Russia’s lower house of parliament has passed the final reading of a bill that will outlaw adoptions of Russian children by citizens of countries where gender-affirming care and gender recognition are legal.

According to what Russian news outlet Zona Media reported, the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Federal Assembly, unanimously approved the bill on November 12.

Taking to Telegram after the vote, Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, who authored the bill, said that “it is extremely important to eliminate possible dangers in the form of gender reassignment that adopted children may face in these countries.”

Providing a list of at least 15 countries that Russia’s adoption ban would apply to because gender-affirming care is legalised, he included several nations in Europe, as well as Australia, Argentina and Canada. Adoptions of Russian children by US nationals were already banned since 2012.

A second bill was also advanced that would ban the spread of material that encourages people not to have children, described as “childfree propaganda”. The measure would impose fines of up to 5 million rubles (over €45,000).

Both bills will now go to the upper house of parliament and then to President Vladimir Putin, who will be able to sign them into law.

“These bills are designed to protect people, ensure their health and safety,” Volodin said. “It is necessary to do everything so that new generations of our citizens grow up oriented toward traditional family values.”

In recent years, Russia has introduced a series of laws aimed at suppressing the rights of LGBTQ+ people and bolstering so-called “traditional values” in rhetoric opposite to the supposedly “degenerate” Western liberalism.

Last year, Putin signed a law prohibiting trans people from changing their gender on official documents, becoming foster or adoptive parents, and legally marrying.

Later in 2023, the Russian Supreme Court passed a motion to label the international LGBTQ+ movement an “extremist organisation”. After the decision, activists noted that the motion was lodged against a movement that is not an official entity and that, because of its broad and vague definition, it gives authorities wide latitude to arrest and prosecute LGBTQ+ people.