In a 216-211 vote, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the Protect Children’s Innocence Act on Wednesday.

Spearheaded by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), this legislation seeks to establish federal criminal offenses for providing certain so-called “gender-affirming care” to minors, which includes surgeries, puberty blockers, and hormone therapies. Violations could result in fines or up to 10 years in prison, or both, with few exceptions. The bill also broadens the existing federal prohibition on female genital mutilation (FGM) to include enablement or consent by any person, while prohibiting the arrest or prosecution of minors who undergo such procedures.

Three Democratic congressmen voted in favor — Henry Cuellar (Texas), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), and Don Davis (N.C.). Supporters, many concerned with the well-being of children and protecting them from experimental transgender ideology, have celebrated the passage as a win — even though it’s unlikely to gain momentum in the Senate. Some have praised the measure for addressing the harmful practices, emphasizing the need to safeguard minors from irreversible medical interventions.

Others, however, such as policy experts and legislators who have analyzed the bill, warn that it’s not as straightforward as it appears to be upon first glance. Family Research Council’s Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs, broke it down in remarks to The Washington Stand.

According to González, the background of this bill is crucial to understanding its effectiveness (or lack thereof). As he explained, Rep. Greene’s bill effectively inserts protections against pediatric “gender transition” procedures (GTP) into existing criminal statute on female genital mutilation (FGM). This, however, “confuses several policy issues.”

As González noted, some of these confusions include that fact that FGM is a criminal matter. While “some members of Congress prefer to address GTP protections through civil penalties, at least at this stage,” others allegedly “object in principle to expanding the criminal code.” Another point of conflict is that FGM is prohibited to be carried out on women of any age. Greene’s bill, however, applies only to children. “That introduces unnecessary and repetitive complication throughout the bill,” González stated. And “because FGM is mutilation, GTPs are also characterized as mutilation in the bill; but ‘mutilation’ does not cover the full extent of ‘gender transition’ procedures and is a poor label for procedures that include chemical and hormone manipulation, for example.”

There are other aspects worth considering, as González shared. For instance, “GTPs are criminalized in such a way that parents could be held criminally accountable. This may not be the best place to begin work on this issue.” Additionally, he also noted some concerns “with the bill’s wording” in certain sections that, from a policy perspective, could cause issues.

And to address his own concerns, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) released a statement on the Protect Children’s Innocence Act:

“Today, in consideration of H.R. 3492, the Protect Children’s Innocence Act, which would criminalize those providing so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ to children, I had planned to offer an amendment to partially address my concerns about its prospects of passage in the Senate and potential constitutional challenges the act will face.

“I will not offer the amendment, however, to avoid any confusion about how united Republicans are in protecting children from these grotesque procedures.

“As I have long made clear, the trans agenda is abhorrent and should be criminalized. To succeed and to be effective, we must ensure the language we are adopting avoids potential pitfalls, from the expansive uses of the Commerce Clause to definitions and provisions that might invite constitutional challenge. It was my belief — and remains my belief — that my amendment was a path to increase the likelihood of passage in the Senate and success in the courts.

“House leadership has known for a long time there were concerns about the legislation among members, many faith-based groups, and knowledgeable lawyers, and should have addressed those concerns before bringing the measure to a vote. Doing so would have avoided any confusion about our unity on this matter.”

On the opposing side, LGBT activist groups have unsurprisingly condemned the bill. They view it as an attack on so-called “transgender rights.” And yet, even for those approaching it with skepticism, the bill’s intent is widely acknowledged as one set on protecting children. “It’s encouraging,” González emphasized, “that the majority of Republicans in the House voted to protect children from ‘gender transition’ experimentation. A child’s discomfort with his or her sex is a rare but serious mental health issue, and children deserve to be protected and cared for, not lied to and experimented upon to satisfy adults’ fantasies of transgenderism.”

As he went on to state, “The vast majority of children outgrow this discomfort during puberty, and there is healing and hope for everyone, at any stage, who has been harmed by the lies that gender ideology tells about our identity.” And so, while the bill’s future in the Senate remains dim, its passage in the House underscores the ongoing national debate over transgender procedures for minors, with implications for medical ethics, parental rights, and civil liberties.