Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, the first out lesbian governor in the U.S., signed the Shield Act 2.0 into law Thursday. The bill further strengthens protections for patients and providers of reproductive healthcare, while explicitly mandating that abortions be performed when deemed medically necessary.
“Massachusetts will always be a state where patients can access high-quality health care and providers are able to do their jobs without government interference,” Healey said in a statement. “From the moment Roe was overturned, we stepped up to pass strong protections for patients and providers, and with President Trump and his allies continuing their assaults on health care, we’re taking those protections to the next level. No one is going to prevent the people of Massachusetts from getting the health care they need.”
The state’s original shield law, enacted by Democratic Gov. Charlie Baker in July, 2022, prohibits states that have banned the life-saving treatment from punishing those who travel to Massachusetts to receive it by preventing the release of information or the arrest and extradition of someone based on another state’s court orders.
The new law further prevents the disclosure of sensitive data, such as a physician’s name, and prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with other jurisdictions in their investigations. It also directs the Department of Public Health to create an advisory group to help guide businesses as they implement privacy protections for storing or managing electronic medical records.
“Massachusetts is home to the best health care providers in the country, and we aren’t going to let them be intimidated or punished for providing lifesaving care,” said Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll. “Together with the Legislature, we are reminding the entire country yet again that Massachusetts is a place where everyone can safely access the health care they need and deserve.”
New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) signed a gender-affirming care ban into law on Friday that bans anyone under 18 from using puberty blockers or hormone treatments for gender transition care.
H.B. 377 – the first of its kind in New England – also prohibits minors from receiving gender-affirming surgery, despite the fact that it is already almost never performed on trans kids under 18.
Starting January 1, 2026, providers are barred from providing hormone care and puberty blockers only “if the performance or administration of the procedure or medication is for the purpose of altering or attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex.”
The ban does not hold medical providers criminally liable for violations, but rather subjects them to administrative disciplinary action by the state board of medicine. It also allows minors already receiving treatment to continue doing so. Minors and their parents can also sue medical providers for violating the law.
Ayotte also signed a second bill specially preventing minors from having top surgery except for “procedures needed to treat malignancy, injury, infection, or malformation and those needed to reconstruct the breasts after such procedures.”
“Medical decisions made at a young age can carry lifelong consequences,” Ayotte said in a statement, “and these bills represent a balanced, bipartisan effort to protect children.”
Despite Ayotte calling the legislation bipartisan, the bills passed overwhelmingly along party lines. Only two Democrats voted for H.B. 377, and only one voted for the top surgery bill.
While expressing support for the bill, State Sen. Kevin Avard (R) called trans identity a “craze” that “seems almost a cult-like following.”
“I do believe biology speaks volumes,” he said, according to NBC Boston.
Courtney Reed, policy advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, called the laws “merciless, cruel, and painful for transgender young people, their families, and their doctors.”
Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said the legislation “epitomizes extreme government intrusion into the private lives and personal decisions of New Hampshire families.”
“The best way to protect the health and well-being of young transgender people is to ensure they have continued access to necessary, age-appropriate medical care provided by licensed physicians practicing in accordance with established standards of medical care,” he said.
Ayotte signed the bills despite the fact that earlier this Month, she vetoed several anti-LGBTQ+ bills, including an anti-trans bathroom bill, a book-banning bill, and a ban on teachers giving students “get to know you” questionnaires without parental permission. State Republicans lack the two-thirds majority needed in both the House and Senate to override the governor’s vetoes.
The island nation of Cuba will now allow transgender people to change the gender markers on their government-issued identity cards without having to undergo “bottom surgery,” a legal change long sought by the country’s trans and nonbinary communities.
On July 18, the country’s National Assembly of People’s Power (NAPP) approved a law allowing people to change their gender markers without first requiring a court-approved document proving that applicants had undergone genital affirming surgeries.
This new law is one of several recently approved by the NAPP to update the technology and policies of the nation’s record-keeping system. Cuba’s new Civil Registry code will now recognize unmarried couples’ emotional unions or cohabitation agreements, providing some legal recognition of various domestic partnerships.
In 2008, Cuba became the first Latin American country to provide comprehensive coverage for gender-affirming surgeries and related medical care. However, despite the country having the highest per capita population of medical doctors in the world, years-long U.S. trade embargo against the nation has prevented many doctors from accessing the hormone replacement medications and surgical supplies they need, according to a 2024 report from Teen Vogue.
