The House, Thursday, June 26, 2025

Rep. Jodi Newell (D - Ches 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I have had some folks ask me why I'm so passionate about this and I thought I would give a little bit of insight into that today. Kory was everything to me. He was my rock, my protector and my best friend, but Kory had his demons. A couple months after our youngest was born, Kory was pulled over and the police discovered heroin and a bag of OxyContin, eight of which he had already consumed. I'll never forget that phone call. I hardly recognized his voice. The next day his family and I picked him up from the courthouse. As the two of us walked back to our car, he stopped, crumbled into a ball on the curb, holding my hand in both of his and begged me to forgive him and I did. I stood by him in court, at AA meetings, at the clinic and it was hard. He lost his job when he went into detox. We were in court every few weeks facing a mandatory minimum prison sentence. We lived under constant threat that the consequences of Kory's addiction would be a decade of our children without their father. I say we because we faced it together. Our family's future hung in the balance. I also say we because the stigma was strong and it wasn't just limited to him. After nine tumultuous months, Kory lost his battle with addiction. On Christmas Eve 2008, he overdosed just 10' from our son and I on the other side of a closed door. When he didn't respond, I busted in that door with a nine-month pregnant belly. I tried to revive him with CPR. I delivered our youngest two weeks later, clutching pictures of the happy, little family I had thought we would be welcoming him into. The night before Kory passed, I dropped him off at the program he was attending to get and stay well. Later that night he recorded the van full of folks singing under the bridge. In my grief and distress, I wanted an explanation. I wanted resolution, and if I'm being honest, I wanted someone to blame. It occurred to me that these were the last, these voices were the last people he was with before he came home. So I became obsessed with finding out who gave him the heroin and eventually I found them. The thing is, finding that person didn't give me the peace that I thought it would. Rather, finding them gave me a face. It was a face of a person I didn't know, but a person all the same. A human being who was struggling much in the same way that Kory did. Meeting that person didn't make me want them to suffer or rot in jail. Instead of wanting to continue blaming them, report them, to pursue some type of retribution, all it made me feel was empathy and sorrow. I wanted to help them. This bill would impose a mandatory minimum on possession of what many people who testified in our committee said was at one point in their lives a weekend supply. A mandatory minimum for anyone who sold or gave drugs to someone who dies of any overdose. I think that if anybody in New Hampshire would feel that this is justified, it would probably be someone like me whose loved one died of an overdose. But, having been through that, I learned exactly the opposite. I learned that doubling down on criminalization only serves to perpetuate a punitive mentality that assigns malice to hurting people, people whose desire to relieve pain manifest in this particular way. So, rather than double down on this failed strategy, I humbly ask that you vote against this horrible bill. The House recessed at 11:00 a.m. RECESS The House reconvened at 1:30 p.m. (Speaker Packard in the Chair)

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)Thank you, Mister Speaker. In his own words, Chase Strangio, the lawyer for the ACLU in the Skrmetti case says, "I am a constitutional lawyer who does not believe in the constitution." The gist of Strangio's argument to the supreme court in favor of overturning Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and sex change hormones for minor children was that a teenager who was assigned male at birth, a boy, can be prescribed testosterone to receive a form of gender affirming care. That a teenager who was assigned female at birth, a girl, should have access to the same hormone. In one situation, the use of blockers and testosterone is to correct a real medical condition that interferes with natural puberty. On the other hand, the use of blockers and testosterone is for a sex change rooted in a psychological feeling that cannot be objectively measured. WPATH is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. They are the leading figure in this world, and they measure those feelings by what's used, by what's called the DSM- 5. The criteria through which the DSM-5 makes these determinations are questions as pedantic as did you use trucks, or did you play with tea sets? Did you like blocks or do you like Barbies? As if you could reduce being a woman to liking Barbies or blocks or a boy to liking monster trucks or tea time, but that's what the criteria in the DSM-5 is. During discovery for the Alabama case dealing with the same issue, we found out that WPATH knowingly was saying things that were untrue about these procedures, knowingly, and we only found out about that after discovery. These are not the stringent criteria in which we were told that it is. On Monday, the European Society for Psychiatric Health just put out a study that said that the impacts of estrogen in males led to a 26 times higher risk of testicular cancer, a 40 times higher risk of breast cancer, cognitive impairments, and autoimmune diseases. This is but one of many studies that have come out over the course of the last year which show that these procedures are not as medically affirming as people have made them out to seem. Mister Speaker, as a matter of principle, I believe in live and let live. And Mister Speaker, if you are of the legal age of majority, which is 18 years old, I believe live and let live. You're able to do whatever you'd like to do with your body as long as it doesn't hurt another individual or impede on their life. But if you are under the age of majority, if you are in the legal age of minority, if you're under the age of 18 years old, I do not believe that you should be taking substances which stop the natural process of puberty to affirm a feeling that you might have. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Committee of Conference report, and I'm going to end by saying what is probably the most controversial statement that I have made here at this well. Nobody is born in the wrong body. Everybody is beautiful. No matter if you are short and stout, tall and lean, whether you're black or you're white, whether you're a feminine man or a masculine woman, nobody has the right to say that you aren't beautiful as you were created. Immutable characteristics are your immutable characteristics, and you're beautiful as you are. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Everybody is born in the right body. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Lily Foss (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm just curious. The representative from Peterborough mentioned the DSM-5 and non tangible criteria and the DSM. So, for example, a child has ADHD, and so the fact that you can't...

