AB 1876
CFC OpposesHealth care coverage: nondiscrimination
CFC Says
CFC opposes AB 1876.
This bill would require health insurance companies in California to cover medical procedures and treatments — such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mastectomies — for people seeking to change the appearance of their bodies to match the opposite sex. Insurers would not be allowed to deny coverage for these treatments, including for minors.
Currently at 2nd Committee, having cleared 3 stages. Hearing in Senate Appropriations Committee in 35 days.
Legislative Progress
CFC's Position Letter
February 17, 2026
1021 O Street, Suite 4120
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Opposition AB 1876
Dear Assembly Member Addis
On behalf of tens of thousands of constituents, allied organizations, and more than 2,000 churches across California, the California Family Council respectfully opposes AB 1876. This bill would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for sex rejecting medical procedures and drugs, like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or double mastectomies for minors, described in the text as "gender-affirming care."
By treating an insurer’s denial of coverage as unlawful discrimination, AB 1876 removes insurers’ discretion to assess medical necessity, long-term risks, and evolving scientific evidence, particularly when the patient is a minor. These interventions carry serious lifelong consequences, including impacts on bone density, fertility, cardiovascular health, and neurological development. Surgical procedures performed on minors are permanent and irreversible. Insurers should retain the ability to exercise careful medical and actuarial judgment without facing sweeping penalties. (See MOU on the Role of Puberty in Adolescent Development)
Additionally, AB 1876 poses serious religious liberty concerns. Many faith-based employers and individuals hold sincere religious convictions that sex is immutable. Compelling employers or individuals through insurance mandates to subsidize gender-transition procedures would violate deeply held religious beliefs and conscience protections.
For more information on sex rejecting procedures:
For these reasons, the California Family Council opposes AB 1876.
Sincerely,
Greg Burt
Vice President
California Family Council
Official Description
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act’s requirements a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires health care service plans and health insurers, as specified, within 6 months after the relevant department issues specified guidance, or no later than March 1, 2025, to require all of their staff who are in direct contact with enrollees or insureds in the delivery of care or enrollee or insured services to complete evidence-based cultural competency training for the purpose of providing trans-inclusive health care for individuals who identify as transgender, gender diverse, or intersex. This bill would prohibit a subscriber, enrollee, policyholder, or insured from being excluded from enrollment or participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subjected to discrimination by, any health care service plan or health insurer licensed in this state, on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex. The bill would define discrimination on the basis of sex for those purposes to include, among other things, sex characteristics, including intersex traits, pregnancy, and gender identity. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan or health insurer from taking specified actions relating to providing access to health programs and activities, including, but not limited to, denying or limiting health care services to an individual based upon the individual’s sex assigned at birth, gender identity, or gender otherwise recorded. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan or health insurer, in specified circumstances, from taking various actions, including, but not limited to, denying, canceling, limiting, or refusing to issue or renew health care service plan enrollment, health insurance coverage, or other health-related coverage, or denying or limiting coverage of a claim, or imposing additional cost sharing or other limitations or restrictions on coverage, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, as specified. Because a violation of the bill’s requirements by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.