We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
This bill prohibits federal Medicaid payment for specified gender transition procedures for individuals under the age of 18. The bill defines these procedures to mean those that are intended to change the body of an individual to no longer correspond to the individual's biological sex (male or female), including specified surgeries, implants, and medications (e.g., hormones).
The bill excludes procedures that are provided to an individual under the age of 18 with the consent of a parent or legal guardian and that are intended to (1) rectify early puberty, genetic disorders, or chromosomal abnormalities; (2) reverse prior gender transition procedures; or (3) prevent imminent death or impairment of a major bodily function.
House floor actionsConsidered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 953. (consideration: CR H6057-6065)
Library of CongressPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 215 - 201 (Roll no. 362).
SenateReceived in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Floor Vote
Passed the House
House floor actionsRules Committee Resolution H. Res. 953 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6703, H.R. 498 and H.R. 3492. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 6703 and H.R. 498 under a closed rule and H.R. 3492 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
Library of CongressIntroduced in House
House floor actionsReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced
Committee
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.
What Congress Said
Members who spoke about this bill on the floor, in their own words from the Congressional Record.
Republicans21 spoke
I am very proud to have sponsored this legislation and have fought this battle for many years.
Finally, the rule provides that, during consideration of H.R. 4776, pursuant to House Resolution 951, the further amendment specified in section 5 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
Pursuant to House Resolution 951, I call up the bill (H.R. 845) to require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 498, the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act. This bill helps support our fellow hardworking Americans whose valuable and finite tax dollars should not continue to fund medically unnecessary care under the Medicaid program.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 845. The bill would address at least some of the injury and injustice being inflicted on my State and my constituents by the inappropriate and unfair enforcement of the Endangered Species Act as it has been applied in the reintroduction of the gray wolf.
Colorado is at the center of our Nation for wolf battles. That is why Congressman Tom Tiffany and I introduced H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act.
As a member of the newly formed follow the science caucus, I rise today in strong support of a bill I am proud to cosponsor, H.R. 845, the Pets and Livestock Protection Act.
Populations have been bouncing back and forth between being listed and delisted, and this bill provides a permanent solution, returning the population management back to the States.
My colleague from the north coast, when he mocks us like that, I am wondering if this Proposition 50 in California kicks in, and he ends up representing my constituents up there that are fighting against this, and I am their only voice in the echo chamber of California against this: Are you going to have townhalls up there?
I rise today in support of the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, which will ensure that taxpayer dollars are not funding the evil practice of transgender child mutilation. I thank my colleagues from Texas and from Kentucky for sponsoring this important bill.
I rise in support of the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, which I am a cosponsor of, led by my friends, Representative Boebert and Representative Tiffany.
I am an original cosponsor of the Pet and Livestock Protection Act because it delists the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. This gives wildlife managers more control in States while protecting domestic animals from wolf attacks.
Medicaid was designed as a safety net to be used only by U.S. citizens when they fall onto hard times and need medical support. It was never intended to bankroll irreversible, gender-mutilating surgeries on vulnerable children.
We heard a lot of words from the gentleman from Virginia, but the reality is that some people's premiums are going up 100 percent. Their big, grand plan is to give people an 11 percent coupon. This is laughable. It is pathetic.
H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, would strip Federal Endangered Species Act protection from gray wolves and block courts from reviewing that decision.
Now, let's be clear. This bill is not about protecting pets or livestock. It is about politics overriding science, and the consequences of doing that are disastrous. The precedent set by this bill would be very troubling. It would tell wildlife scientists that their expertise doesn't matter.
As the co-chair of the Endangered Species Act Caucus, protecting our Nation's wildlife is one of my top priorities. I am deeply concerned that the provisions included in this bill will cause our country to backtrack on the progress we have made.
As prices skyrocket, as Republicans strip away healthcare from Americans across this country, strip away basic support for American families, what are we using floor time for today?
I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Every parent wants to keep their child safe, wants their child to grow without pain, to sleep through the night without fear or suffering.
If passed, this bill would prohibit young people in communities all across the United States, in low-income families, from receiving lifesaving care. I am proud to come from a State, New Mexico, that has protected gender-affirming care and which stands with the LGBTQ+ and trans community and their families.
This bill purposely targets kids, children, and only kids. These are decisions that should be made by the patient, their parents and guardians, and the medical providers providing the care to give these kids the chance to reach their potential and to be comfortable in who they are as Americans.
I rise to defeat the previous question and bring up H.R. 6074, which provides for a clean 3-year extension of the Affordable Care Act enhanced tax credits.
For a mother in Austin, who contacted me about the stop-loss provision that is reinforced in this bill, it means the possibility that after her 3-year-old child was diagnosed with cancer, they will lose all their coverage.
I rise in opposition to this hateful legislation. The so-called Do No Harm in Medicaid Act prohibits Medicaid from spending funds on medically necessary care like puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormone treatment for transgender individuals under 18.
This bill attacks the rights of States by banning Medicaid from covering any medical care for transgender youth, and it would put discrimination into law because it would allow the same exact care for cisgender youth.
Republicans have been in the majority and in control for this whole year, yet they have not put forward a bill that helps working families with the rising cost of living or to prevent hardworking Americans' healthcare premiums from skyrocketing in price.
This bill will endanger lives, and it will do nothing to bring down skyrocketing healthcare costs or address any real issues facing working Americans. Instead, it denies medically necessary care simply because that care goes to a trans child.
I have been watching this debate, and I will say just one thing, which is, Mr. Speaker, I remember when the Republican Party was about small government, local control, and personal liberties. Those were the foundations of the party that I grew up with.
Due to illness, I was unable to vote today. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 343, Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 953; NO on Roll Call No. 344, H. Res. 953.
I was unable to vote today because the vote was closed despite my being present in the well and attempting to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 343.
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.