Hospitals in New Jersey are under fire for asking parents to classify their newborn’s gender identity and sexual orientation. The questionnaire, introduced by Inspira Health, includes options such as male, female, transgender, genderqueer, and other gender identities. Additionally, parents are asked to select their infant’s sexual orientation, including options like lesbian, gay, heterosexual, or questioning.
The policy has sparked widespread criticism, with many questioning the logic behind such classifications for newborns.
State Law Behind the Policy
The questionnaire was introduced following a New Jersey state law requiring healthcare providers to collect demographic data, including race, ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The law, passed in June 2022 by Democratic Senators Joseph Cryan and Angela McKnight, aims to improve public health measures.
Democratic Representative Herbert Conaway defended the policy, stating it was modeled after an Indiana law designed to help public health officials. He also clarified that filling out the questionnaire is not mandatory, emphasizing that parents can decline to answer.
Parents and Lawmakers React
Many parents have condemned the form, calling it unnecessary and intrusive.
- Sandy Anello, a mother from Bridgewater, NJ, called the policy “completely crazy.”
- Carsen Rodgers, an expecting mother from Jersey City, was shocked, stating, “Identifying my baby as gay on Day 1 is insane.”
New Jersey State Senator Holly Schepisi (R-Bergen) also criticized the policy, questioning its medical relevance. “Newborn parents are exhausted and focused on feeding and caring for their baby. To be handed such a form at this moment makes no sense,” she said.
Future of the Policy
Amid the backlash, Inspira Health has requested a waiver from the state to modify the form but has yet to receive approval. Meanwhile, NYC hospitals confirmed they do not collect such data, raising further questions about the necessity of the policy in New Jersey.
As pressure mounts, lawmakers are expected to push for changes, with some proposing restricting such data collection to individuals aged 16 and older.
