The Montana House Judiciary Committee convened on March 21, 2025, to discuss Senate Bill 164, which proposes significant changes to the legal landscape surrounding gender-affirming care for minors. The bill has sparked considerable opposition from various stakeholders, including healthcare professionals and LGBTQ+ advocates.

Morgan Searing, an LGBTQ+ organizer with Forward Montana, opened the discussion by urging committee members to vote against the bill. Searing emphasized that gender-affirming care is a critical and life-saving treatment for young transgender, non-binary, and two-spirit individuals. He argued that categorizing such medical decisions as endangerment undermines the rights of Montanans to make personal healthcare choices. Searing called for a no vote to protect the privacy and autonomy of families and their healthcare providers.

Polly Becker, a healthcare practitioner, echoed these concerns, highlighting the potential consequences of the bill, which could classify certain medical practices as felonies. Becker warned that this could lead to trauma for children and families, as well as significant repercussions for healthcare professionals who could lose their ability to practice due to felony charges. She criticized the bill for creating unnecessary legal barriers to essential medical care.

Robin Turner, representing Legal Voice, also spoke against the bill, framing it as government overreach that criminalizes parental decisions regarding their children's health. Turner pointed out that the bill presumes that loving parents and healthcare providers are acting criminally when they support a child's transition. She stressed the importance of bodily autonomy and the profound impact that criminal charges could have on families, including loss of freedom, reputation, and stability.

The testimonies presented during the meeting reflect a strong consensus among opponents of SB 164, who argue that the bill would harm vulnerable youth and their families while infringing on personal rights and medical autonomy. The committee's decision on this bill could have lasting implications for healthcare practices and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in Montana.