Lombardo vetoes trans protections bills, in contrast to previous session

Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed two bills this week that would have enshrined a shield law for health care providers who offer gender-affirming care and ensured protections for transgender people incarcerated at local jails.

The vetoes come as President Donald Trump, who Lombardo supported in the election, has escalated attacks against the LGBTQ+ community in the first few months of his second term and issued several anti-trans orders, including one that blocked federal support for gender-affirming medical care to patients younger than 19.

The governor “turned his back on LGBTQ+ Nevadans and their families—vetoing two critical protections just days into Pride Month,” Silver State Equality State Director André Wade said in a statement. “These bills would have provided critical protections to transgender people seeking healthcare and their medical providers, as well as to transgender people in our criminal justice system.”

To the surprise of many LGBTQ organizers, Lombardo in 2023 signed legislation that prevented insurance companies from discriminating against trans people on the basis of gender identity and required the Nevada Department of Corrections to adopt regulations to protect trans and gender-nonconforming people in prison.

The move at the time made him an outlier among Republican governors and legislatures, which have supported and passed bills targeting the trans and queer community. 

Gender-affirming care is supported by a variety of health providers and medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. But it has been a high-profile target, and several states, including Utah, have banned it.

Democratic state Sen. James Ohrenschall has said prohibiting gender-affirming care will “not only harm transgender individuals but create a climate of fear and uncertainty for health care providers who offer gender-affirming health care services.”

Nevada law doesn’t restrict medically necessary gender-affirming care, but many LGBTQ advocates and medical providers, including pediatricians, worried bans in other states could prevent trans youth from seeking care and doctors from providing it in Nevada.

Ohrenschall brought legislation in 2023 that sought to enact a shield law for medical providers in Nevada but Lombardo vetoed the bill.

With Senate Bill 171, Ohrenschall used the same language from the 2023 bill to yet again try to bolster protections for medical providers who offer gender-affirming care. It would have prevented a medical licensing board from punishing or disqualifying providers.

The bill passed both the Senate and Assembly in party line votes.

“This bill was a clear opportunity to ensure that transgender Nevadans can access the care they need—and that providers can offer it without fear of legal retaliation,” Wade said. “Transgender people in Nevada deserve safety, dignity, and access to life-saving health care. The Governor’s decision puts all of that at risk.”

In his veto message, Lombardo wrote that the bill “would lead to complicated legal battles and uncertainty about what laws providers must follow” and put medical “licensing boards in the awkward position of navigating potentially conflicting mandates in federal and state law.”

The message was similar to his 2023 veto.

The second trans bill vetoed by Lombardo, Senate Bill 141 would have required local detention facilities to develop policies that address the custody, housing, medical and mental health treatment of transgender, gender non-conforming, and intersex people incarcerated. 

Democratic state Sen. Melanie Scheible, who sponsored the bill, said during its hearing it was similar to legislation she brought in 2023 that required prisons to enact similar policies for trans people who were incarcerated. Lombardo signed that bill.

All 15 Assembly Republicans joined Democrats to unanimously pass SB 141, but the Senate voted along party lines.

In his veto message Lombardo acknowledged that he did “which authorized the Director of the Department of Corrections to implement similar policies through regulation with Board of Prison Commissioners’ approval.”

“Federal authority in this space is potentially evolving and, if altered, could conflict with the provisions of this bill leading to decreased state and local access to vital federal funding,” he wrote.