Additionally, years worth of budget cuts by the Cuban government have forced many medical professionals to leave the island nation in search of higher-paying work abroad. As a result, trans Cubans must self-medicate using hormones purchased on the internet, something that can present risks since patients must then undergo the physical and psychological side effects without medical consultation.
CENESEX, the government-funded LGBTQ+ rights organization, ostensibly schedules trans-related healthcare for citizens. But one trans person told the aforementioned publication that the organization never contacted them back when they tried to schedule such care. CENESEX didn’t respond to the publication’s request for comment, and a security guard at the organization’s office said that CENESEX was closed and was only seeing patients “on an as-needed basis.”
Same-sex marriage is legal in Cuba. It was legalized on September 27, 2022, following a national referendum where a majority of Cubans voted in favor of a new family code that includes the legalization of same-sex marriage. The new family code also included provisions for same-sex adoption and surrogacy.
Although Cuban law currently prohibits “discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, statelessness, or access to education or health care,” the international LGBTQ rights site Alturi.com said, “Nonetheless, societal discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity persists.”
The US Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Tennessee’s ban on gender identity care for transgender minors earlier this summer has fueled ongoing polarization around LGBTQ issues and controversial policies across the nation. The high court has also agreed to take on more cases dealing with trans rights in its next session that begins in October.
Twenty-seven states have passed lawslimiting access to gender identity health care for transgender children and teenagers, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy think tank. An estimated 40% of trans youth ages 13 to 17 live in these states.
There have already been more anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures so far this year than in any full year since at least 2020, a CNN analysis of American Civil Liberties Union data found. These bills span various aspects of everyday life, including bathroom access, school sports and identification documents.
CNN is tracking where these laws are being passed and where these bills are being introduced. This story will be updated.
Gender identity care includes medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned sex— the one the person was designated at birth — to their affirmed gender, the gender by which one wants to be known.
Most of the states limiting gender identity care for trans minors adopted their bans in 2023, a record-breaking year for such laws. So far this year, one state — Kansas — has passed a ban, prohibiting the use of state funds to provide or subsidize health care for transgender youth.
Not all laws are currently being enforced, however. The ban in Arkansas has been permanently blocked by a federal court, though the state said it would appeal the ruling. Montana’s ban is also permanently blocked, according to KFF. Though Arizona has a 2022 law on the books banning surgical care for transgender minors, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed an executive order in 2023 ensuring access to gender identity health care.
Nearly 600 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced into state legislatures as of July 11, which is already more than any other year on record, according to the ACLU.
Education and health care continue to be key targets. There were more bills restricting student and educator rights — enforcing school sports bans and targeting students’ access to facilities consistent with their gender identities, for example — than any other category of bills, according to a CNN analysis of ACLU data.
Legislators in Texas have introduced 88 anti-LGBTQ bills so far this year, more than double the number of bills being considered in any other state. Four of those — including one that limits changes to gender markers on state medical records — have been passed into law.
Lawmakers in every state, except for Vermont, have filed at least one anti-LGBTQ bill in 2025, according to a CNN analysis. Twenty-two states have signed those bills into law.
Puerto Rico’sRepublican Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón signed into law Wednesday a far-reaching ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender people under 21, enacting one of the harshest measures of its kind in the United States and its territories and prompting swift condemnation from medical experts and LGBTQ+ advocates.
The law received the governor’s approval late in the day, according to the Associated Press.
The law, Senate Bill 350, prohibits the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender-affirming surgeries for anyone under 21, threatening doctors and other health professionals with up to 15 years in prison, a $50,000 fine, and the permanent loss of their licenses and permits. Public funds are also barred from being used for such care.
In recent days, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Association of Psychology, the College of Social Work Professionals, the Puerto Rican Association of Professional Counseling, and the Bar Association, among other organizations, had urged that the bill be vetoed.
The Advocate previously reported that González-Colón had asked for amendments to protect access to puberty blockers and allow minors already undergoing treatment to continue care, but lawmakers did not adopt those changes. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Skrmetti that a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors could be enacted, which allowed other states and territories to continue to ban such care.
“What a disgrace! Jenniffer González, through her actions, declares herself the most anti-equality governor in history. She ignored her own Secretary of Health and the medical associations that support treatment for trans minors. By signing Senate Bill 350 into law, she has just endangered trans youth and their families and criminalized health professionals for doing their job,” Pedro Julio Serrano, president of the Puerto Rico LGBTQ+ Federation, said in a statement to The Advocate.
