The House, Thursday, March 20, 2025

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Wade is recognized to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Alice Wade (D - Straf 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today in opposition to HB 148 and against every single bill targeting LBGTQ+ community this session. I'd like to take some time to share one of the most profound conversations I've had in my entire life because it's essential to understand what's really at stake with this legislation. It was November 5, election day last year, and like many of you, I spent the day at my polling place, talking to voters and holding signs. Around nighttime, the last Republican volunteer showed up to hold signs and I introduced myself. After talking for a little while, he told me the reason he hadn't participate much in politics this year. It turned out that one of his children had passed away the previous summer and he just didn't have the energy. I could tell how difficult it was for him to share that, but at the same time I knew he was reaching out to me for a reason. By now, it was almost 7 pm and all the other volunteers had left. It was just the two of us waiting for the clock to turnover so we could finally rest and see the results. I was getting ready to pack up my things when he pulled me aside to ask me a question, are you transgender? I said yes and it turned out the reason his child had passed away was that he was a transgender man who had taken his own life the previous summer. He said I reminded him of his child and started telling me stories about how proud he was of his son becoming a scientist. Even though he didn't fully understand what it meant to be transgender, he loved his child deeply and regretted not being able to understand them more before they passed away. He asked about my own experience in being a trans woman and what I thought could have contributed to their suicide. I shared how overwhelming it could be for trans people to go through life in a society hostile to our very existence and how transitioning managed to save my life six years ago. We kept talking about all sorts of things, all sorts of stories about his child long past the time that the polls had closed. He was worried about how the rest of his family was coping with the loss. After that, we hugged for a bit and everything else that happened that day just faded away. Long after he had left, I could not stop thinking about our conversation. About a father just trying to understand his child and cope with his loss. How much pain could be avoided if we didn't treat trans people like political weapons. I will remember that conversation for the rest of my life. In those moments, we were not a Republican or a Democrat. We were just two people reaching out and trying to genuinely understand each other. I really hope that his family is doing better now, but their child is not coming back. I wish I had gotten the chance to meet them. I think we need more of that willingness as a country to speak honestly and to seek to understand one another, to stop the vilification of our fellow citizens and to find common ground. This bill does the exact opposite, labeling all trans people as a threat to public safety and privacy while somehow claiming to oppose discrimination. On February 19th in Arizona, police were called on Kalaya Morton, a 19-year-old cis woman using the restroom because she looked too masculine. The only men in the women's restroom that day were the sheriff's deputies. As they flashed lights under the stalls and shouted for her to come out of the stall, she came out and to prove she was a woman, she lifted her shirt. The sheriffs did not believe her even then. All of this when Arizona doesn't even have a bathroom law, a bathroom ban. Imagine how different it could have been if that happened here with HB 148. That's why defeating this bill here today matters. That's why I'm asking you from the bottom of my heart don't do this. Do not make New Hampshire a state where people like me, like his son and some of the people up in the gallery here today are told we don't belong. We do. Public testimony overwhelmingly opposed this bill, 206 in favor, 2,910 opposed. For hours, more than 50 people testified against this bill in person during the hearing. Only around 10 showed up to support it. The public has told us loud and clear they do not support this measure. Voting to bring back discrimination in the Granite State will not stop harassment. It will only make it worse. That is not freedom. That is not New Hampshire and that is why I ask you today to please vote against HB 148. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Wheeler is recognized to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, that was a powerful story, and I have heard many stories like that in the lead up to this vote here today. But, Mister Speaker, the powerful anecdotes of one person and the consent of one person cannot stand for the consent of another person and if there are women who feel unsafe, if there are women who feel like their space has become not private, then we should listen to those women. Just because a small segment of the population would like those policies to accommodate them over women, doesn't mean that we here today can do that. So, Mister Speaker, for us and I pause because my colleagues are walking out as I give this speech, people are clapping in the gallery for them walking out. And, Mister Speaker, I think that illustrates exactly why I got up here today. I could have quietly voted my conscience. I could have followed the party line, but Mister Speaker, again the consent of one person cannot stand for the consent of another and just because one person is comfortable with a transgender woman being in the bathroom with them or playing sports with them or being in a prison with them, doesn't mean that another woman is. These issues do not have to cause violence. These conversations can be nuanced, and we can have conversations about treating each other with respect and humanity. Putting in place policies that say that women who are born women deserve a space to themselves whether that be the bathroom or sports or the locker room or prisons, is not transphobic. There are people in my town, there are people throughout the country who are liberal, left leaning people who agree with what I just said here, but some of them won't vote with me here. Some of them, in fact, have left the party in my town. There was a woman just last week who left my party because she felt that not only was she not being heard, but she felt like there was no way for her to even speak up about this position. Given how many people are still in their seats, I can understand why. The orthodoxy of the Democratic Party on this issue has left us to where we can't have nuanced discussions and women are being silenced in this conversation. As much as people don't want to hear that, that is what is happening. When I talked to people on this side of the issue and that side of the issue, I heard I don't want any violence to happen against me. I don't want to be disrespected or unheard. I heard that from transgendered individuals and I heard that from women. So, Mister Speaker, I think HB 148, legislation which enables localities, municipalities and businesses to put in place specific policies around definitions of sex is not a rightwing, fascist, nazi movement like I've been told that it is. I was called a nazi for the prospect of giving this speech. I don't think that your position or side benefits from calling the other a nazi when they are trying to ask genuine questions about women's spaces and the protection of women inside those spaces. So, Mister Speaker, this is a controversial topic. I absolutely understand that, and I apologize that we had to clear out half the room for it, but municipalities, localities, private gyms, prisons, these places should be able to put in place policies, which in limited circumstances, separate people based on biological sex. I ask that the members on this side to feel the pressure of the orthodoxy on them would consider the alternative side and consider not calling them bigots or racists or homophobes or transphobes just because we certainly have questions about women's spaces and the protection of women within them. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithSlow your roll, Representative. Before you inquire, it is a violation of House Rules to come down that aisle while someone is at the well. So, I don't want to see that again.

