Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Last Friday, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed a bill that would prevent state courts or officials from complying with child removal requests, extraditions, arrests or subpoenas related to gender-affirming health care a person received in Minnesota. The bill would protect transgender people, their families and practitioners from out-of-state laws interfering with that care.

And while the news was welcomed by supporters as well as Minnesota physicians who already saw an increase in prospective patients from states that outlaw the option, District 23A Rep. Peggy Bennett, R-Albert Lea, was not supportive of the potential legislation., who argued language in the bill was deceptive to the public. 

While the bill would make Minnesota a sanctuary state for gender-affirming care for minors from other states and allow them to receive treatment with or without parental consent, she had concerns. Her biggest: dealing with minors.

The bill would require a judge to make the decision as to who had authority over a child’s decision to get care.

“First of all, we have to be upfront to what gender-affirming care is that’s being referred to in this bill,” she said. “It’s puberty-blockers, it’s cross-sex hormones and it’s genital and breast removal.”

And because it was medical treatment involving children, she argued there should be age limits as Minnesota recognized that children did not have fully-developed brains. Therefore, she said, they weren’t able to make adult-level decisions. To her, making those types of decisions at a young age was not a good idea, and she argued it was the same as having age limits for marriage, gun ownership, drinking and smoking.

“Even in the marijuana bill, the age limit is 21 for that because they know that marijuana affects a developing brain,” she said.

Bennett felt it was protecting children, or anyone under the age of 18.

Instead, she said she thought these treatments should only be allowed after children reached an age where they could reasonably decide if they wanted to undergo transitioning: as an adult at 18.

“There’s a difference between children and adults, and it’s one thing when an adult chooses to do [transitioning],” she said. “It’s another thing when adults are ushering in children into something that is permanent like this.”

She also argued Minnesota shouldn’t be a sanctuary state for minors, and pointed to Iowa Senate File 538 that passed earlier this month and prevented doctors from performing gender-affirming care to anyone under 18, and felt children transitioning any earlier was pushing them into a permanent decision.

“I think there are going to be Constitutional issues with this concerning other states, and there are going to be lawsuits,” she said, adding the bill could set Minnesota up for future lawsuits from young adults regretting past transitioning treatment. 

Bennett cited the story of Chloe Cole, who, according to an article from Fox News, underwent transgender transitioning from age 13 to 17.

But instead of getting relief from gender dysphoria, her mental health further declined.

While Bennett acknowledged there was support from the medical community in support of gender-affirming care, she said there were plenty that were against it and believed a good approach began with showing empathy to young people experiencing gender dysphoria who could also be struggling with severe anxiety, depression, eating disorders or thoughts of suicide.

“As a government we should put more money in to mental health specifically for these young people, to support them as best we can with all the different issues they’re experiencing with the anxiety, the depression, eating disorders and so on so that they don’t feel like the only option is suicide,” she said.

District 23B Rep. Patty Mueller could not be reached for comment.

— Minnesota Public Radio contributed to this story.