STOP Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 29, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a federal prohibition on gender transition procedures for minors, imposing significant penalties on providers and creating avenues for legal recourse and detransition support.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a federal prohibition on gender transition procedures for individuals under the age of 18, defining a wide range of prohibited hormonal, pharmaceutical, and surgical interventions. It authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to impose significant civil monetary penalties on persons who violate this prohibition and creates a private right of action for individuals who underwent such procedures as minors to sue for damages. Additionally, the bill establishes a grant program to support detransition treatment and related services for individuals seeking to reverse prior gender transition procedures.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protect minors from irreversible medical procedures, citing concerns about long-term health consequences, potential regret, and the inability of children to provide informed consent for life-altering medical decisions. They contend that the bill safeguards children from what they view as experimental or harmful interventions and provides necessary support for those who later wish to detransition.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill represents an unwarranted federal intrusion into medical practice and parental rights, denying medically necessary and evidence-based care to transgender youth. They argue that restricting access to gender-affirming care can lead to severe negative mental health outcomes, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts among transgender minors, and that it disregards the consensus of major medical organizations.
The bill is moderately complex due to its detailed definitions and legal mechanisms, but an informed reader can understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Definitions of 'Gender Transition Procedure' and 'Minor'
This section establishes the scope of the bill by defining key terms. 'Gender transition procedure' is broadly defined to include a wide range of hormonal, pharmaceutical, and surgical interventions aimed at gender transition, explicitly listing many specific medical and surgical procedures. It also defines 'minor' as an individual under 18 and 'sex' as immutable biological classification. Importantly, it carves out exceptions for individuals with disorders of sex development, treatment of complications from prior procedures, and precocious puberty.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue these definitions are crucial for clearly delineating the prohibited actions and ensuring the protection of minors from procedures they deem irreversible and potentially harmful. They emphasize the importance of biological sex definitions for clarity and consistency.
Critics contend
Opponents contend the definitions are overly broad, encompass medically necessary care for some transgender youth, and could lead to confusion or restrict legitimate medical practice. They argue the definition of 'sex' is overly rigid and excludes intersex conditions, despite the bill's specific carve-outs.
Tradeoffs
The bill attempts to balance the desire to restrict gender transition procedures for minors with the need to allow for treatment of specific medical conditions (e.g., intersex conditions, precocious puberty) and complications, leading to a highly detailed and specific set of definitions and exclusions.
Section 3(a)
Federal Prohibition on Gender Transition Procedures for Minors
This core provision prohibits any person from knowingly performing, attempting to perform, conspiring to perform, or aiding in the performance of any gender transition procedure on a minor. The prohibition applies under various circumstances involving interstate or foreign commerce, including travel, use of interstate facilities, payments, communications, or use of items that traveled in interstate commerce, or if the conduct occurs in special maritime and territorial jurisdiction. It also establishes employer liability for employee violations.
Section 3(b)
Civil Monetary Penalties and Compensation Fund
This subsection authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to impose civil monetary penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation of the prohibition on gender transition procedures for minors. It specifies considerations for determining the penalty amount and allows the Attorney General to bring civil actions to collect these penalties. Crucially, it establishes a 'Victims of Gender Transition Procedures Compensation Fund' where collected penalties are deposited, to be used by the Secretary to carry out detransition support programs.
Section 3(c)
Private Right of Action for Damages
This provision creates a private right of action, allowing an individual on whom a gender transition procedure was performed in violation of the Act, or their parent, guardian, or caretaker if the individual is a minor, to bring a civil action for damages. These damages can include compensatory damages (for undoing/correcting effects), non-economic damages (emotional distress, pain and suffering), and punitive damages if malicious, intentional, fraudulent, or reckless conduct is proven. The cause of action is available regardless of whether the alleged violation occurred before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 4
Grant Program for Detransition Support Services
This section mandates the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a grant program for eligible private nonprofit entities. These grants are intended to support individuals in reversing gender transition procedures by providing information and referrals for medical advice, education and employment assistance, and voluntary mental health and substance use disorder services. Grantees must not charge individuals for services and must provide accurate information on reversal procedures. Entities that perform, induce, refer for, or counsel in favor of gender transition procedures or most abortions are ineligible.
The bill defines 'knowingly' for the purpose of the prohibition to include not only actual knowledge of the facts constituting a violation but also what a 'reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would have that knowledge.'
Section 3(a)(3)
Why it matters:Defining 'knowingly' is standard legislative practice for establishing the mental state required for liability, but its specific wording here broadens the scope of accountability.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broadens accountability, ensuring that individuals cannot claim ignorance if they should have reasonably known they were performing a prohibited procedure on a minor, thereby strengthening the bill's enforcement.
Case against: Opponents might argue this expands liability beyond direct intent, potentially making healthcare providers vulnerable to penalties even if they genuinely believed they were acting within legal bounds, creating a chilling effect on medical practice.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly increases the scope of potential liability for healthcare providers, making it easier to prove a violation.
In legal proceedings, if a gender transition procedure on a minor occurred before the Act's enactment, limited deference will be given to prevailing standards of care at that time, specifically if those standards contradict the Act's intent and were in 'serious, scientific, and medical dispute.'
Section 3(e)(2)
Why it matters:This is a specific legal instruction for how courts should interpret past actions, rather than a direct prohibition, making it a technical detail rather than a headline provision.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that past practices, even if considered standard at the time, can be re-evaluated if there was significant scientific disagreement, allowing for retrospective accountability for potentially harmful procedures.
Case against: Opponents would contend this creates an unfair retroactive standard, undermining legal certainty for healthcare providers who acted in good faith according to accepted medical guidelines at the time, potentially leading to a wave of lawsuits for past care.
Estimated impact: This provision potentially opens up past medical practices to legal challenge under new standards, increasing the risk for healthcare professionals who provided gender transition care to minors prior to the bill's enactment.
An action under the private civil action (subsection c) can be brought within 25 years from the individual's 18th birthday or within 4 years from the time the cost of a detransition treatment is incurred, whichever date is later.
Section 3(g)
Why it matters:Statutes of limitations are often placed in technical sections, but this one is unusually long and has a complex trigger, which could be seen as an attempt to minimize its visibility.
Case for: Proponents argue this extended statute of limitations is necessary because the long-term effects of gender transition procedures may not be apparent until well into adulthood, and individuals may need significant time to process and decide to pursue legal action or detransition.
Case against: Opponents would argue this creates an exceptionally long period of legal vulnerability for healthcare providers, making it difficult to defend against claims decades after treatment, and could encourage litigation based on evolving societal or medical views rather than immediate harm.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly extends the period during which healthcare providers can be sued for past procedures, potentially for decades after the care was provided.