Rep. Heath Howard (D - Straf 4)I apologize. Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking my question. With white passing African Americans being free from discrimination during Jim Crow era laws, do you think that it is fair that we can compare this situation directly to the bathroom bans that African Americans were given and told that they were dangerous to white people? Thank you.

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)Thank you for the question, Representative. Representative, race and what happened in the Jim Crow era is yes, significantly different than sex and talking about women and their private spaces.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Turer is recognized to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Eric Turer (D - Rock 6)Mister Speaker, let me first acknowledge the courage and the honesty of my colleague, the member from Dover who spoke first to share what we heard. It shouldn't take courage for any person in our state to live as they are or to discuss who they are, but it does. I also rise to speak against passage of this bill. I'm still here. I'm hoping that members will focus on its deep and dangerous structural flaws. Passing a bill this impactful, yet this poorly written, could only be described as "legislative malpractice." Unlike our state's licensed professionals, we in the legislature can't actually be accused of malpractice, but our constituents certainly don't see it that way. Regardless of how you feel about the underlying issues of this bill, the only thing I can tell you with any confidence is that if you think you know what this bill will do in our state or how it will be used, you are wrong. RSA 354-A:1 is titled the law against discrimination. This bill seeks to carve out key exceptions to those protections, specifically the protections against gender identity discrimination edited by our Republican led legislature and signed by our Republican Governor 7 years ago. In our live free or die state, if such a change is needed, it should require the strictest of care and narrowest of limits. The opposite is true of HB 148. No attempt is even made to define the key term biological sex in the bills title. Nor is any attempt made to define what types of deeply personal information or invasive examinations could be used to "verify" a person's sex. Finally, nor does it even state how one must act based on that information once they have it. Those that haven't read the actual bill that I'm talking about might not believe me. Take a moment to look at it while I'm talking. It's a shockingly short read given the legal doors it intends to open. So, you likely believe that this bill is about transgender people, which almost certainly it is, but you won't find any language about that in the bill either. No, this bill impacts everybody, and it can be used, and I quote from the bill, "any person or organization, public or private, to legally question anyone to verify their sex." Imagine what that might involve. Isn't that the very definition of state sanctioned invasion of privacy? They can make any subjective sex determination that they feel is appropriate and then use that to force a person to do as they say. Different organizations and even different individuals will likely choose to treat the same person in opposite ways based on this bill. Isn't that the very essence of state sanctioned discrimination? It's really a recipe for endless litigation over the most personal of matters. So, the bills application to supposedly "limited circumstances" is also hardly comforting. If you think HB 148 is just to protect women's bathrooms or school local rooms, think again. Any person using any public restroom or locker room can be questioned about their sex and told to use whatever facility the operator thinks they should. We've seen examples of this happening to cisgendered women, as my colleague mentioned a few minutes ago in Arizona and also in DC recently. Just this past year, and this is based on nothing but their appearance. This will happen here, legally, if this bill passes. Likewise, if you think this bill is to protect girls in sports, the bill doesn't actually do that either. It actually allows the opposite. How could that be true? Well, biological sex is most often taken to mean one's given sex at birth. Sounds plausible, but the advantage is noted in the bill for biological males in sports are not set at birth. They are the result of hormones and related secondary sexual characteristics established later in life. So, a trans boy who is apparently biologically female at birth but now has male muscular tissue due to the use of legal transitioning hormones could be forced to compete on the girl's team based on their "biological sex." If that sounds absurd, that is exactly what happened under a similar rule in Texas. Members might want to google the name Mack Beggs. He was the undefeated statewide girls wrestling champion in Texas for two years in spite of living as a boy and wanting to wrestle as a boy. He was jeered when competing simply for not dropping out when he was forced to wrestle as a girl. That story also is not unique. Can you imagine how some team could use this rule in that way here? Honestly, there are activist organizations and individuals on both sides of this issue, and they will use the unrestricted provisions in this law any way they wish. Some will do so to make a point. Some to gain a purposeful advantage and some simply not recognizing the unintended consequences. Regardless, the lives of real people who never wanted to be in the spotlight will be caught in the middle. Lawsuits will follow, but the courts will be powerless to say any party is in the