Harvard Law Instructor Alejandra Caraballo reacted to the law’s signing on Bluesky. “A twenty-year-old trans person can go drink themselves to death but can’t legally get hormones,” she wrote, noting that the drinking age in Puerto Rico is 18.
The Federation, a coalition representing hundreds of individuals and more than 100 organizations, said it would pursue legal action against the new law.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) vetoed three anti-LGBTQ+ provisions in the state’s latest budget bill yesterday, in a partial victory for civil rights that still leaves several assaults on LGBTQ+ identity signed into law.
The budget passed by Republicans over Democrats’ objections included a raft of measures targeting the LGBTQ+ community, including a prohibition on flying the Pride flag on state property; defunding shelters that welcome trans youth; language defining sex in the state as binary; removing library books related to sexual orientation or gender identity from areas accessed by minors; and denying Medicaid funding for mental health services for transgender people.
DeWine vetoed the prohibition on the Pride flag, the defunding of youth shelters, and the mandate on library materials.
“The budget is supposed to be a reflection of Ohio’s shared values,” Equality Ohio said in a statement shared with the Columbus Dispatch after the governor vetoed the provisions. The group said lawmakers tried to make the bill “a vehicle for cruelty.”
“But because of community action—because we showed up, we sent emails, we made calls, and we told your stories — some of that cruelty was stopped in its tracks,” the organization said.
DeWine, a lifelong conservative and former United States senator, was circumspect in explaining the reasoning behind his vetoes.
On the subject of youth shelters, DeWine told reporters, “We want homeless shelters to be open for everyone. That’s kind of it.”
Of the library provision, which ordered books addressing LGBTQ+ identity kept “out of sight” of minors, the governor said, “As parents or grandparents, no one wants their child to have a book or something that is inappropriate, something that is obscene. But I just felt that the language did not work.”
The provision banning the Pride flag would have limited flags flown on state properties to the American flag, the Ohio flag, the POW/MIA flag, and flags of official state agencies.
Wins for MAGA Republicans in the GOP-dominated Ohio House and Senate included copycat language from the president’s “gender ideology” executive order mandating the government recognize only two biological sexes, male and female, as well as a ban on Medicaid funding for mental health services for transgender people.
How the latter would be enforced in a mental health setting has yet to be tested and will likely be challenged in court.
DeWine also let stand a prohibition on distributing menstrual products in men’s public restrooms.
Republican leaders can override any of DeWine’s line-item vetoes between now and the end of the two-year legislative session in December 2026. The GOP holds overwhelming and veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.
In January 2024, Republicans overrode DeWine’s veto of a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors and trans women and girls from participating in school sports in the state.
A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children.
The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs – as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden – argued that Tennessee’s law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessee’s law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs.
Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed “experimental” medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care.
All six of the supreme court’s conservative justices joined in at least part of the decision to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling primarily rested on the justices’ finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights.
“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,” Roberts wrote. He added: “We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”
In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021,26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.
Many of these restrictions have been paused by court challenges, but the supreme court’s decision could have vast implications for those lawsuits’ futures. A study by the Trevor Project, a mental health non-profit that aims to help LGBTQ+ kids, found that anti-trans laws are linked to a 72% increase of suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Because the law discriminates on the basis of sex, Sotomayor argued in her dissent, it should face higher legal scrutiny than the majority decided to give it.
“Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,” Sotomayor wrote. “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”
While largely avoiding the same level of heated pushback of years’ past, Texas lawmakers passed several bills that give LGBTQ+ people in Texas, specifically transgender residents, less opportunity to receive care and maintain their identities in state records.
Texas legislators filed over 100 anti-trans bills through the session, some containing provisions that have been shot down in years’ prior while others proposed new restrictions. Less than 10 were ultimately approved by lawmakers.
The new bills that are likely to be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott represent a yearslong movement from state conservatives to find new ways to restrict the presence of trans and LGBTQ+ Texans, advocates say. The bills that failed may also be resurrected by lawmakers in future sessions. Here’s what to know.
State definitions of man and woman
Several bills filed in the Legislature aimed to craft legal definitions of sex and gender in addition to their target goals — but House Bill 229 makes that goal its sole purpose, establishing state definitions for male and female and applying those definitions across statute.
