Chloe Cole Act
- Bill Number
- S. 2907
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Health
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-09-18: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-19T11:03:44Z
AI-Generated Summary
Summary of S. 2907: The Chloe Cole Act
Purpose
The legislation aims to protect children under 18 from what it describes as "chemical or surgical mutilation," specifically targeting medical interventions intended to alter a child's body to align with a gender identity different from their biological sex. It seeks to prohibit such practices by healthcare providers and establish legal recourse for affected individuals and their parents through civil lawsuits.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- "Chemical or surgical mutilation" includes using puberty blockers, sex hormones (e.g., estrogen, testosterone), or surgeries to stop natural puberty or change physical appearance/biological functions to differ from biological sex. Excludes treatments for genuine medical conditions like disorders of sexual development, infections, injuries, or "detransition" care (treatments to reverse or cope with prior interventions).
- "Child" means anyone under 18.
- "Sex" is defined biologically as male or female based on reproductive systems (e.g., producing sperm or ova).
- "Participate" covers prescribing, administering, performing, or authorizing these interventions with the intent to alter appearance or function.
- Prohibition (Section 3): Bans healthcare professionals, hospitals, or clinics from participating in such mutilation if it involves interstate or foreign commerce (e.g., travel, payments, communications, or tools across state lines) or occurs in federal jurisdictions like D.C. or U.S. territories. Exceptions require "clear and convincing evidence" of medical necessity.
- Private Right of Action (Section 4): Allows children (once adults) or their parents/guardians to sue for damages in federal court. Applies to acts before, on, or after enactment. Includes strict liability (automatic responsibility without proving fault) for post-enactment violations, with providers bearing the burden to prove exceptions.
- Damages: Compensatory (e.g., costs to reverse effects), non-economic (e.g., pain and suffering), and punitive (if malice or recklessness is shown by clear and convincing evidence).
- Rules of Construction (Section 5):
- No lawsuits for mere counseling, referrals, or discussions of options (including adult care) unless they directly aid mutilation.
- Waivers of liability are invalid; ambiguities favor plaintiffs.
- For pre-enactment acts, limited deference to past medical standards if they were scientifically disputed.
- Providers can still discuss risks/benefits 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 detransition costs are incurred, whichever is later.
- Severability (Section 7): If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains in effect.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Introduces a federal ban on specific gender-related medical interventions for minors, overriding or supplementing state laws that may allow such care.
- Creates a new federal civil remedy with strict liability and extended timelines for lawsuits, shifting the burden of proof in defenses and applying retroactively.
- Defines "sex" biologically in federal law, potentially conflicting with evolving interpretations in other areas like anti-discrimination statutes.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal courts may see increased caseloads from lawsuits; agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services could face indirect pressure to align guidelines with the law, though no direct enforcement role is specified.
- On Citizens: Minors seeking gender-affirming care may face barriers, including travel restrictions across state lines; affected individuals and families gain stronger tools to seek compensation for harms, but access to care could decrease due to provider caution.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but could affect U.S. credibility in global health discussions on youth mental health and transgender rights, potentially straining relations with countries supportive of such care.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Children and Minors: Directly protected from certain interventions but potentially limited in accessing care for gender dysphoria.
- Parents and Legal Guardians: Empowered to sue on behalf of children and recover damages, but may face challenges if seeking prohibited treatments.
- Healthcare Professionals (e.g., Doctors, Nurses): Face prohibitions, strict liability, and lawsuit risks, which could deter practice or lead to professional discipline.
- Hospitals and Clinics: Prohibited from offering or facilitating these services; increased legal and financial risks from litigation.
- Mental Health Professionals: Generally exempt from liability for counseling or referrals, but must avoid direct participation in prohibited acts.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The law's reliance on the interstate commerce clause (e.g., travel or payments) to assert federal jurisdiction may invite challenges under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, questioning if it overreaches into state-regulated medicine. Strict liability and retroactivity could raise due process concerns (fair notice and fault requirements).
- Constitutional: Potential equal protection issues if seen as discriminating against transgender youth; free speech protections for medical discussions are preserved but narrowly defined. The biological definition of "sex" might conflict with Supreme Court precedents on gender identity (e.g., in employment or education law).
- Political: Likely to fuel debates on parental rights, medical ethics, and transgender healthcare, with supporters viewing it as child protection and opponents as infringing on bodily autonomy or medical freedom. As a Senate-introduced bill (referred to committee), its passage could depend on partisan divides in Congress.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (12)
Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO], Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT], Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL], Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX], Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC], Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL], Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL], Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT], Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN], Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS], Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK], Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
Recent Actions
- 2025-09-18: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 2025-09-18: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Chloe Cole Act — issued 2025-09-18 — PDF (12 pages)