wrong based on a plain reading of the law under this bill. Nobody here in this body can say now that they did not know such things were possible, even likely. We will be asked how we voted when they do. So, finally in his veto message of the exact same bill last July, exact same bill, not a word changed, Governor Sununu noted that the legislation "runs contrary to New Hampshire's live free or die spirit and seeks to solve problems that have not presented themselves in New Hampshire and in doing so invites unnecessary discord." I think he is right. The House upheld his veto by a bipartisan majority, but we have a new Governor now. Perhaps she will see things differently. I say we should never let it get to that point. Let's protect the privacy, liberty, dignity and safety of all New Hampshire citizens and particularly our most vulnerable by stopping this irresponsible bill right here in the New Hampshire House. Advancing this bill would truly be legislative malpractice and we will be held to account for the results. Thank you, Mister Speaker. To facilitate any necessary voter follow up, I ask for a roll call.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Layon is recognized to speak in support of the committee report.

Rep. Erica Layon (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. First, I'd like to speak to the Representative from Dover. I thank you for your bravery in sharing the experience and conversation that you had, and I hope that you also understand that there are women who have the same deeply held convictions about their needs and their own experience. We need to reach a point where we can have a discussion instead of calling this a political football. I rise today to speak in favor of the Ought to Pass motion on HB 148, a bill which allows but does not require biological sex to be used as a criterion for defining who can access intimate spaces, bathroom, locker rooms, athletic competitions and places were people are locked up against their will. Several decades ago, an entrepreneurial couple started a gym you may remember, Curves. It was for women to give them a space where they could exercise without getting ogled by guys and where they could feel comfortable, that this was a safe space for women. In 2006, there are almost 8,000 of those in the US. Today there is less than 200. We've gone from a point where there were more than tens of thousands of gyms that were oriented to giving women a space where they felt safe to be to a point where now in locker rooms when somebody drops their pants and exposes male genitalia to a room full of women, there is nothing that can be done as long as that person says that I identify as female. Now, that's a problem for the women that are exposed to genitalia they don't want to see, but perhaps even worse, this is a problem for transgendered people who may be victimized by people who are falsely claiming a transgender identity in order to get access to women. That's one of the things that this bill is about. By allowing the criteria of gender, of biologic sex to be considered, we have an opportunity to do something when somebody shows off their equipment in the locker room. Right now, we don't. With the current law, we cannot do anything to protect vulnerable women and girls. We need to move forward and have a discussion about how we can heal this rift and realize that no one person is superior or more equal to others because right now the way that the law is written, is that transgender people have superior rights to women. We need to get back to equal rights by passing this bill. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Granger requests a roll call. Anybody want to second it? Sure do. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on HB 148. Let's find our seats. Rep. Turer is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Eric Turer (D - Rock 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that HB 148 undermines key protections against gender discrimination proudly added seven years ago by a Republican led legislature and signed by our Republican Governor. And If I know that that same Republican Governor then vetoed this exact same bill last summer and this body supported his veto by a majority. And if I also know that the Governor's veto message noted that one, this bill runs contrary to our live free or die spirit; two, is unnecessary and three, will sow discord in our state. If I further know that he was absolutely correct due to the glaring problems with this bill. Then, finally, if I know this bill undermines the privacy, the dignity of all of our citizens, not just transgender, but particularly the most vulnerable amongst us, then would I now press the red button to halt this act of legislative malpractice right here in the people's house? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Alexander is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Joe Alexander (R - Hills 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know we all deserve reasonable privacy and security in intimate spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that school boards, prison officials and others need the flexibility to establish policies for the safety and wellbeing of all. And if I know that a lack of flexibility with respect to athletic competitions puts federal funding for our educational institutions at risk, would I then push the green button to pass this bill? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on HB 148. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button. If you are opposed, press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 201 in the affirmative, 166 in the negative, the committee report is adopted.