South Dakota House Bill 1080 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
South Dakota Legislature | |
| |
Citation | |
Territorial extent | ![]() |
Enacted by | South Dakota House of Representatives |
Enacted by | South Dakota Senate |
Enacted | February 9, 2023 |
Signed by | Kristi Noem |
Signed | February 13, 2023 |
Effective | July 1, 2023 |
First chamber: South Dakota House of Representatives | |
Introduced by | Bethany Soye [1] |
Voting summary |
|
Summary | |
Prohibits medical professionals from administering gender-affirming medical care to South Dakotans in most circumstances under eighteen years of age. | |
Status: In force |
South Dakota House Bill 1080 (HB 1080), also referred to as the Help Not Harm Bill, is a 2023 law in the state of South Dakota that restricts access to gender-affirming medical care for minors, namely hormone replacement therapy (HRT), puberty blockers, and sex reassignment surgery. [2] It was signed into law by Governor Kristi Noem on February 13, 2023 and took effect on July 1, 2023. [3] [4]
HB 1080 restricts medical professionals from administering most forms of gender-affirming care to South Dakotans under eighteen years of age. [5] Exceptions to the law exist for those with developmental disorders, those with non-congruent sex chromosome structures, or due to an injury or disease such as premature menopause. [6] South Dakotans who were already receiving gender-affirming care prior to July 1, 2023 were included in a grandfather clause, but were required to end treatment by December 31, 2023. [6] Medical professionals face discipline if they violate HB 1080. [7]
Governor Kristi Noem supported HB 1080 prior to its passage. [8] [9] The primary author of the bill, Bethany Soye, stated that gender-affirming medical care was "mutilation" and "experimental". [10]
HB 1080 was opposed by the South Dakota State Medical Association after its introduction, along with several medical professionals. [11] [12] The Human Rights Campaign condemned the law. [13] The American Civil Liberties Union opposed HB 1080 and had considered a lawsuit against it. [14] [15]