Chloe Cole Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 5483
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Health
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-09-18: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-19T08:06:34Z
AI-Generated Summary
Summary of H.R. 5483: The Chloe Cole Act
Purpose
This legislation seeks to ban certain medical procedures on children that are intended to change or halt the development of their bodies to align with a gender identity different from their biological sex. It defines these as "chemical or surgical mutilation" and creates a way for affected children (once adults) or their parents to sue those involved. The goal is to protect minors from irreversible changes, while allowing exceptions for necessary medical treatments unrelated to gender identity.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- Chemical or surgical mutilation: Includes using puberty blockers (medications to delay puberty), sex hormones (like estrogen or testosterone), or surgeries to alter appearance or sexual organs to match a gender identity different from biological sex. Excludes treatments for genuine medical conditions (e.g., disorders of sexual development, injuries, or illnesses), treatments to reverse prior procedures (detransition treatment), or care for infections caused by such procedures.
- Child: Anyone under 18 years old.
- Sex: Defined strictly as biological male or female based on reproductive role (producing sperm or ova), determined at conception, accounting for natural anomalies.
- Participate: Covers prescribing, administering, performing, authorizing, or planning these procedures with the intent to change the body to match a different gender identity.
- Other terms include health care professional (e.g., licensed doctors) and mental health professional (licensed therapists).
- Prohibition (Section 3):
- Health care professionals, hospitals, or clinics cannot participate in chemical or surgical mutilation of a child if it involves interstate or foreign commerce (e.g., travel, payments, communications, or tools across state lines). This applies nationwide, including in U.S. territories.
- Exceptions require "clear and convincing evidence" (a high legal standard) that the treatment fits an allowed category.
- Private Right of Action (Section 4):
- Children subjected to prohibited procedures (or their parents/guardians) can sue in federal court for damages, even if the procedure happened before the law's enactment.
- Damages include: compensatory (e.g., costs to fix effects), non-economic (e.g., pain and suffering), and punitive (if malice or recklessness is proven by clear and convincing evidence).
- Strict liability applies after enactment: Providers are automatically responsible if participation is proven, unless they prove an exception applies.
- Rules of Construction (Section 5):
- No lawsuits for mere counseling, referrals to therapists, or discussing options (including adult treatments), as long as it doesn't involve direct participation.
- Liability cannot be waived; ambiguities in the law are interpreted against those who performed the procedures.
- For pre-enactment cases, limited deference to past medical standards if they were scientifically disputed and the provider knew or should have known.
- Providers can still discuss risks, benefits, and options without liability.
- Statute of Limitations (Section 6):
- Lawsuits can be filed up to 25 years after the child's 18th birthday or 4 years after incurring detransition costs, whichever is later.
- Severability (Section 7):
- If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the law remains in effect.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This bill introduces a federal prohibition on gender-affirming medical care for minors (e.g., puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries), which was previously unregulated at the federal level and handled variably by states. Some states already ban such care, but this would standardize a nationwide civil ban tied to interstate commerce.
- It creates a new private right of action with strict liability and extended timelines for lawsuits, shifting burden to providers to prove exceptions. Pre-enactment actions can be challenged if standards were disputed, potentially reopening old cases.
- No criminal penalties; focuses on civil lawsuits rather than government enforcement.
Potential Impacts
- On Citizens: Minors seeking gender-affirming care may face barriers, as providers risk lawsuits, potentially reducing access. Affected individuals gain stronger legal recourse for long-term harms, including support for detransition (reversing effects).
- On Health Care Providers, Hospitals, and Clinics: Increased litigation risk could lead to higher insurance costs, reluctance to treat minors for gender-related issues, or shifts in practice to avoid interstate elements. Mental health professionals are largely protected if not directly involved.
- On Government Agencies: Minimal direct impact; enforcement occurs through private federal lawsuits, not agency action. Courts would handle cases, potentially increasing federal court workload.
- On International Relations: Could affect U.S. medical tourism (e.g., minors traveling abroad for care) or diplomacy if it conflicts with countries allowing such treatments, but no direct international provisions.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Children and Families: Minors under 18 and their parents/guardians, who may lose access to certain treatments but gain lawsuit options for harms.
- Health Care Providers: Doctors, nurses, and others who prescribe or perform procedures; face strict liability and potential damages.
- Hospitals and Clinics: Institutions providing care; liable for staff actions and may alter policies to comply.
- Transgender and LGBTQ+ Communities: Indirectly impacted through restricted youth care, potentially affecting mental health support.
- Insurers and Medical Organizations: Could see rising costs from lawsuits and need to update guidelines.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Relies on the Commerce Clause (interstate activity) for federal jurisdiction, which may face challenges if seen as overreach into state medical regulation. Strict liability and retroactive elements could complicate defenses; severability clause aims to preserve the law if parts are struck down.
- Constitutional: Potential conflicts with rights to privacy (e.g., parents' medical decisions for children), equal protection (disparate impact on transgender youth), or free speech (discussions of care). Courts may scrutinize the biological sex definition and exclusions.
- Political: Positions child protection against transgender rights debates; could polarize along partisan lines, influencing state laws or future federal health policies. The bill's naming after Chloe Cole (a detransitioner) highlights personal stories in advocacy.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Onder, Robert F. [R-MO-3]
Cosponsors (43)
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1], Rep. Murphy, Gregory F. [R-NC-3], Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7], Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6], Rep. Moore, Riley M. [R-WV-2], Rep. Taylor, David J. [R-OH-2], Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2], Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3], Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2], Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1], Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10], Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10], Rep. Stutzman, Marlin A. [R-IN-3], Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2], Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6], Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Jack, Brian [R-GA-3], Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21], Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6], Rep. McGuire, John J. [R-VA-5], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6], Rep. McDowell, Addison P. [R-NC-6], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17], Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11], Rep. Guest, Michael [R-MS-3], Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1], Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6], Rep. Moore, Tim [R-NC-14], Rep. Messmer, Mark B. [R-IN-8], Rep. Fine, Randy [R-FL-6], Rep. Alford, Mark [R-MO-4], Rep. Van Epps, Matt [R-TN-7]
Recent Actions
- 2025-09-18: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2025-09-18: Introduced in House
- 2025-09-18: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Chloe Cole Act — issued 2025-09-18 — PDF (12 pages)