Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The Justice Department has stepped directly into one of the country’s most polarizing debates: gender-affirming healthcare for young people.
On September 3, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Bondi announced that the Department had drafted and sent a new bill to Congress called the Victims of Chemical or Surgical Mutilation Act (VCSMA).
If passed, the measure would bar doctors, clinics, and hospitals from performing certain medical interventions on minors - procedures the DOJ describes as “chemical or surgical mutilation.” (Source: The U.S. Department of Justice)
The law would also give families the right to sue, opening the door to civil claims if a child undergoes treatment later considered harmful or irreversible.
The bill takes direct aim at hormone treatments and surgeries performed on people under 18 for gender-related purposes. Supporters say these measures protect children from making life-altering decisions before they are old enough to fully understand the consequences.
Backing the DOJ’s draft are Rep. Bob Onder (R-MO-03) and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), both longtime critics of gender-affirming care for minors.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi commented: “We have heard from far too many families devastated by mutilative medical procedures that fly in the face of basic biology,” framing the DOJ’s push as a duty to defend children from practices it considers experimental.
The move follows Executive Order 14187, signed by President Trump in January 2025. That order cut off federal funding for gender-affirming care for minors and told agencies to withdraw reliance on international medical guidelines, such as those issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).
The proposal instantly raises thorny questions. Would a federal ban override states that still permit gender-affirming treatments for minors? How would courts balance parental rights, medical judgment, and constitutional protections?
Civil rights groups and major medical organizations are expected to challenge the measure if it gains traction in Congress. They argue that gender-affirming care is medically recognized and, for many transgender youth, a vital part of protecting mental health.
On the other side, advocates of the bill see it as a safeguard against what they view as rushed or even coercive medical decisions.
If the VCSMA clears Congress, lawsuits are almost guaranteed. Critics could argue that it infringes on the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, or conflicts with Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in healthcare. Courts would then face the difficult job of reconciling this new law with existing protections.
The private right of action is also significant. By allowing families to sue directly, the DOJ is inviting years of litigation that could expand liability for doctors, clinics, and even insurers.
The DOJ’s proposal doesn’t exist in isolation. Hospitals and medical providers have been navigating a confusing legal landscape. Many paused gender-affirming treatments for minors after the January executive order.
