Yaeli Martinez Child Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 29, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to protect parental rights to affirm a child's biological sex, restrict state intervention and the use of federal funds for 'sex-rejecting interventions' for minors, and provide legal recourse for alleged violations.
What it actually does
This bill aims to prevent the removal of children from their families or the denial of foster/adoptive placements solely because parents affirm a child's biological sex or refuse 'sex-rejecting interventions.' It prohibits the use of federal funds under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and parts B and E of Title IV of the Social Security Act for such interventions or for policies that treat parental affirmation of sex as abuse. The bill also establishes a private right of action against state actors for violations and amends federal full faith and credit laws for child custody determinations to prevent states from asserting jurisdiction based on a child seeking 'sex-rejecting interventions.'
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protect fundamental parental rights to direct the care and upbringing of their children, including making healthcare decisions consistent with a child's biological sex. They contend that 'sex-rejecting interventions' for minors are not settled science and carry significant risks, and that state child welfare systems have been 'weaponized' to remove children from fit parents who refuse such interventions. The bill, they assert, ensures federal funds are not used to promote harmful practices and provides accountability for state overreach.
Opponents contend
Opponents of the bill's approach would contend that it infringes upon the rights of transgender youth to receive medically necessary care, as recognized by major medical organizations. They argue that the bill could prevent child welfare agencies from acting in a child's best interest, potentially leading to increased mental health crises, self-harm, or suicide risk for children experiencing gender dysphoria. Critics also raise concerns about federal overreach into state child welfare systems and the potential for legal chaos in interstate custody disputes.
The bill is lengthy and complex, requiring significant time to understand its detailed amendments across multiple federal acts, which may exceed the time typically allotted for public review of such legislation.
Sec. 2
Congressional Findings on Parental Rights and Sex-Rejecting Interventions
This section lays out Congress's foundational beliefs, asserting that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct their children's upbringing, including affirming their child's biological sex and making healthcare decisions. It states that 'sex-rejecting interventions' are not settled science and can cause harm, and that state actions removing children or denying placements based on parental refusal of such interventions constitute an overreach and misuse of federal funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings correctly identify fundamental parental rights and the scientific uncertainty and potential harms associated with 'sex-rejecting interventions' for minors, thereby justifying federal intervention to protect children and families from state overreach.
Critics contend
Critics would contend that these findings mischaracterize medical consensus on gender-affirming care, potentially undermining the ability of child welfare agencies to act in the best interest of children experiencing gender dysphoria, and could infringe on the rights of transgender youth.
Tradeoffs
The section balances parental rights to direct upbringing against state authority to intervene in cases of alleged abuse or neglect, and presents a specific interpretation of the medical and psychological needs of children experiencing gender dysphoria.
Sec. 101 (Amends 42 U.S.C. 5106a)
State Plan Requirements and Reporting under CAPTA
This provision amends the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) to require states receiving CAPTA grants to include specific provisions in their state plans. These include protecting children from 'sex-rejecting interventions' and the use of non-sex-corresponding pronouns without express parental consent. It mandates training for child protective service workers, judges, and other professionals on the harms of such interventions and the right of parents to affirm a child's sex without being deemed abusive. States must certify compliance, and new reporting requirements are added for children who identify inconsistently with their sex, run away, or are removed from home.
Sec. 102 (Adds new Sec. 115 to CAPTA)
Prohibited Uses of CAPTA Funds and Protected Parental Rights
This section explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from treating parental affirmation of a child's sex as child abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, maltreatment, abandonment, or an indication of parental unfitness. It conditions CAPTA funds on states protecting specific parental rights, including the right to refuse 'sex-rejecting interventions' for their child, to refuse non-sex-corresponding pronouns without consent, and to ensure sex-separated facilities for children 4 and older. It also prohibits using funds for programs promoting 'sex-rejecting interventions' or adverse state actions based on parental affirmation of sex. Non-compliance leads to mandatory withholding and recoupment of funds with escalating penalties.
Sec. 106 (Adds new Sec. 116 to CAPTA)
Private Right of Action for Violations of Parental Rights under CAPTA
This provision establishes a new private right of action, allowing parents, legal guardians, caregivers, or children to bring civil lawsuits in federal court against 'covered entities' (states, tribes, or agencies receiving CAPTA funds, and their employees/contractors) for 'adverse State actions' or violations of protected rights. It mandates vicarious liability for covered entities, creates a rebuttable presumption against the state if parental affirmation of sex is a factor, abrogates qualified immunity for individual defendants, and requires states to waive sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving funds. Remedies include injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees.
