LGBT bills introduced into the Kansas Legislature in 2024

A few bills pertaining to LGBT Kansans—and really transgender Kansans—have been introduced into the Kansas Legislature. The following are four bills introduced this year that The Kansas Constitutional has taken note of.

A bill on discrimination

Sen. Mike Thompson (R-Johnson County) introduced SB 409 into the Kansas Senate on January 29 which has been referred to the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs. The bill is in regard to discrimination and provides an added definition on “sex”.

This bill adds the following text to K.S.A. 44-1001:

“To provide for statewide uniformity in the application of the Kansas act against discrimination and its protections for the people of this state, it is hereby declared to be the purpose of this act that only those classes or categories of individuals expressly protected by this act may be protected from unlawful discrimination and any local law or regulation that would modify such classes or categories in any way is preempted by this act.”

Essentially, for the sake of “uniformity” the State of Kansas would keep local governments from adding ordinances that would protect certain groups of people outside of the currently protected classes that include race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry.

The bill further goes on to add the following definition for “sex”:

“the biological indication of male and female in the context of reproductive potential or capacity, such as sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, gonads and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual’s psychological, chosen or subjective experience of gender.”

Senate minority leader Dinah Sykes (D-Lenexa) stated in her email newsletter that the bill overrides the “authority of local governments” as well as “makes our state a less welcoming place.”

In an email to The Kansas Constitutional, Sen. Thompson gave the following explanation regarding the bill:

“This bill is intended to prevent the expansion of the list of categories which may not be discriminated against. These basic categories; race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry, are, with the exception of religion, all basic personal traits that cannot be altered. This constitutes the best, broadest, and most definable categories with which to provide protection against discrimination.

“The problem these days, is that a number of people have been convinced that you can alter your sex or gender through what is essentially cosmetic surgery. And, groups that advocate for all types of lifestyle choices are seeking to expand the discrimination definitions to create special classes of discrimination.

“Legislation or even city ordinances that seek to provide that type of “boutique ” and niche classification of discrimination opens the door to any type of whim-based discrimination that are based more on desire than genetically unalterable traits. This is a dangerous precedent that undermines the intent and effect of the current discrimination law. If we go down that path, cities, counties, and states will suddenly be flooded with all sorts of crazy ideas about what constitutes discrimination. It will create chaos and divert time and attention away from creating laws that actually help people.

“This bill would help prevent these types of efforts and keep us from having to reinvent the discrimination wheel that already works well.”

Forbidding Abusive Child Transitions Act

HB 2791 was introduced February 9 and has been in a few different committees. As of this writing it’s currently sitting in the House Committee on Health and Human Services.

This is an 11-page bill that does a number of things including:

• Prohibiting healthcare professionals from treating a child (under the age of 18 years old) whose gender identity is inconsistent with the child’s sex;

• authorizing a civil cause of action against healthcare professionals for providing such treatments;

• restricting use of state funds to promote gender transitioning;

• prohibiting professional liability insurance from covering damages for healthcare providers that provide gender transition treatment to children; and

• authorizing professional discipline against a physician who performs such treatments.

An act relating to transgender surgeries on minors

This 5-page bill took a similar journey as the Forbidding Abusive Child Transitions Act at the same time, however it focuses on other issues related to transition services.

This bill, HB 2792, focuses on prohibiting gender transition surgeries on minors (those under the age of 18 years). The difference is that HB 2791 focuses more on gender transition services outside of surgeries while this bill focuses more on gender transition surgeries. This bill also authorizes professional discipline against a physician who performs such surgeries, and it also adopts a standard of care for gender transition services.

A Parental Consent Bill

HB 2793 is a one-page bill introduced by Rep. Ron Bryce (R-Coffeyville) with one objective: Prohibit healthcare providers from performing healthcare services on minors without parental consent.

This technically isn’t an “LGBT bill,” however, with the fear of healthcare providers giving gender transition services for minors without parental consent a thing, this bill does fit. Furthermore, Gays Against Groomers Kansas Chapter Leader Elaine did endorse this bill, stating, “Gays Against Groomers endorses this bill because children cannot consent to medical procedures and parents’ rights matter.”

A hearing occurred for this bill on Thursday, February 15 in the House Committee on Health and Human Services.

“This bill, most of the work is done in the definitions,” Revisor Jenna Moyer explained. “The first—which are in subsection A—the definition of a healthcare provider references a statute and if you go to that statute it references another statute. Essentially, this would include any healthcare provider you can think of.”

She listed off many different healthcare providers including dentists, social workers, councilors, behavioral analysts, among others.

As far as health services go, she noted that a minor could consent to health care services on their child, giving the example of a 16-year-old mom consenting to services for her baby. Unmarried pregnant minors can also consent to medical care regarding their pregnancy. Consent of a parent would also not be required for a medical examination of a child who has experienced physical, mental, or sexual abuse. Emergency care by a healthcare provider would also not need parental consent. There is also provisions for minors seeking abortion without consent of a parent.

“If the person who’s providing services is the same person who’s providing consent for the services, then there is no informed consent,” Rep. Bryce said in support of the bill. “It’s difficult to explain that unless I can give an absurd example. Let’s say you leave the Statehouse tonight, you go to your car and there’s a new set of tires on your car. You wonder where that came from… then you find out the tire salesman consented to it…. What I’m getting at is the people providing the services, if they’re also in charge of consent, then there really is no informed consent.”

Executive Director of Kansas Medical Society Rachelle Columbo also spoke in favor of the bill, noting the Mature Minor Doctrine.

“There is precedent for what [Rep. Bryce] described as mature minor doctrine which is not established in Kansas law,” Columbo said. “It is based on an Attorney General’s opinion in which a child of any age could make independent decisions without that of a parent or of a guardian. In those instances, the provider themselves would make the decision to provide informed consent on behalf of the child.”

Like Rep. Bryce, Columbo echoed that the intent of the bill is not to limit services but to provide clarity around who can give informed consent for those services.

Opponents of the bill stated that what constitutes an “emergency” is unclear—though it was stated by Rep. Bryce that if the person who is seeking medical help considers themselves in a state of emergency, then it’s an emergency.

Opponents also stated that it would cause issues from responders on the 988 suicide and crisis hotline as well as school nurses providing care for students outside of consent for over the counter drugs and prescriptions provided by the parents.