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend. You were recognized for a question.

Rep. Lily Foss (D - Hills 41)So I'm just curious, does the fact that you can't use tangible measures of ADHD, does that mean that a child should not receive treatment for ADHD?

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)It's irrelevant and I didn't bring anything up to the sort, but nice try.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Wade.

Rep. Alice Wade (D - Straf 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in opposition to HB 377 for the final time this year. A few weeks ago, I attended a cookout with some friends, and I met a young trans person in middle school who wanted to know more about my experience and the path that laid ahead of them. I still remember being in their shoes when I was young and I was so happy to see that they were already comfortable enough to be open about who they are with their friends and family. It took me many more years to reach that point. At one point, the conversation landed on hormone therapy, and I shared my experience, how it turned my entire life around and how I only wish I could have started it sooner. I answered their questions about the physical and emotional changes, the differences between puberty blockers and hormone therapy, insurance, and how challenging it is already to get a prescription. I spoke with their mom as well. She asked thoughtful questions, wanted to learn more, and told me she would do anything she could to help her child live happily. Eventually, the conversation landed on this bill, HB 377. If this bill passes, her child wouldn't be able to begin therapy for years because she's a few months too young to start treatment before this arbitrary deadline. So I ask all of you what part of this bill supports allowing parents to make the best healthcare decisions for their children? We have heard time and time again this Session, even on the previous bill, that parents should have the final say about their children and their child's health. And here we are, taking away lifesaving healthcare options for all parents, parents who consulted medical professionals, who know their children best and who want to support them. I used to live in Tennessee, and if my mom hadn't taken a job in Manchester in 2015, I don't think I'd be alive today to tell you this story, because hormone therapy is banned there now. Just last week, the federal government announced that they would be ending 988 emergency suicide hotline services for LGBTQ + people. At one point in my life, I had to call that hotline. We know that legislation like HB 377 has been tied to a 72% increase in suicide attempts in trans people. In states with these bans, the number of hate crimes against children has quadrupled. Proponents of these bans have claimed that what LGBTQ + youth need is adequate mental health support. The move from this current administration is doing the exact opposite. What part of that is helping our constituents? I have said it before, and I will say it again, our constituents do not support this bill. Out of the thousands of testimony submissions on this bill, 90% of them opposed, 90%. You don't have to understand this care to agree that these decisions should be left to families and medical professionals. We seem to have lost the principle of minding our damn business. I've taken hormone therapy medication every day since November 11, 2018. Under HB 377, a doctor could prescribe the exact same treatment to a cisgender teen, but not to someone like me. That is not parental rights. It's just discrimination, plain and simple. There's no other way to interpret that. Please join me in voting against HB 377. Thank you, Mister Speaker, and I request a roll call vote.

