SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A new first-in-the nation bill would limit medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex children in California; that is, on babies born with anatomical differences in their genitalia.

Senate Bill 225 would require parents to wait until the child is six years old to have surgeries that would, for example, reduce a clitoris, move a working urinary opening or create a vagina.

Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who wrote the bill, said these types of surgeries can cause chronic pain, scarring, or worse.

"These surgeries can have significant side effects, like permanent sterilization or loss of sexual sensation," Wiener contended. "And the wrong gender can be assigned."

Opponents of the bill claimed government should not play a role in these types of decisions by parents and doctors. Supporters countered a six-year delay gives parents time to get to know their child before taking this type of action.

Hans Lindahl, director of communications for InterAct, a group that advocates for intersex youth, said no one is expecting a six-year-old to make a decision, but rather to be old enough to have some input.

"What we're looking for is time for families and doctors to really understand some of the risks of these procedures," Lindahl explained. "And at that point, it usually will become clear in what direction a child's gender identity is shaping up."

Shannan Wilber, youth policy director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said these types of surgeries are a throwback to other practices that are now widely condemned, like conversion therapy or surgeries on people with disabilities.

"Hopefully, we'll begin to educate the public about this, so that folks with natural anatomical variations will not be viewed as deviants in some way, or something that needs to be corrected, but just part of natural variations in the human body," Wilber argued.

A similar bill failed in committee last year.


get more stories like this via email

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox could sign a bill that would ban LGBTQ+ pride flags from Utah's public schools and government buildings.

The bill's Republican sponsors argue it's all in an effort to encourage political neutrality among government workers and teachers.

Chad Call, executive director with the Utah Pride Center, called the bill "wild government overreach" and unconstitutional.

Call said folks in other communities can use or wear symbols that indicate their values. He said he sees the pride flag being no different.

"Those symbols are largely recognized as free speech in this country," said Call. "This bill is, in our opinion, an infringement on that free speech, especially in the workplace where people have a right to express themselves. We feel like pride flags are in alignment with that."

Call encouraged Cox to veto the bill and consider how many Utahns in the state would be impacted.

Just over 6% of the state's adult population identifies as LGBTQ+, according to UCLA's Williams Institute.

Call argued that Cox and other lawmakers have an obligation to adequately represent all Utahns, not just a select few.

The Utah Pride Festival is taking place on June 7 and 8 in Salt Lake City. The celebration is organized by the Utah Pride Center.

Call said while he doesn't know if Cox will sign HB 77 into law or not, he added that Utah Pride and other local pride celebrations will still take place.

"We will still gather together the first week of June," said Call. "We will still fly our pride flags, even if the city can't join us in that. We will still gather and we will still come together and celebrate something that we have for decades in the state."

As LGBTQ+ plus rights have come under fire across state legislatures, Call said he has a simple message to LGBTQ+ plus folks who may feel discouraged and disappointed with their elected officials.

"Our community is stronger than this," said Call. "Our community has been through challenges and situations like this in the past. It doesn't make them OK, but it does make us a resilient and strong community."

Gov. Kim Reynolds has signed a measure that removes gender identity protections for LGBTQ+ people from Iowa's civil rights code. Opponents call it "mean spirited."

Senate File 418 makes Iowa the first state in the country to remove civil rights protections for a group of people who have been protected by law, taking the words "gender identity" out of its code.

Anne Discher, executive director of the group Common Good Iowa, said the measure belies Iowa's open-minded reputation and sends the wrong message to the rest of the nation.

"Basically, it is saying that it's OK to discriminate against trans people in the workplace, in housing, in school and in their financial lives," Discher explained.

Supporters of the measure, which was the first bill Reynolds signed in 2025, said including gender identity in Iowa's civil rights code threatens "common sense" laws banning transgender participation in sports and clarify who can use which public restrooms. Iowa passed its Civil Rights Act in 1965.

Hundreds of protesters rallied against the bill at the Statehouse in Des Moines before Reynolds signed it. Discher argued Iowa lawmakers are not representing their constituents.

"I really firmly believe this bill does not reflect the true beliefs of most Iowans," Discher stressed. "I think it's
incredibly more extreme than Iowans truly are in their hearts."

If it is not challenged in court, the measure is scheduled to take effect July 1.


get more stories like this via email

A coalition of New Mexico groups is supporting a bill this session to require "Comprehensive Human Sexuality Education" for public school students.

New Mexico is among 40 states to require sex-education instruction but according to Planned Parenthood, there is no guarantee the instruction is high quality or covers topics young people need to stay healthy, including information about HIV.

Nathan Saavedra, program manager for Equality New Mexico, said Senate Bill 258 would require sex education curricula is medically accurate.

"Our hope mostly is to save lives," Saavedra emphasized. "We know that sex education does save lives and it improves the health of all youth. It decreases bullying and harassment. Sex education is harm reduction, from our perspective."

In addition to Equality New Mexico, the state's ACLU organization and the New Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs support the more comprehensive approach. By contrast, last fall the Florida Department of Education ordered local school districts teaching sex education to promote abstinence and exclude discussion of contraception.

Saavedra noted many students, including those who are LGBTQ+, do not know what they should be doing to protect themselves and would benefit from discussions covering sexual orientation and gender identity.

"We're trying to get the point across and the law in place so those students no longer have to feel less than, or know less than, their peers," Saavedra stressed.

New Mexico's current standards for sex education surpass many other states but access is often dependent on where a student lives. As written, the bill would provide resources to rural and smaller districts to launch comprehensive programs. The proposed legislation still would allow parents to exempt their children from the sex-ed portion of required health courses.