Warning: Bill numbers and names are based on text-to-speech transcript which may have errors due to transcription issues or ad hoc/incomplete language use by committee.
relative to the statute of limitations for bringing a private right of action for violation of the statute prohibiting medical procedures and treatments intended to alter a minor's gender.
relative to the statute of limitations for bringing a private right of action for violation of the statute prohibiting medical procedures and treatments intended to alter a minor's gender.
(New Title) holding state contracts with DEI provisions to be void as a matter of law and establishing a right of action for citizens where public entities or state agencies engage with contracts with DEI provisions.
Representative Kattab introduced HB 1064, describing a student's severe injury from a fall during a high school career technology education program due to the teacher's failure to ensure safety equipment. She explained the history of municipal immunity post-1974 Maryland v. Manchester decision and the 1975 SB 4 response, which granted broad immunity to political subdivisions unlike the state's liability framework. The bill aims to align political subdivision liability with the state's since 1977, indemnify employees for non-wanton/reckless actions, and use established case law language from RSA 541B. She noted insurance profits in the Exeter district despite high premiums and urged favorable ruling, emphasizing accountability for child safety.
HB1064
Support00:17:05.383 - 1:15:46 PM
Representative Gregg supported HB 1064, highlighting structural issues in current law where governmental immunity leads to victims bearing financial costs of negligence, reducing incentives for safety. The bill clarifies negligence standards, raises liability caps to reflect true injury costs, and requires indemnification for employees' non-wanton/reckless conduct while protecting discretionary functions. It promotes safety cultures by holding institutions accountable without eliminating immunity.
HB1064
Support00:21:45.443 - 1:20:26 PM
Representative Grossman testified in support as a legislator and parent of 17-year-old Oscar, who suffered a 30-foot fall on February 5, 2025, during a high school job site program, resulting in traumatic brain and spinal injuries requiring extensive ICU and rehabilitation care. She described the family's emotional and financial burdens, noting current laws' limited liability caps fail to cover costs or future needs, shifting burdens unfairly. HB 1064 ensures accountability and safety in public programs for all families.
HB1064
Support00:27:00.267 - 1:25:41 PM
The speaker, mother of Oscar who suffered a 30-foot fall at school due to unharnessed safety procedures, responded to questions about the timeline of discovering the liability cap issue. She explained that shortly after the accident, while focused on ICU survival, the best law firm informed them there was no viable case due to the cap. She emphasized sending her son to school that day forever changed their family and questioned if safety changes were implemented. She clarified the bill raises but does not eliminate the cap, expressing sorrow for her family's experience and noting Oscar requires 24/7 care, with projected lifetime costs potentially around 1.4 million, though calculations were not finalized.
HB1064
Oppose00:30:03.245 - 1:28:44 PM
Kate Horgan testified on behalf of the New Hampshire Association of Counties in opposition to HB 1064. She noted that while no one wishes for slips or falls at county facilities, these are the largest insurance claims payouts. Counties operate high-litigation industries like jails and nursing homes, with recent dramatic increases in litigation. Concerns include mandating indemnification, which might deter counties from doing so for valid reasons, and could increase claims since the county would pay instead of individuals. In response to questions, she affirmed that raising the cap would lead to larger payouts for taxpayers, especially given frequent slip-and-fall litigations.
HB1064
Oppose00:32:46.743 - 1:31:27 PM
Christina Barrett, executive director of the New Hampshire School Boards Association, opposed HB 1064, arguing that increased liability risk imposes a fiduciary duty on public bodies to adopt loss avoidance measures, such as enhanced training, facility inspections, or restricting public access to schools, which serve as community centers. High staff turnover among paraprofessionals and reliance on volunteers for extracurriculars make comprehensive training challenging and costly. The bill could shift school priorities from education to defensive bureaucracy. She suggested amendments: penalties for frivolous claims awarding attorney fees to defendants, and revising causation language to include foreseeable bodily injury resulting from failure to exercise appropriate care. In responses, she defended qualified immunity to prevent excessive lawsuits and allow quick actions by undertrained staff, advocated for higher negligence standards like gross negligence over simple negligence, and acknowledged training obligations but highlighted practical barriers for low-wage, high-turnover roles.
HB1064
Oppose00:41:38.683 - 1:40:19 PM
Sarah Burke-Cohen testified on behalf of the New Hampshire Municipal Association, opposing HB 1064. She explained that municipalities engage in high-risk activities providing essential services, and the current framework balances accountability to plaintiffs and taxpayers. The bill would shift excessive financial risk to local taxpayers, threatening essential services, risk pool stability, and fiscal stability. Increased caps would lead to higher claims, premiums, and potential assessments, severely impacting small to medium towns and leading to substantial property tax increases. Expanded immunity would encourage more lawsuits by making it easier to argue negligence, pressuring municipalities to settle weak cases early. This would result in increased litigation costs, including multiple claims (main, indemnification, coverage), employee time for depositions, and defensive governing where decisions prioritize risk avoidance over outcomes, potentially halting programs like playground updates or new community events. Funding would be diverted from police, fire, schools, and infrastructure to cover insurance, settlements, and defense, leading to higher taxes and reduced budget predictability. The bill mandates indemnification, removing governing body discretion and requiring court challenges, which she argued disrupts the balanced approach protecting taxpayers and enabling fearless public service.