HB 229 defines a woman as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
Most immediately, the bill will bolster an already existing block from stateagencies on changes to gender markers on state documents, which was backed by a nonbinding opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton in March. The bill may also force those who have already switched their documents to match their identified gender to have changes reverted when they are renewed.
The longer-term effects of HB 229 are still not immediately apparent, as references to man and woman are used hundreds of times in statute and may ripple into other laws affecting people’s lives. Texas joins 13 other states that have also crafted their own definitions, and several other bills that also passed in the state have individual definitions for related terms like “biological sex.”
President Donald Trump issued an executive order named “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism” in January providing federal definitions of male and female. Similarly, HB 229 has been dubbed the “Women’s Bill of Rights” by supporters, claiming it protects women in the state from men invading their spaces.
Abbott released an executive order of his own shortly after Trump’s affirming the president’s directive, but did not provide his own definitions. In a May post on social media, the governor said he would immediately sign HB 229 into law.
New requirements for medical records and insurance coverage
Tightening the ability to change the gender on state records like drivers’ licenses has been a key issue for conservative lawmakers for years, and while HB 229 sets a precedent in disallowing new changes, another bill creates new requirements entirely. Senate Bill 1188 creates a new section on all state medical records listing patients’ assigned sex at birth and any physical sexual development disorders. It also bans changes to those gender markers for any reason other than clerical errors, and creates civil penalties for medical professionals who do change them.
House Democrats opposing the measure during floor discussion worried that SB 1188 may scare medical providers into inputting vague or inaccurate health information out of fear of fiscal or legal retribution. The bill does allow the new section to include information on a patients’ gender identity, however health care services must opt-in to provide it.
The bill also creates restrictions on where health care providers can store patient data and the physical servers they use to store them, and new regulations on how artificial intelligence can be used to create diagnoses.
SB 1188 is not the only bill opponents have said will create a chilling effect on the LGBTQ+ community. Some bills may be more immediate in blocking options people have to do things like change their state records, but others like SB 1188 and Senate Bill 1257 may reduce what resources are available. SB 1257 was signed by Abbott in May and mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for gender detransitioning care if they already cover gender transition care.
Proponents of the law claim it enforces responsibility onto insurance companies. The law is not a ban on gender-affirming care, however opponents worry it may act as one by incentivizing insurance companies to pull coverage altogether rather than take on potential new costs.
SB 1257 is the first legal mandate for detransition care in the United States, making Texas a testing ground for insurance companies’ appetite to keep or pull coverage. Similar bills in Arizona, Florida and Tennessee did not pass out of their respective state legislatures in 2024.
Less protections and resources for LGBTQ+ youth
Medical gender transition care for minors was banned in Texas by the Legislature in 2023, a restriction that was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. House Bill 18, primarily an overhaul of rural health care including a rural pediatric mental health care program, bans minors from accessing its resources for gender-affirming mental health counseling “inconsistent with the child’s biological sex.”
The current gender transition care ban for minors does not include mental health services, only puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery, which is rare for those under 18. Another proposal headed to Abbott’s desk, House Bill 1106, asserts that parents who do not recognize or affirm their child’s gender identity cannot be held liable for abuse or neglect because of that lack of recognition.
More restrictions on LGBTQ+ presence in schools
Access to materials and resources related to LGBTQ+ subjects are also being restricted by legislators through two key bills primarily aimed at schools. Senate Bill 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity and forbids student clubs “based on” those subjects.
The bill would prevent clubs like Gay-Straight Alliances and pride clubs, which are often tailored toward anti-bullying initiatives in schools. Opponents of the bill claim a ban on those clubs would cut off LGBTQ+ students from communities and resources that can save lives.
“One of the deadliest things that our youth go through is experiencing the perception at least of isolation, and GSAs are a powerful way that we can combat that and make sure that our youth are getting support,” said Ash Hall, ACLU Texas’ policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights.
While SB 12 restricts instruction and student groups, Senate Bill 13 gives school boards and new advisory councils greater oversight to remove books from school libraries that go against “local community values.” Some lawmakers and advocates worry school boards and advisory councils would be able to restrict books containing LGBTQ+ material.
A third bill, Senate Bill 18, would have banned “drag-time story hours” at municipal libraries and cut funding to those who host them, however that bill was unintentionally killed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick after a procedural error at the end of the Senate’s deadline to pass bills.
