NC Senate passes protections for parents who refuse gender-affirming care for kids
Prospective adoptive parents in North Carolina could not be denied the placement of a child in their care because the parents oppose providing the child with gender-affirming and transition care, under a bill approved by the state Senate on Wednesday.
Senate Bill 442, titled the “Parents Protection Act,” would also mean that a biological, adoptive or foster parent’s refusal to allow their child to receive such care — put another way, as it is stated in the bill, “raising a child consistent with the child’s biological sex” — would not qualify as abuse or neglect under law.
The bill was approved in a 32-13 vote.
The Senate bill is nearly identical to House Bill 560, also titled the “Parents Protection Act,” which received approval in multiple committees Tuesday but has not been heard on that chamber’s floor. Both bills are sponsored by Republicans, who control both chambers of the legislature.
Sen. Amy Galey, a Burlington Republican and cosponsor of the Senate’s bill, said in a committee Tuesday afternoon that the bill would protect parents’ ability to “care for children without the threat of losing supervision over that child because they refuse to affirm the gender identity of a child who is experiencing gender dysphoria.”
The bill also “shields parents who refuse to affirm gender transitioning from prosecution,” Galey told the committee. Parents could still be “otherwise” prosecuted for child abuse or neglect, but their refusal to provide their child with gender-affirming care could not the be “sole premise” of such a case against the parent, Galey said.
Several Democrats questioned the need for the bill in committees Tuesday.
“Is this a problem in North Carolina, or are we solving a problem that doesn’t actually exist here?” asked Sen. Julie Mayfield, an Asheville Democrat, in the Senate’s rules committee.
Galey, responding to Mayfield, said “the situation has occurred in quite a few states now,” but that she was not aware of any instances in North Carolina.
Earlier Tuesday, in another committee meeting, Galey cited legislation in California that would have allowed courts to consider, as one of many factors, whether a parent affirms their child’s identity in making determinations about parental custody and visitation rights. Critics of that 2023 measure, which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom ultimately vetoed, argued that it could have resulted in a child being taken from their parents — but legal experts and the bill’s sponsor disputed that assertion, The Associated Press reported.
Rep. Donnie Loftis, a Gastonia Republican who is a cosponsor of the House’s bill, said in another committee Tuesday that the bill is a “preemptive motion, for right now.”
DHHS, Democrats oppose bill
On the Senate floor Wednesday, Galey introduced an amendment that removed a section pertaining to foster care that was included in a previous version of the bill, debated Tuesday. Janssen White, assistant secretary for government affairs at the state Department of Health and Human Services, told senators Tuesday that DHHS had concerns about those provisions.
Under state law, children in foster care are guaranteed a “bill of rights” for the quality and standards of the homes they are placed in. Among other requirements, the bill of rights states that children are entitled to “a safe foster home free of violence, abuse, neglect, and danger.”
Under the proposed Parents Protection Act, “raising a child in a manner consistent with the child’s biological sex, including any related mental health or medical decisions” would not be considered a violation of the bill of rights.
Galey on Tuesday defended the former version of the bill by arguing that some parents might oppose gender-affirming care because of their religious beliefs, which could instruct them to believe that “gender is a gift which is given from the Lord.” Those beliefs alone, Galey argued, should not prevent the parents from having a child placed in their care.
If “the person holding those beliefs wants to become a foster parent, I would ... assert that they should not be disqualified from that because they hold those beliefs.”
But White noted that there are more parties involved in foster care than the foster parents themselves — including the child and the child’s biological parents.
White, who told senators that DHHS has concerns about the portions of the bill related to foster care, said biological parents retain “the right to make decisions about how their children are raised.” DHHS officials are worried that the bill would undermine that right, White said.
“While foster parents serve a critical role in the child welfare system, the rights of all individuals and biological parents must must be maintained,” White said.
DHHS was also concerned that the bill would undermine the ability of county-level social services agencies and courts “to consider all necessary information when determining an appropriate placement that prioritizes the child’s best interest, which is critical,” White said Tuesday.
Bill doesn’t go ‘both directions’
Galey seemed to address that concern earlier in the Senate committee, when Mayfield asked her whether the bill would prevent the agencies that oversee foster care from placing a child with parents who are supportive of gender-affirming care, over a family who would not support such treatment.
“I think that we would all agree,” Galey replied, “that in searching for appropriate care for a foster child, [departments of social services] should consider all relevant things which don’t discriminate against people based on their religion or make them give up their personal speech.”
Earlier Tuesday, Sen. Lisa Grafstein, a Raleigh Democrat, expressed concerns that the bill “is not going both directions” — that is, it does not provide protections to parents who do support their child’s gender transition, and who may be subject to criticism or claims of abuse from people outside of their family. Grafstein then noted that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, in 2022 directed the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate families who provided gender-affirming care to children, a move that has since been subject to court injunctions.
Grafstein also questioned whether courts or social services agencies would be able to consider the “supportiveness of the home” when those entities are deciding where to place a child, to which Galey responded by saying that “the best interest of the child is the North Star.”
“This is why I think it should go both ways,” Grafstein said, adding that if the bill would prevent the consideration of a parent’s opposition to gender-affirming care in placement decisions, “then it should not be a factor that that family will provide gender-affirmative care.”
“If we’re trying to address the concern that gender identity issues will come into play in the assessments, then I think there’s a way for us to address that, you know, in a way that’s neutral as to how the courts should view the family involved,” Grafstein said.
On the Senate floor Wednesday, Grafstein introduced an amendment that would have added protections for parents who choose to provide their children with gender-affirming care. Galey submitted a substitute amendment that did not include those provisions. With the Senate approving that motion, Grafstein’s amendment failed.
Grafstein also introduced an amendment to prohibit conversion therapy in the state. That measure was not considered after Galey offered a substitute amendment that raised the age of children for which parents could be found culpable for child abuse from 16 to 18. Galey’s effort passed.
The House’s version of the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing on the floor as of Wednesday afternoon, but the Senate’s version will now go to that chamber for consideration. Thursday is the General Assembly’s “crossover” date for this year’s legislative session, or the day by which a bill must be approved by one chamber to remain in consideration for the rest of the session.
This story was originally published May 6, 2025 at 7:12 PM.
