Legislature Moves to Ban Gender Affirming Care and Punish Parents and Care-givers

Statement from KNEA President Sherri Schwanz:

As President of the state’s largest professional education association, I am committed to advocating for the safety and well-being of all children and upholding the integrity of our state and federal constitutions. We believe every child deserves the chance to thrive and receive an excellent public education, irrespective of their background or personal attributes. This is why our members engage actively with lawmakers to share insights and experiences aimed at fostering positive legislative outcomes for our youth, our families, and our communities.

 We are concerned that recent legislative efforts focusing on highly specific family health decisions do not align with the broader public interest.  We believe in constructive dialogue and policies that respect the privacy and rights of families while fostering an environment where children can safely express themselves without fear of undue judgment or discrimination. Policies aimed at the minutiae of personal appearance and behavior, such as those enforcing specific clothing guidelines, may lead to increased bullying and harassment. It is crucial that our legislation protects all children from harm and supports their development into well-rounded individuals.

 It is our responsibility as educators to encourage critical thinking and informed decision-making among our students. We urge all interest holders to thoroughly review SB  63 understand its consequences, intended and unintended. Let us ensure our laws and policies promote inclusivity and protect the freedoms of every individual, particularly our children, who rely on us to safeguard their rights and futures.

In this spirit, we call on each educator, parent, and community member to contact your legislator for a balanced approach to governance that considers the diverse needs of our community and upholds the fundamental values of freedom and respect for all.

READ BELOW FOR DETAILS ON THE IMPACT OF THIS HARMFUL LEGISLATION

What do these bills seek to do?

• The bill prevents state properties, facilities, or buildings from being used to prescribe, dispense, or administer medication as a treatment for a child under the age of 18 whose perceived gender or sex is inconsistent with their birth sex.
• State properties, facilities, or buildings are also prohibited from promoting or advocating the use of social transitioning or medication or surgery as a treatment for a child under the age of 18 whose perceived gender or sex is inconsistent with their birth sex, as a treatment.
• The bill’s definition of social transition is both vague and expansive. Social transitioning appears to include ANY non-medical or surgical act undertaken for the purpose of presenting as a member of the opposite sex.
• Prohibited acts of social transitioning specifically referenced in the bill are: using pronouns that do not match birth sex and “changing the manner of dress.” There is no guidance in the bill about who determines a change in the manner of dress or what constitutes a change in the manner of dress.
• The bill prevents any state employee whose official duties include the care of children, while engaged in those duties, from promoting the use of social transitioning or medication or surgery as a treatment for a child under the age of 18 whose perceived gender or sex is inconsistent with their birth sex.
• The bill also fails to provide guidance or clarity as to what constitutes “promoting” the use of social transitioning.
• All prohibitions in the bill are in place regardless of parental consent.
• The bill does not define state employees. Efforts to get lawmakers to include a definition have failed, thus public school employees cannot count themselves exempt.
• The bill also limits healthcare a child can receive from “healthcare providers,” which would include school nurses and potentially counselors, psychologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and athletic trainers. School nurses  and other healthcare providers would likely be prohibited from dispensing or administering a list of prohibited medications to trans students, which would include hormones or blockers.
• Healthcare providers who violate the provisions of this bill, if it becomes law, face mandatory revocation of license if found to have violated the bill.
• Healthcare providers are also exposed to liability and lawsuits. Furthermore, the bill prevents professional liability insurance providers from covering healthcare providers for the prohibited acts of the bill.
• Healthcare providers include: individuals “licensed, certified or otherwise authorized by the laws of this state to administer healthcare services in the ordinary course of the practice of such individual’s profession.” Healthcare services are not defined.

Potential impacts / considerations for edcuators:

• The bill would create chaos and uncertainty in the workplaces of Kansas educators and healthcare providers.
• Licensed educators, including teachers, may face complaints from parents against their professional license for unethical behavior or misconduct if they are perceived by parents as violating the law.
• Educators may face discipline for perceived violations of the law by school districts who choose to enforce the law.
• Educators and schools may opt to self-censor in order to protect themselves from accusations of violating this law.
• Educators and schools will face uncertainty over what the law means and who gets to make decisions.
• Educators and schools may face lawsuits; this bill may create a no-win decision between compliance with this law and compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
• Any educator licensed by the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, including school nurses, athletic trainers, occupational therapists, or physical therapists, face mandatory revocation of their professional license for violating the law.
• Any healthcare provider risks litigation or a licensing complaint.