By Ruth Brown, Idaho Reports  

The House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee advanced a bill Wednesday to ban on all public funds going to transgender medical care.  

Sponsored by Rep. Julianne Young, R-Blackfoot, HB 520 would prohibit the use of public funds for gender affirming care. The bill prohibits coverage for Medicaid patients, as well as making the expense of gender affirming care tax-deductible.  

It would also impact all people covered by the state health insurance plan, including state employees. The bill’s ban covers surgeries and other hormone therapies used in gender affirming care.  

An ongoing case in federal court, M.H. v Jeppesen, is undecided on the legality of that issue. That lawsuit involves two transgender people who claim Idaho’s Medicaid program refused to pay for their gender affirming medical care.  

Gov. Brad Little has repeatedly said he does not support the use of Medicaid funds for gender affirming care, something Young cited during her presentation. This bill, however, goes further, banning certain types of coverage for public employees with private insurance through the state.  

The state’s Office of Group Insurance covers about 60,000 Idahoans — including state employees, spouses, and dependents — through its contract with Blue Cross of Idaho.   

“I recognize that some individuals will perceive this as discriminatory toward them,” Young said. “I see this not as a comment on anybody’s personal feelings or struggles, but rather as our responsibility to define what is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds when it comes to procedures and surgeries that are highly controversial.” 

State employee Isaac Craghtten testified in opposition to the bill. Craghtten uses the state health insurance plan, and expressed concern that the bill would impact their ability to access hormone therapy they are currently using.  

Young confirmed with Idaho Reports after the meeting that gender affirming care would no longer be covered by the state health insurance plan should the bill pass. Individuals would have to pay out of pocket for those procedures or treatments. 

Nikson Mathews also testified in opposition to the bill, saying it put transgender people’s lives at a greater risk.  

“Gender affirming care is not elective. It is evidence-based, medically necessary, and often life-saving treatment,” Mathews said. “It is backed by every single major medical organization, including millions of providers and mental health professionals in the United States.” 

Several people testified in support of the bill, saying they did not want taxpayer funds paying for what they believed were elective procedures. 

“It goes against the natural law to mutilate oneself,” said Mary Ellen Nourse told the committee. “The use of Idaho tax dollars to pay for sex change surgery for minors is particularly loathsome, especially since the effects are irreversible.” 

There are no documented cases of gender affirming surgeries for minor patients in Idaho. A law passed last year already bans gender affirming medical treatment for minors.  

Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, repeatedly questioned those in support of the bill, saying transgender people are also taxpayers. Rep. Dan Garner, R-Clifton, expressed concern in committee about the bill saying no state buildings or state properties could be used for these purposes, as sometimes doctors see patients with private health insurance in state hospitals. 

The committee advanced the bill forward to the House floor with a do-pass recommendation in a voice vote. Reps. Chris Mathias, D-Boise, Achilles and Garner wanted to be recorded as “no” votes. 

---