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. As you all know, the House passed HB 377, a bill that would prohibit harmful puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for children. The other body amended the bill, so we took it to a Committee of Conference to work on it. The other body made some changes, including the addition of a private course of action so that an individual can sue a provider for any injuries sustained through these treatments that will deter a lot of providers from even starting children on them moving forward. They also amended it to allow healthcare providers to continue any treatments that were initiated prior to January 1, 2026, and recognize the second Thursday in October as Children's Environmental Health Day, which we also concurred with. The end result is this. As of the new year, providers will no longer be allowed to prescribe these harmful drugs to kids in New Hampshire moving forward, and that's what's important. The day after this was agreed upon in the Committee of Conference, the US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Skrmetti case that it is now legal and constitutional for states to regulate and or ban the use of these harmful drugs in minors. This ruling implicitly supports the argument that children and adolescents are not capable of giving fully informed consent to these body and life altering medical procedures. Much like laws surrounding tattoos, alcohol, tanning salons, or other age-restricted activities, this decision reinforces that states can act to protect minors from making harmful or irreversible choices while their bodies and identities are still developing. And New Hampshire is acting. Even before this court decision, several renowned hospitals started closing their gender clinics, not out of politics, but because of evidence-based concerns about the safety, reversibility, and long-term outcomes of gender medical interventions in minors. Anyone who calls this life-saving healthcare is not paying attention to the actual evidence. Our state is taking a firm stand to safeguard children through this underlying bill, and that decision is now backed by the highest court in the nation. I urge my colleagues to support the committee report by pressing the green button. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Mazur has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is the adoption of the Committee of Conference report on HB 377. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, If I pay attention to the years and years of medical evidence. If I pay attention to the voices of adult trans people who were once children, and for trans children who hope to become adults. And, if I know that gender affirming care saves lives, and if I further know that we should trust parents to make the best decisions for their own children, would I now press the red button?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Mazur for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know anything, it's that kids need protection, not irreversible treatments and with added legal accountability, this bill puts real safeguards in place starting January 1, 2026. And if I know our legal system, I know the supreme court ruling in Skrmetti confirms states can and will protect minors from harmful medical procedures. And if I know the science, I know the risks are real. Major hospitals are backing away from these treatments based on new evidence coming out daily. And lastly, if I know this bill is about facts, not politics, and protecting...

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)And protecting New Hampshire's children comes first, would I then press the green button to accept the committee report and send this on to the governor? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to adopt the Committee of Conference report on HB 377. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 202 voting Yea, 161 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Alissandra Murray is recognized to speak against the motion.

Rep. Alissandra Murray (D - Hills 20)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I stand before you today deeply concerned about this bill, HB 712, legislation that would ban top surgery for minors in New Hampshire, allowing it only in cases of cancer, injury, or malformations, unless you're a cisgender boy and you want to get breast reduction. Let's be clear, this bill does not protect teenagers. It strips away their rights, overrides the judgment of their parents, and undermines the doctor-patient relationship. Right now, qualified medical professionals follow rigorous protocols under nationally accepted standards of care. Countless young people have endured years of therapy, counseling, and hormone treatment before even being considered for surgery. What this legislation and this legislature is saying, parents of cisgender teens have rights, but parents of trans teens do not. Medical experts and families across our state, including Dartmouth Health, report that no top surgeries are currently performed on minors in New Hampshire. That means this legislation is not closing a dangerous loophole. It's a solution in search of a problem. Worse, it further establishes a dangerous precedent where legislators, not physicians or parents, dictate medical care. Crucial elements for healthy development, like support, trust, and autonomy, are undercut when we tell young trans Granite Staters that their needs don't matter. These youth already face disproportionate rates of isolation, anxiety, and suicide. Numerous families testified that access to affirming care including top surgery is rare, but critical cases can be lifesaving. In 2022, over 84,000 trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people were surveyed, which is the largest survey of trans people ever. Of these respondents who had transitioned, 9% had gone back to living as their sex assigned at birth at some point in their lives, at least for a short while. But in almost every single case, the reason was anti-trans discrimination from one's family, friends, or community. Only 4% of these people stated that gender transition was not for them. When considering all respondents who had transitioned, the number of regrets equates to 0.36%. Meanwhile, respondents who received gender-affirming hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgery overwhelmingly reported feeling more satisfied with their lives. Data has just demonstrably proven that gender-affirming surgeries not only have a low rate of regret, but also one of the lowest rates of regret amongst all surgeries. A total of 27 studies conducted by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, pooling together 7,928 transgender patients who underwent any type of gender-affirming surgery, concluded that the prevalence of regret after gender assignment surgery was less than 1%. In clearer terms, 99.7% of trans individuals were satisfied with their surgery. Meanwhile, up to 30% of individuals who undergo knee surgery experience regret, up to 25% of people regret getting heart surgery, 30% report regret after a prostatectomy, and 19.5% express regret after bariatric surgery. Yet, all of these procedures are still legal. The reality is that top surgery is already difficult to access for a multitude of reasons. Despite what some of my colleagues might say, gatekeeping and combative attitudes in healthcare are a very real barrier to accessing gender-affirming care. Often, trans people have to spend years proving who they are, who they say they are, in order to access treatment. The financial, social, and mental burdens this causes actually increases their chances of detransition. This issue is not rooted in ideology or social contagion. It's about individual lives, guided by trusted medical professionals and supported by loving families and this bill erases that nuance. It offers no path for those whose gender-affirming care is thoughtfully prescribed and carefully managed. This past Sunday, I stood in a room full of trans youth and their loving family members as we mourned the Skrmetti ruling and tried to provide each other with hope and comfort. But after speaking at this well and in committee over and over again the past three years, sharing deeply personal experiences and feelings that I had never talked about before with anyone before I was elected, I'm not going to lie. I don't feel heard. I feel dismissed. I feel devalued. And I struggle to reconcile the good relationships I have with so many of you with your insistence to continue to vote against my rights. Imagine how those teenagers and young adults who have done the same feel right now. Literally hundreds of Granite Staters have told their stories and begged you not to pass this legislation, to see our humanity, to listen to us, to understand, to listen to understand. And over and over again, the majority of this body has decided to ignore constituents and vote to deny trans people health care, to deny us our humanity, and to deny us our dignity. In a state that cherishes live free or die, we must ask, are we truly living free when we restrict families' medical decisions? Are we preserving life when we legislate away options that have been proven to protect it? Are we really a body that represents the people when we consistently ignore the voices of our own constituents? Please stand with me and reject HB 712 and affirm that New Hampshire is a state where parents, doctors, and children, together, not politicians, guide health care decisions. Let us protect the rights, dignity, and futures of our youngest citizens, no matter their identities, and let us stop this era of terror that is wreaking havoc on the lives of LGBTQ Granite Staters. We are better than this.