HB1064
Oppose00:56:22.557 - 1:55:03 PM
Jonathan Melanson, representing the New Hampshire Police Association, expressed concerns about HB 1064 from the perspective of rank-and-file law enforcement officers. He highlighted potential Article 28-A issues that could leave officers without clear legal protections if indemnification provisions are struck down. Officers face high-pressure, rapidly evolving situations daily, and the bill's unclear provisions could create uncertainty. This might negatively impact recruitment and retention efforts in law enforcement, exacerbating existing shortages. He noted the unclarity and potential unintended consequences as significant concerns raised by association members.
HB1064
Oppose01:00:42.043 - 1:59:23 PM
Bob Blaisdell, representing the New Hampshire State Employees Association on behalf of President Rich Gulla, began testimony stating that HB 1064 does far more than described in the analysis. The testimony was cut off, but it indicated concerns beyond the bill's summary, likely opposing its broader implications for state employees.
HB1064
Oppose01:01:59.329 - 2:00:40 PM
Bob Blaisdell continues his testimony emphasizing caution in repealing and replacing longstanding liability statutes. He provides a brief legislative history, noting increases in caps from 2007 (HB 882) and 2018 (SB 387), highlighting a pattern of refinement without broad expansion. He argues that HB 1064 fundamentally rewrites RSA 507-B:2, shifting toward full tort liability, which would increase claims volume, costs, and exposure for taxpayers despite retaining taxpayer responsibility. He clarifies that case law operates within legislative frameworks, not creating them, and suggests maintaining the current structure with possible cap adjustments via proposed amendment language. He recommends interim study, similar to the 2016 approach with SB 421, to carefully address needs without hasty changes. During Q&A, he discusses cap increases in historical context compared to inflation and cost of living, using a light-hearted pizza analogy.
HB1064
Oppose01:08:17.372 - 2:06:58 PM
David Loveland Jr. testifies in opposition to HB 1064, expressing concern over its significant and unpredictable fiscal impact on county governments. He highlights the 46% increase in the liability cap from $325,000 to $475,000 per claimant, which would likely raise insurance premiums borne by taxpayers. He notes recent skyrocketing insurance costs across counties, including over 20% for health insurance in Merrimack County, making further increases tense for fiscal responsibility. The New Hampshire Association of Counties deems the fiscal impact indeterminable, complicating budgeting and stability. He urges the committee to oppose the bill. In Q&A, he affirms counties' current accountability through suits, settlements, and judgments, emphasizing caps protect taxpayers from catastrophic liability affecting 150,000 residents in Merrimack County. He stresses accountability and fiscal sustainability, noting the county's risk training efforts and existing incentives to keep premiums low, including the current $375,000 cap.
HB1064
Support01:15:16.778 - 2:13:57 PM
Nicholas Klein testifies in support of HB 1064, noting the last cap update in 2018 has diminished its deterrence effect and meaningful recovery over time. He explains that cap-level claims are rare, and most municipal cases are not capped, so adjustments would aid serious damages without flooding courts. The bill flips the current framework from prohibiting all but specific claims (premises and autos) to allowing all except prohibited ones, aligning with state claims under RSA 541-B and clarifying ambiguous cases like falls from ladders. This change would enable claims like Oscar's without opening floodgates, as other immunities (recreational, legislative, volunteer, fire/rescue, sovereign for police) remain. In Q&A, he clarifies current prohibitions on non-premises/auto claims, such as supervision-related injuries off-property, and confirms the bill would allow such claims while preserving existing protections.
HB1064
Support01:19:57.614 - 2:18:38 PM
Meshel Winston, a lawyer and high taxpayer from New Boston who has represented her town, speaks briefly in support. She notes that laws already exist for attorney's fees in frivolous lawsuits, as she successfully obtained them for her town in a non-premises case. Primarily speaking as a mother, she shares that 22 years ago, her family lost a child in a private school and had full legal recourse to sue, which they exercised. She argues that children in public schools deserve the same rights and protections when entrusting them to public care.
HB1236
Support01:23:55.256 - 2:22:36 PM
Representative Scherr introduces HB 1236 FN, explaining it requires police to record custodial interrogations electronically, creates a presumption of inadmissibility if not recorded with judicial override for reasonable explanations. He addresses cost concerns, noting no extra expense as cell phones suffice and storage is temporary. He clarifies custodial interrogation via examples like traffic stops, transport, booking, and station questioning, referencing US Supreme Court cases like Berkemer v. McCarty and Miranda v. Arizona. The bill reduces Miranda litigation, is supported by the Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission, and aims to prevent false confessions, citing Innocence Project data where 28% of wrongful convictions involved false confessions.
