ATLANTA — The current push by conservatives across the nation against transgender healthcare is expanding beyond focusing on youth to now include limitations for transgender adults. As the 2025 state legislative sessions commence, there are efforts in at least ten states to restrict public funding for gender-affirming care for adults. Georgia stands out as the first state to take significant action this year, with a committee recently voting to send a bill to the full Senate for consideration, despite opposition from public employees who would be impacted by the loss of insurance benefits.
“It is extremely disappointing to be rewarded for our service by potentially losing the healthcare access we urgently need,” remarked Carrie Scott, an attorney and transgender woman who spoke out against the proposed measure.
This legislative movement comes on the heels of a court case in Georgia, where a county appealed a ruling that required them to provide gender-affirming care for a sheriff’s deputy. Other states have previously attempted similar restrictions. In Wisconsin, Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, vetoed a proposed ban on Medicaid spending for specific transgender healthcare services last year. In Ohio, former Republican Governor Mike DeWine aimed to restrict adult care before that executive order was rescinded. Furthermore, a law enacted in Florida in 2023 mandates that healthcare related to transitioning must be supervised by physicians and includes requirements for in-person appointments.
This year, legislative proposals have emerged not only in Georgia but also in states like Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights argue that Republican lawmakers have gained confidence from the actions taken during Donald Trump’s presidency regarding transgender and nonbinary individuals. Contrarily, former President Joe Biden has favored supporting transgender rights.
Carl Charles, a lawyer representing Lambda Legal, stated that Trump’s directives serve as a form of encouragement for Republican legislators. “The messages coming from the former administration have clearly motivated states to act,” he noted.
The proposed Georgia bill aims to prohibit the use of state funds for gender-affirming care within state employee health plans, Medicaid, and correctional facilities. The bill’s sponsor, Republican Senator Blake Tillery, asserted that the legislation intends to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding transgender surgeries.
In a related court proceeding, Houston County Sheriff’s Sergeant Anna Lange listened as arguments were put forth regarding whether her county’s insurance plan would continue covering her gender-affirming care benefits due to a federal lawsuit. Afterwards, Lange expressed, “Transgender people are individuals deserving of the same treatment as everyone else.”
Lange is not alone; many state employees have engaged in legal actions for benefits, with successes leading to settlements for public university staff, Medicaid recipients, and state workers. Both Scott and Khara Hayden, a transgender woman who works in IT, testified that they might consider leaving state employment if the proposed bill were to pass and benefits were rescinded by January 1, 2026. “Passing this bill means you would effectively remove my necessary healthcare, which would push me into early menopause due to lack of hormone therapy,” Hayden expressed during her testimony.
Nevertheless, the bill’s passage in the state House may face hurdles. State House Speaker Jon Burns, a Republican from Newington, reiterated that the only bill he supports related to transgender issues this session seeks to bar transgender girls and women from competing in school and collegiate sports. He indicated that the focus would be quite narrow concerning this legislation.
The health bill puts blame on Republican Attorney General Chris Carr for settling previous lawsuits concerning state employee benefits in 2023. Tillery, who sponsors the bill, is an ally of Lt. Governor Burt Jones, who has intentions to run for governor in 2026 against Carr. Carr has dismissed suggestions that he endorses benefits for transgender individuals, with spokesperson Kara Murray noting his long history of opposition to them.
There are differing opinions among state officials and employees who previously fought for healthcare benefits regarding the potential impact of new legislation on existing legal settlements. Plaintiffs maintain they have established binding agreements that include terms preventing the state from reinstating restrictions. Conversely, Tillery posits that since each year represents a new health insurance contract, the state retains the authority to modify its conditions.
“It’s our responsibility to legislate, while it’s the court’s role to interpret our regulations,” remarked Tillery. Should the state attempt to negate these settlements, opponents are prepared to pursue further legal action, arguing any denial of benefits based on transgender status is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has clarified that discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a violation of the 1964 civil rights law.
“Targeting transgender individuals and their required healthcare is discrimination, plain and simple,” Hayden stated firmly.
