May 6, 2026 · BANKING AND INSURANCE · 1,755 words · 14 speakers · 25 segments
Good morning, everyone. Today's voting meeting of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee will come to order. Jordan, please call the roll to establish a quorum.
Baker. Here.
Boscola. Proxy.
Flynn. Here.
Kim. Here.
Martin. Proxy.
Proxy. Phillips Hill.
Here. Robinson.
Here. Rothman.
Proxy. Street.
Proxy. Vogel.
Here. Anthony Williams.
Proxy. Y'all.
Gebhard. Here.
A quorum being established, I move, and Senator Baker seconds the consideration of Senate Bill 1321. This legislation is a common-sense measure that, unlike the demography that you so often hear about, this bill or similar measures is about neither denying care nor erasing voices. Sex-rejecting procedures such as surgical or pharmaceutical interventions are not life-saving care, as I would remind all in attendance that no reputable evidence exists to demonstrate that prescribing puberty blockers or surgeries is linked with suicide prevention. In U.S. v. Skirmeti, a lawyer for the ACLU conceded this very point. So, what is this legislation about? Simply put, this legislation protects children from life-altering procedures performed at the expense of the taxpayer involving off-label use of sterilizing drugs or a fast track to the operating table to remove healthy body parts. In fact, this legislation is in keeping with the rigorous evidence-based scientific review that we should expect from modern medicine. According to a recent study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, undergoing transgender surgery produced a higher risk of depression, anxiety, substance abuse disorders, and suicidal ideation. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that services discussed today came with risks of infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density, cognitive impacts, cardiovascular and metabolic risks, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret. Perhaps the most telling analysis of this issue came from the CAST review performed by the United Kingdom. In particular, CAST Review found that the evidence used to promote transgender drugs and surgeries or services was remarkably weak or low quality. Mind you, this is in the United Kingdom, not some state or nation you would associate with political or social conservatism. Following the release of the CAST review, the United Kingdom has banned new prescriptions of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria and pause new referrals in minors for cross-sex hormones. This generalized move towards caution is not unique to the United Kingdom as Sweden Finland and Norway have moved away from pushing these services on minors In recognition of the growing trend of actual scientific evidence and review of transgender healthcare services on minors the Department of Health Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule that prohibited federal taxpayer dollars from being used to reimburse health care providers or facilities for two categories of sex-rejecting procedures, these being surgical or pharmaceutical interventions performed on a minor. Since 2015, the Commonwealth has reimbursed these life-altering treatments for nearly 5,000 minors, despite the fact that these procedures lack one of the most important features of insurance law, as the medical evidence fails to demonstrate clinical appropriateness of these treatments. The taxpayer has paid more than $21 million for these claims over the last decade. Senate Bill 1321 addresses this problem as it would move Pennsylvania into alignment with the new proposed federal standard to prevent state taxpayer dollars from paying out claims for the performance of these procedures on minors. If the Department of Human Services identifies that a health care provider or health care facility knew or should have known that a claim filed against Medicaid or CHIP constitutes a non-reimbursable service, the Department, at its sole discretion, may suspend the provider's or facility's ability to participate in the government program. Additionally, the legislation requires the department to seek reimbursement for any claim paid out. The repayment to the Commonwealth will be between two and three times the amount fraudulently billed against the government program. I would ask my colleagues for an affirmative vote on this legislation to protect both the state taxpayers and, more importantly, children from life-altering procedures. This policy is not only in alignment with the new federal rules, but has already been enacted in more than 25 states. And again, I ask my colleagues for a affirmative vote. The chair recognizes the presence of Senator Rothman. Are there any comments or discussion on this bill?
Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support your effort today. As I've traveled throughout my senatorial district, many parents have reached out to me with great concern about life-altering surgeries for young people. And I agree with them that I think kids are not in necessarily a mental state to make this decision about irreversible changes that are made at a young age. And we know the age of science tells us when they're capable of making these kinds of decisions. I have supported over the age of 18, if that's a decision someone wants to make, I don't necessarily think that we should be letting children under the age of 18 make this life-altering decision. Certainly kids can buy tobacco products until they 21 so I think this is just something that makes sense that we follow the federal rule and I support your effort.