Sec. 201 (Amends 42 U.S.C. 622(b))
State Plan Requirements for Child Welfare Services (Title IV-B)
This section amends Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, adding new requirements for state plans. States must ensure that no foster or adoptive placement is denied because a prospective parent may affirm a child's sex. It mandates sex-separated housing for children aged 4 and older in foster care. States must also protect children from 'sex-rejecting interventions' and non-sex-corresponding pronouns without parental consent, and provide training on these issues for all relevant child welfare personnel, including caseworkers, judges, and foster parents.
Sec. 202 (Amends 42 U.S.C. 671(a))
State Plan Requirements for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance (Title IV-E)
This section amends Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, extending similar requirements to state plans for foster care and adoption assistance. It mandates that reasonable efforts for family preservation and reunification consider parental affirmation of a child's sex as furthering the child's health and safety. It prohibits denying foster or adoptive placement based on a prospective parent's affirmation of a child's sex. It also requires policies protecting children from 'sex-rejecting interventions' and non-sex-corresponding pronouns without parental consent, ensures sex-separated housing for children 4+, and prohibits federal matching payments for services that facilitate 'sex-rejecting interventions.'
Sec. 301 (Amends 28 U.S.C. 1738A)
Full Faith and Credit for Child Custody Determinations Regarding Sex-Rejecting Interventions
This provision amends the federal law governing full faith and credit for child custody orders. It explicitly defines 'abuse,' 'neglect,' and similar terms to exclude parental affirmation of a child's sex. Crucially, it prohibits a state court from exercising jurisdiction over a custody or visitation determination if that jurisdiction is based on a contestant or child seeking 'sex-rejecting interventions' available in that state, or if a claim of abuse/neglect is based on a parent refusing such interventions. Any custody determination made in violation of these prohibitions is not entitled to full faith and credit, enforcement, or recognition by any other court, and any state law purporting to authorize such jurisdiction is preempted.
The bill broadly defines 'sex-rejecting intervention' to include psychological, medical, or surgical interventions intended to promote a child's rejection of their sex, or to change their body to no longer correspond to their sex. This encompasses intentionally delaying puberty (e.g., puberty blockers), prescribing cross-sex hormones, performing surgeries, providing compression garments, and even permitting the use of non-sex-corresponding pronouns or sex-separated facilities for the opposite sex for children aged 4 and older. It explicitly excludes treatment for 'disorders of sex development.'
Sec. 104 (Amends 42 U.S.C. 5106g(a)(10)); Sec. 202(e) (Amends 42 U.S.C. 675(18)); Sec. 301(b) (Amends 28 U.S.C. 1738A(b)(15))
Why it matters:Placing definitions in a dedicated section is standard legislative practice. However, the expansive nature of this definition means its full implications for a wide range of social and medical practices related to gender identity for minors might be overlooked by a casual reader focusing only on the main policy statements.
Case for: Proponents argue this comprehensive definition is necessary to clearly delineate the types of interventions and practices that the bill aims to prevent or restrict, ensuring no loopholes for practices deemed harmful to children and providing clarity for state compliance.
Case against: Opponents would argue that the definition is overly broad, encompassing routine social affirmations and medically necessary care, and could lead to misgendering and denial of care for transgender youth, potentially exacerbating mental health issues.
Estimated impact: This definition forms the bedrock of the bill's prohibitions and protections, influencing all federal funding conditions, state policies, and private rights of action. Its broad scope means a wide range of current practices related to gender identity for minors would be affected, from medical treatments to social accommodations.
The bill abrogates qualified immunity as a defense for employees, contractors, or agents of 'covered entities' (states, tribes, or agencies receiving federal funds) in actions brought under the bill. Furthermore, it requires states and tribal organizations, as a condition of receiving federal funds under CAPTA and Title IV of the Social Security Act, to waive sovereign immunity from suit in federal court for violations of the bill's provisions.
Sec. 106(g), (h) (CAPTA); Sec. 201(c) (Adds Sec. 445(e), (f) to SSA Part B); Sec. 202(d) (Amends Sec. 474(d)(5)(I), (J) of SSA Part E)
Why it matters:While legally significant, these provisions are technical in nature and often placed within enforcement or remedies sections. However, their impact on state liability and employee protections is substantial and could be overlooked by a casual reading of the bill's main policy objectives.
Case for: Proponents argue these measures are essential to ensure accountability for public officials and entities who violate fundamental parental rights, providing meaningful recourse for aggrieved families who often face significant barriers to justice when challenging state actions.
Case against: Opponents would argue that these provisions could severely hamper the ability of child welfare professionals to make difficult decisions, fearing personal liability, and could lead to a flood of litigation against states, diverting critical resources from child protection services and creating a chilling effect on necessary interventions.
Estimated impact: Could dramatically increase the legal risk for state child welfare agencies and their employees, potentially altering how child abuse and neglect cases are investigated and managed, especially those involving gender identity. This could lead to increased litigation costs for states and a potential exodus of experienced caseworkers.