex, requiring significant time to understand its full implications across multiple federal statutes.
Sec. 101, 104 (amending Sec. 106(b)(2)(B)(vii) and Sec. 111(a) of CAPTA)
Clarification of Child Abuse and Parental Rights in CAPTA
This provision amends the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) to explicitly state that affirming a child's biological sex or refusing "sex-rejecting interventions" does not constitute child abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, maltreatment, abandonment, or parental unfitness. It also requires states receiving CAPTA funds to implement training and procedures reflecting these principles and protecting children from "sex-rejecting interventions" and non-sex-corresponding pronoun use without express parental consent.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision protects children from irreversible medical procedures and ensures parents retain their fundamental right to direct their children's upbringing and medical care, free from state interference based on evolving gender ideologies. They emphasize the bill's alignment with scientific reviews suggesting caution regarding pediatric gender transition.
Critics contend
Opponents would contend that this provision could force child welfare agencies to ignore the needs of gender-diverse youth, potentially leading to increased mental health distress, self-harm, and homelessness for children whose parents do not affirm their gender identity. They might argue it undermines professional medical consensus on gender-affirming care.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances parental rights to direct a child's upbringing against the potential for state intervention to protect a child's well-being, particularly when a child's expressed gender identity conflicts with parental beliefs. it also navigates differing views on the medical and psychological best interests of gender-diverse youth.
Sec. 102 (adding Sec. 115 to CAPTA), Sec. 201 (amending Sec. 422(b) of SSA), Sec. 202 (amending Sec. 471(a) of SSA), Sec. 203 (amending Sec. 477 of SSA), Sec. 204 (adding Sec. 479C to SSA)
Prohibition on Funding Sex-Rejecting Interventions and Discrimination
This core element of the bill prohibits the use of federal funds under CAPTA and Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act (child welfare services, foster care, adoption assistance, and independent living programs) for any program, project, curriculum, or training that promotes "sex-rejecting interventions" or characterizes parental affirmation of a child's sex as abuse. It also forbids discrimination or adverse state action against individuals who affirm a child's sex and mandates that children in foster care be housed according to their biological sex in sex-separated facilities.
Sec. 106 (adding Sec. 116 to CAPTA), Sec. 201 (adding Sec. 445 to SSA Part B), Sec. 202 (adding Sec. 474(d)(5) to SSA Part E)
Establishment of a Private Right of Action for Violations
The bill creates a new private right of action, allowing parents, legal guardians, caregivers, foster parents, prospective foster/adoptive parents, or children to sue "covered entities" (state agencies, tribal organizations, contractors, and their employees/agents) in federal court for "adverse State actions" or violations of protected rights related to affirming a child's sex. It establishes vicarious liability, a rebuttable presumption of violation, waives sovereign and qualified immunity, and allows for declaratory relief, injunctions, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees.
Sec. 301 (amending Sec. 1738A of title 28, U.S. Code)
Interstate Child Custody Determinations and Sex-Rejecting Interventions
This section amends the Full Faith and Credit for Child Custody Determinations Act to prevent states from exercising jurisdiction over child custody or visitation determinations if the basis for jurisdiction is a contestant or child seeking a "sex-rejecting intervention" in that state, or if a claim of abuse/neglect is based on a parent affirming a child's sex. It explicitly states that such determinations are not entitled to full faith and credit and preempts state laws that purport to authorize such jurisdiction.
The bill provides a broad definition of "sex-rejecting intervention" that includes not only medical and surgical procedures (puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries) but also social interventions like using non-sex-corresponding pronouns or titles without parental consent, providing compression garments, or assigning children aged 4 or older to sex-separated facilities (sleeping quarters, bathrooms, locker rooms) designated for the opposite sex.
Sec. 104 (amending Sec. 111(a) of CAPTA), Sec. 202(e) (amending Sec. 475 of SSA), Sec. 301(b) (amending Sec. 1738A of title 28)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms, but the breadth of this definition is highly consequential and could be missed by a casual reader focusing only on medical interventions.
Case for: Proponents argue that social transition, pronoun use, and mixed-sex facilities are integral parts of the "sex-rejecting intervention" framework and can be just as harmful as medical interventions, especially for young children. They believe these definitions are necessary to fully protect children and parental rights.
Case against: Opponents would argue that including social aspects like pronoun use or facility assignments as "sex-rejecting interventions" is an overreach that criminalizes supportive environments for gender-diverse youth and could lead to discrimination and harassment. They might contend that these aspects are not medical interventions and should not be treated as such.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly broadens the scope of prohibited actions and interventions, affecting daily interactions and facility management in child welfare settings nationwide.
The bill explicitly abrogates qualified immunity for employees, contractors, and agents of covered entities, and waives sovereign immunity for states and tribal organizations, in actions brought under the new private right of action. It specifies that the law is "clearly established" if the conduct constituted an adverse state action or violated a protected right, regardless of explicit policy.
Sec. 106(g) and (h) (adding Sec. 116(g) and (h) to CAPTA), Sec. 201(e) and (f) (adding Sec. 445(e) and (f) to SSA Part B), Sec. 202(d)(5)(I) and (J) (adding Sec. 474(d)(5)(I) and (J) to SSA Part E)
Why it matters:While legally precise, the technical nature of immunity doctrines can obscure their profound practical impact on government liability and employee behavior.
Case for: Proponents argue that waiving immunity is essential to provide meaningful remedies for victims of alleged parental rights violations and to ensure accountability for state actors who might otherwise be shielded from liability. They contend that without it, the private right of action would be ineffective.
Case against: Opponents would argue that abrogating qualified and sovereign immunity could expose state and tribal child welfare agencies and their employees to excessive litigation, potentially deterring them from making difficult but necessary decisions to protect children. This could lead to a more risk-averse and less effective child welfare system.
Estimated impact: Could significantly increase litigation against child welfare systems and individual workers, potentially leading to substantial financial liabilities for states and tribes.