Adopt the Gender Transition Malpractice Accountability Act, provide an exemption to the time limitation to commence certain actions relating to professional negligence, require insurance coverage for certain treatments and procedures arising as a result of a gender-altering procedure, and change provisions relating to civil actions under the Let Them Grow Act

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

This is a liability and insurance bill about gender-transition medical care. It creates a new right to sue, stretches the deadline for suing, and orders insurers to pay for aftercare.

• Sections 1 to 6 create the Gender Transition Malpractice Accountability Act, with its own definitions.
• Section 4 gives patients twelve years to sue a provider and waives the state's sovereign immunity.
• Section 5 allows actual damages and attorney's fees, naming lost fertility and emotional distress.
• Section 6 requires a signed written risk disclosure before treatment, including a parent if under nineteen.
• Section 7 makes any policy that ever covered such a procedure cover complications, monitoring, and reversal.
• Section 8 exempts these claims from 25-222's two-year deadline and ten-year outer limit.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

The title matches the operative sections closely; each of its four promises has a real section behind it. The looser fit is between the bill's stated purpose and one of its own amendments.

• "Adopt the Act" matches Sections 1 through 6, including the definitions and the disclosure duty.
• The insurance promise matches Section 7, effective January 1, 2027, alongside the act's own operative date.
• The "exemption to the time limitation" matches Section 8's carve-out written into 25-222.
• The Let Them Grow change matches Section 9, amending 71-7307 to borrow Section 4's timing.
• Divergence: Section 2 claims to extend deadlines, but Section 9 can shorten late-discovered Let Them Grow claims.
• The title never flags the sovereign immunity waiver or the ban on contractual liability waivers.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

This bill sits where medicine meets accusation, and two of the candidate verses reach that intersection without being forced. Matthew 12:10 records: "And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him." The verse cuts both ways here — it shows the law being asked about a healer's act for the purpose of accusing him, a warning against liability rules built as traps, while also conceding that whether a purported healing is lawful is a question the law properly puts. Hebrews 7:12 — "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." — speaks to the bill's structural premise, that when a practice changes, the law governing it must change with it; it says nothing about which direction that change should run. What neither verse settles is nearly everything LB731 actually decides: whether these procedures cause the harms section 5 lists, whether twelve years is the right period rather than two or twenty, whether sovereign immunity should be waived, who should bear the cost of reversal care under section 7, or what a provider must be made to disclose under section 6. Scripture here supplies a posture toward accusation and toward changed law; it supplies none of the medicine, none of the arithmetic, and none of the insurance.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The disagreement is whether a much longer window to sue protects injured patients or singles out one field of medicine.

• For: Harms like infertility can surface decades later, long after a two-year clock expires.
• For: Section 7 makes the insurer that paid for a procedure also pay for reversal.
• For: Section 6 puts known risks and thin long-term data in writing before treatment begins.
• Against: Section 4 gives one treatment a twelve-year window while all other malpractice keeps two.
• Against: "Provider" in Section 3 reaches anyone recommending or approving, including mental health professionals who never operated.
• Against: Section 7 loads long-tail costs on insurers and premium payers with no stated limit.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This reading covers only what the bill's words say; it cannot predict cost, court rulings, or federal limits.

• No appropriation or fiscal estimate appears, and the sovereign immunity waiver's cost is unstated.
• Section 7 exempts self-funded plans only where federal law preempts, without saying which plans qualify.
• The text sets no way to verify that a policy "has ever provided" the coverage triggering Section 7.
• Section 6 attaches no penalty, remedy, or enforcement mechanism to a missing or unsigned disclosure.
• Nothing says whether the twelve-year window revives claims already time-barred before January 1, 2027.
• "Male" and "female" rely on section 79-3803, which this text does not reproduce.
• Section 4 names no standard of conduct a provider must have breached to be liable.

Text (1)

• Introduced (application/pdf)

Each link opens the Legislature's own document. The text itself is not in our database yet (fetched lazily); when it lands these pages will carry it verbatim.

All Actions (7)

Votes (0)

There have been no roll call votes on this bill.

Sponsors (3)

• Sen. Brian Hardin [District 48]
• Sen. Kathleen Kauth [District 31] — primary sponsor
• Sen. Dave Murman [District 38]

Amendments (0)

There are no amendments to this bill.

Fiscal Notes & Statements (2)

• Fiscal Note — Fiscal Note
• Statement of Intent — Statement of Intent

The Legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.

Committees (1)

Related Bills (0)

No related bill information was received for LB731.