Thank you, Senator Baker. Are there any other comments on this bill? Senator?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate Bill 1321 is a direct attack, and we are trying to force our way into the doctor's office with this, legislate our way into the doctor's office. Doctors have their patients and want to give them care, and that's what this bill is about, taking that away, and that is why the state has filed a lawsuit. Governor Shapiro is part of that lawsuit, and all Democrats except Senator Bosco will be voting no. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Flynn. Do we have any other comments or discussion on this bill? Senator Shreit has told me that he will be here in two minutes, so we're going to suspend until he arrives. I recognize the attendance of Senator Anthony Williams. Senator Williams, you have some comments on the bill?
My apologies. And my apologies for my tardiness as well. For those who don't know, I'm trying to recover from a head cold, and I'm not necessarily successful at that. But nonetheless, on this issue, that is pretty important. I respect the concerns expressed by the author of the bill and those who support it in the context of one's moral perspective. But I'm not quite clear on why there would be a bill that would subject a family with a minor. That's, in fact, why we have parents. and for those who have expressed consistently that we should not be involved in legislating in households, this would seem to be contradictory and hypocritical in that regard. Whether you agree or disagree, the reality is this is about a minor. A minor, by law, is under the protection of a guardian or a parent. And it is the responsibility of that guardian or the parent to guide that minor. and if we don't believe in that, then we are now establishing new precedents that will break either way depending upon the issue and the political persuasion of the time. So regardless of your perspective on this issue, you've got to acknowledge the law and the policy and the history of what families are supposed to mean and what minors are supposed to mean. so I cannot and I don't believe anyone should be for the interruption of that relationship as we've established it historically in this country and whether you have a view on the issue of what transgender means in your mind or the fact that you feel like a minor can't formulate an opinion or may not be mature enough that irrelevant in the context of what policies and laws are there to protect them The bottom line is that this goes against the policies of protecting a minor It doesn enhance it It doesn protect them It doesn't do anything to establish making sure they don't make a decision well before they're prepared. What it does do is say that the sanctity of a household, a mother or a father or parents, do no longer have the supreme authority. The state does. The government does. And that is a bad, bad, bad precedent. And it's shocking that some people or some folks who have said in multiple times the government should be smaller, should be less impactful, less intrusive, are now the vanguard in leading of legislation that does and wrecks that exact consideration. So for all those reasons, I am opposed to this legislation and frankly think that many people who maybe unwittingly, not thoughtfully, are supporting it need to reconsider their perspective as it relates to the wrecking ball they are preparing for a family structure. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Williams. The chair recognizes the presence of Chairman Street. Chairman Street, do you have some comments?
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague Senator Williams is saying, it has long been the position of many members of this General Assembly that we respected the parent-child relationship and we respected doctors and children and the patient-child relationship. we should not be railing we should not be interfering with health care health care for any children we should not be interfering with health care for anyone's this is trying to move a political agenda around attacks on trans on trans youth that has been consistent in this general assembly and is grossly inappropriate we should be affirming the existence of all people, no matter who they love or how they believe or how they identify. We should be allowing folks to seek the health care that they need. We should not be attacking trans youth. As I said on the floor, according to the Trevor Project, every time the state legislature moves to pass another bill against trans youth, The only thing that happens is trans youth suicide goes up. This bill is unlikely to become law, and it is unfortunate that we're doing this today. I urge a no vote.
Thank you, Chairman Street. Are there any other comments on the bill? Seeing none, Jordan, please call the vote.
Baker. Boscola. Proxy aye. Flynn. No. Kim. Martin. Aye. Proxy, aye. Phillips Hill. Aye. Robinson. Aye. Rothman. Aye. Streep. No. Vogel. Aye. Anthony Williams. Yaw. Kim Ward. Proxy, aye. Gebharden. Aye.
The vote passes 10 to 4. Senate Bill 1321 is reported as committed. This concludes today's business. I recess the meeting to the call of the chair.