Bills that failed to pass
The small set of bills passed by legislators shift the state’s treatment of LGBTQ+ Texans significantly, but still represent a fraction of what lawmakers proposed. House Bill 239, this session’s bathroom ban bill, was one of the over 100 bills that did not survive and was never heard by lawmakers despite half of the House signing on as coauthors. House Bill 2704 sought a similar ban through private lawsuits rather than criminal charges, but was never picked up by lawmakers.
Also left unheard was House Bill 3817, filed by Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, which would have created a new felony charge for “gender identity fraud” if a person represented themselves as a gender besides the one they were assigned at birth to state agencies or employers.
Advocates like Johnathan Gooch, communications director for Equality Texas, say that the Legislature has kept its course on anti-trans legislation for the last few sessions, and that bills that didn’t get picked up by legislators may be at the forefront of future sessions.
“We’re hearing rhetoric that we’ve heard for a very long time and just more, more bills, a variety of new ways to narrow the rights of trans people,” Gooch said. “It just doesn’t come as a mistake that the number of bills is escalating.”
Today, a Montana Court struck down SB 99, a 2023 Montana law that categorically bans often life-saving health care for transgender youth. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in Cross v. Montana, holding that SB 99 violates the constitutional rights of transgender youth who are seeking gender-affirming care and the healthcare professionals who are providing that care.
The lawsuit challenging SB 99 was brought by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the ACLU of Montana. This ruling removes completely the threat hanging over Montana transgender youth and their families that their access to critical medical care would be terminated.
“I will never understand why my representatives worked so hard to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids,” said Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old transgender boy. “It’s great that the courts, including the Montana Supreme Court, have seen this law for what it was, discriminatory, and today have thrown it out for good. Just living as a trans teenager is difficult enough, the last thing me and my peers need is to have our rights taken away.”
“Today, the court saw through the state’s vitriol and hollow justifications and put the final nail in the coffin of this cruel, and discriminatory, law,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Nora Huppert. “No parent should ever be forced to deny their child access to the safe and effective care that could relieve their suffering and provide them a future. Because Montana’s Constitution protects their right to privacy, transgender youth in Montana can sleep easier tonight knowing that they can continue to thrive.”
“We are very pleased that the Court saw through the State’s unfounded arguments about why gender-affirming medical care should be treated differently from other forms of care,” said ACLU staff attorney Malita Picasso. “The Court recognizes SB 99 for what it truly is, an effort by the State to legislate transgender Montanans out of existence.”
“The Montana Constitution protects the privacy and dignity of all Montanans,” said Akilah Deernose, ACLU-MT Executive Director. “In the face of those protections, cruel and inhumane laws like SB 99 will always fail. Today’s decision should be a powerful message to those that seek to marginalize and harass transgender Montanans.”
In its ruling, the court stated:
“[t]he Court is forced to conclude that the State’s interest is actually a political and ideological one: ensuring minors in Montana are never provided treatment to address their “perception that [their] gender or sex” is something other than their sex assigned at birth. In other words, the State’s interest is actually blocking transgender expression.”
Plaintiffs in the case include Molly and Paul Cross and their 17-year-old transgender son Phoebe; Jane and John Doe joining on behalf of their 16-year-old transgender daughter; and two providers of gender affirming care who bring claims on their own behalf and on behalf of their Montana patients.
On December 11, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction that SB 99 was likely unconstitutional under the Montana state constitution’s privacy clause, which prohibits government intrusion on private medical decisions. The ruling rested entirely on State constitutional grounds, insulating transgender adolescents, their families and health care providers from any potential negative outcome at the United States Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the landmark case brought by Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
More information about the case is available here.
The news out of the #txlege is heavy, but we will continue to fight back against anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation at the Capitol and across Texas.
These bills will have a massive impact on trans Texans. This week is a time of grief and a source of pain for many. During this time of uncertainty and confusion, please hold on to each other and know that you are not alone. Hundreds of thousands of Texans are in your corner.
This past Monday, we passed a key landmark. All House bills that had not been referred out of committee are no longer eligible to become law. That means that 139 of the 200+ bad bills have died—bills that would have criminalized being trans or sought to ban trans care for adults outright.
“Despite some of the worst bills dying, the news of HB 229 and HB 778 passing the House weighs heavy on all of us. No matter where the fight takes us, we will survive, and we will do it together.” -Brad Pritchett, Interim CEO of Equality Texas
If you are struggling right now, please consider reaching out to:
The news out of the 
If you are struggling right now, please consider reaching out to:
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.