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. You've heard me speak on this before, so I'm here to speak to the committee report. I rise in support of the Committee of Conference report on a bill that reflects a shared commitment to transparency, accountability, and the protection of vulnerable populations, especially minors. As introduced in the House, this bill originally sought to limit breast surgeries for all minors, with appropriate medical exceptions. Through collaboration between the House and the other body conferees, an agreement was reached on four critical points. First, a clear and specific definition of transgender chest surgery was established, ensuring the law is applied consistently and fairly. Second, RSA 329 was amended to uphold the right of an aggrieved individual to seek recourse through the courts if this statute is violated, adding an essential layer of accountability. Third, the other body's language was adopted to add a new section to RSA 329, which enhances the collection and reporting of abortion statistics by health care providers and medical facilities, with clear consequences for non-compliance and false reporting. Lastly, this bill makes important reforms to improve transparency and accountability in residential care and health facility licensing. This final version of the bill is a balanced step forward. It limits invasive and irreversible surgeries on children, reinforces data transparency in reproductive health, and raises standards in our residential care system. As a reminder, the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled this underlying bill constitutional and legal as well, as it protects all children, and New Hampshire must act now to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation by voting green on the committee report. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of the Committee of Conference report on HB 712. Are you ready for the question? Who asked for it? Rep. Telerski requests a roll call. Will that be? Yep, sufficiently seconded. This is a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the adoption of the Committee of Conference report on HB 712 and Rep. Weber is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that I have heard loud and clear the voices of our trans citizens who are adults, who were once children. And I heard loud and clear the voice of trans children who would like to live to become adults. And, if I know that gender-affirming care is lifesaving and life-enhancing care, and if I know that parents are the best judge of the important medical decisions with respect to their children, all parents, not just some parents, would I now press the red button to defeat this cruel and unnecessary bill?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Mazur is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lisa Mazur (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know what good care looks like, it means raising standards. And, as amended, this bill improves oversight in residential facilities and makes inspection results public, protecting those who need it the most. And if I know transparency, it means tracking the facts, and by strengthening abortion data reporting, this amended bill ensures providers are accountable and the public stays informed. And lastly, if I know that children cannot consent to body and life-altering surgeries, and that the underlying bill gives harmed individuals the right to take legal action, would I then press the green button to accept the committee report?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the adoption of the Committee of Conference report on House Bill 712. It's a roll call vote. If you're in favor, press the green button; opposed, press the red. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 191 in the affirmative, 163 in the negative, the report is adopted.