Last verified: 2026-09-15

Pennsylvania

Extreme risk / avoid if possible

Overall: 51.3/100

Important warning: Trans youth and families face serious state-level restrictions.

U.S. federal warning: Important U.S. federal warning: Even the strongest state protections cannot fully shield trans people from hostile federal laws, enforcement, funding decisions, data demands, travel restrictions, or court rulings. Treat a high state score as a relative U.S. option—not a guarantee of safety—and verify current federal and state conditions before moving.

Summary

Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.

Category assessment

Legal protections

58/100

MAP records 41% of its gender-identity policy benchmark and 56% of its identity-document benchmark. HRC gives housing and public-accommodation protections full credit and full credit.

Affirming-care access and security

68/100

MAP records 46% of its affirming-care policy benchmark; HRC gives the state full credit for transgender healthcare protection. This does not measure provider wait times or travel distance.

Safety protections and enforcement

29/100

MAP records 0% of its criminal-justice benchmark, while HRC gives hate-crime protections no credit. The score measures safeguards and enforcement policy, not the general crime rate.

Family and youth rights

24/100

MAP records 35% of its youth-policy benchmark and 25% of its relationship and parental-recognition benchmark. HRC’s school and family criteria provide the cross-check.

Affordability

55/100

BEA’s regional price parity is 97.6, where 100 equals the national price level. This captures broad costs; city-level housing can differ sharply.

Workplace and housing protections

85/100

MAP records 75% of its gender-identity employment benchmark and 75% of its housing benchmark here. The state also protects at least some public employees. The nationwide Title VII rule remains a limited employment floor; it does not replace state housing law or reliable local enforcement.

Community support

50/100

MAP estimates 5.8% of adults are LGBT. Community scale is balanced with the wider policy record and HRC criteria; rural access may be much thinner.

Resilience against federal action

50/100

The resilience estimate combines no comprehensive healthcare shield law identified, a D governor, S state control, 70% statewide support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections, a 56.06% FY2026 federal Medicaid matching rate, and the state’s broader protection record. Party control is only a proxy; enacted safeguards and official action carry more weight.

How to read this score

This is a relative U.S. relocation baseline. It combines current state law, healthcare, safety, family and youth rights, affordability, work and housing, community conditions, and resistance to hostile federal action. It does not mean a state can override federal law or guarantee anyone’s safety.

State profile sources

Movement Advancement Project — Current state equality profile and policy components.
Human Rights Campaign — Independent state equality criteria cross-check.
Movement Advancement Project — Scoring definitions for state and local employment and housing nondiscrimination coverage.
Supreme Court of the United States — Bostock v. Clayton County establishes the nationwide Title VII employment-discrimination baseline.
UCLA School of Law — Current state shield-law analysis and limits.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis — 2024 state regional price parity used for affordability.
National Conference of State Legislatures — Current governor party and legislative composition used as institutional-support proxies.
Public Religion Research Institute — 2025 state-level support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — FY2026 federal Medicaid matching percentages used to estimate federal healthcare funding dependence.