PRIA Logo™
119-s-5593119th Congress

Yaeli Martinez Child Protection Act

Sponsored By: Senator Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

Introduced

Summary

Protect parents' right to affirm their child's sex. This bill would bar use of federal child-welfare funds for medical or social "sex-rejecting interventions," require foster‑care housing and training rules, and create federal enforcement and private lawsuits to enforce those limits.

Show full summary
  • Families and parents: Parents and guardians would get explicit statutory protections and a federal private right to sue if a state or agency takes adverse actions tied to a parent's affirmation of a child's sex.
  • Children in foster care and foster parents: States would be required to provide sex-aligned sleeping quarters and corresponding bathrooms for children age 4 and older and may not authorize sex-rejecting interventions or change pronouns/titles without parental consent. Federal foster-care payments would not cover sex-rejecting interventions.
  • States, tribes, and agencies: Recipients of CAPTA and Title IV funds would need new certifications, training, and policies and face mandatory penalties and withholding for violations set at 5% for a first finding, 10% for a second, and 15% for a third or subsequent finding, capped at 15% per grant period. Covered entities that accept funds would waive certain immunity defenses and face heightened civil liability rules.

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

5 provisions identified: 2 benefits, 1 costs, 2 mixed.

New foster-care protections for parents

If enacted, the bill would require State plans and child‑welfare entities to protect parents, guardians, and caregivers who affirm a child’s sex. It would prohibit treating such affirmation as abuse or parental unfitness and forbid sex‑marker changes in records while a child is in foster care. For children age 4 and older, placements and licensed facilities would use sleeping and undress areas by the child’s sex. The bill would also require training for many child‑welfare workers and list some items to be implemented within one year after enactment.

Limits on federal child-welfare funding

If enacted, the bill would bar federal Title I, Part B, and Part E funds from being used to provide, promote, refer to, or place children in settings that enable specified "sex‑rejecting interventions." States could not get Part E payments or federal matching for amounts spent on those interventions. The Secretary would have to disallow costs and could impose penalties of 5%, 10%, or 15% of Title I grant funds for violations, with a 15% cap per grant period.

New federal lawsuits and remedies

If enacted, parents, guardians, caregivers, foster parents, prospective foster or adoptive parents, and children could file federal lawsuits for adverse State actions or violations of the bill’s child‑welfare rights. Plaintiffs would not have to exhaust state remedies first. Courts could award declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and emotional‑distress damages, and attorney fees. Part E payment reductions for violations would be limited to no more than 30 days.

Limits on interstate custody enforcement

If enacted, the bill would change when State courts must recognize or enforce custody and visitation orders tied to seeking specified interventions. Courts could not exercise jurisdiction in some cases based on a child seeking an intervention available in that State. Orders made in violation of these limits would not get full faith and credit or enforcement across States. A State that bans the interventions would still be allowed to act even if the child got treatment in another State.

Definitions for child-welfare protections

If enacted, the bill would define key terms used in its child-welfare rules. It would define ‘‘adverse State action,’’ ‘‘covered entity,’’ ‘‘affirmation,’’ and ‘‘sex‑rejecting intervention.’’ The definitions would say sex is an immutable biological category and would exclude certain medically indicated treatment for disorders of sex development.

Sponsors & CoSponsors

Sponsor

Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

MO • R

Cosponsors

  • Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

    UT • R

    Sponsored 9/30/2026

Roll Call Votes

No roll call votes available for this bill.

View on Congress.gov
Back to Legislation