HB1236
Information Only01:35:48.097 - 2:34:29 PM
Captain Amatucci defines custodial interrogation as occurring when a reasonable person feels not free to leave, with interrogation involving questions that could elicit incriminating responses. He discusses body-worn camera limitations in private settings like residences or hospitals under RSA 105-D:2 IX, where citizens can decline recording. He provides scenarios such as detentions at homes, out-of-state interviews, or hospital visits where recording may be impossible due to privacy or policies. He notes using personal cell phones creates unfunded mandates for policy, retention, and CJIS compliance. While best practice to record, real-world exceptions like equipment failure or suspect requests require flexible policy with documentation.
HB1236
Support01:48:02.939 - 2:46:43 PM
Winnie Yee supports HB 1236 to prevent wrongful convictions, noting false confessions contribute to over 4,000 exonerations since 1989, costing liberty, money, and justice. Recording is evidence-based, aids law enforcement and accused, reduces litigation; 31 states require it, and at least 16 NH jurisdictions covering half the population already do. Bill history since 2022, refined based on feedback to include broad exceptions overcome by reasonable justification. Agencies can set retention rules; studies show informing of recording doesn't reduce cooperation or confessions.
HB1236
Oppose01:55:45.641 - 2:54:26 PM
Captain Conley highlights financial burdens on small departments from HB 1236, rejecting personal cell phone use due to RSA 91-A exposure, evidence chain issues, and mixing with personal data. Departments need issued devices, body cams, and cloud storage, already costly and rising; Goffstown is in default budget. Implementing requires taxpayer funding for equipment and storage.
HB1236
Information Only01:59:05.915 - 2:57:46 PM
Ben Gotti provides detailed concerns about HB 1236 FN, arguing that the bill seeks to solve a non-existent problem in New Hampshire and uses unclear terminology regarding 'custodial interrogation.' He presents scenarios to illustrate ambiguities, such as interactions during arrests that might not qualify as custodial. He critiques the broad exceptions for non-recording, lack of guidance on refusals or evolving suspect status, and implications for DWI investigations. Gotti discusses costs and burdens on small departments, storage requirements, technological and privacy issues including cyber risks, and hospital recording policies. He argues the bill undermines equal witness credibility by presuming officer testimony unreliable without recordings and shifts focus from constitutional violations to procedural compliance, potentially creating an irrefutable presumption of coercion. He recommends an interim study for clarity. In response to a question on jury instructions for non-recording, he notes that the adversarial system already allows such arguments on evidence weight and credibility.
HB1236
Support02:12:45.955 - 3:11:26 PM
Cynthia Mousseau clarifies distinctions between detention and custody, emphasizing that the bill targets only custodial interrogations equivalent to arrest, not lower-level stops. She addresses concerns about real-world scenarios like refusals, hospitals, or emergencies by noting the 'reasonable justification' exception covers them, allowing police to argue admissibility. She explains spontaneous utterances outside direct questioning remain admissible under evidence rules. Mousseau stresses the bill's necessity due to her work on wrongful convictions, where unrecorded confessions hinder litigation and innocence determinations. She argues it provides accountability for police authority without presuming incredibility, benefits law enforcement by reducing litigation nationwide, and protects against harm from unrecorded false confessions. She differentiates from jury instructions in other states like Massachusetts and clarifies that only recordings, not devices, enter evidence, using department-issued phones without personal data dumps. She notes consultations with law enforcement yielded no concerns and highlights national best practices.
HB1356
Support02:19:52.541 - 3:18:33 PM
Robert Ware testifies in support of HB 1356 FN to extend the statute of limitations from two to ten years for private rights of action against violations involving medical procedures or treatments altering a minor's gender. He cites recent cases like Varian v. Einhorn, where a plaintiff won damages for inadequate mental health assessment leading to regretted transitioning surgery at age 16, due to lack of informed consent on risks like higher mortality, suicide, and psychiatric issues per a 2011 study. He criticizes the affirmation-only model as a one-size-fits-all approach ignoring underlying issues like anxiety or depression. He references Childs v. Salazar, where a psychologist was restricted from offering talk therapy labeled as conversion therapy. Ware argues the extension is needed as harms may not manifest within two years, allowing time for recognition and redress, especially since New Hampshire prohibits such procedures but past cases and out-of-state surgeries occur. He urges support to enable harmed individuals, particularly in areas like Manchester, to seek remediation and deter violations.
HB1356
Support02:32:08.012 - 3:30:49 PM
The speaker urges the committee to vote ought to pass on the bill, arguing that physicians who perform chemical castration on boys or administer testosterone to girls should be held financially responsible. They assert that children cannot consent when given false information and deny the existence of transgender children. The speaker criticizes medical institutions for being influenced by ideologues promoting an incoherent ideology and questions the definitions of gender identity, boy, and girl. They claim medical experts have provided false information to committees and that the bill discourages harm to children while holding doctors accountable.
HB1356
Oppose02:33:08.157 - 3:31:49 PM
Representative Horgan opposes HB 1356, noting he also opposed the underlying HB 377 passed last year, which extended the look-back period from 2 to 10 years. He argues the 2-year period is adequate, with no evidence the law has been used. As a supporter of transgender rights, he views the bill as unnecessary and a distraction, scapegoating the trans community. He believes it should not have advanced and recommends inexpedient to legislate.
HB1356
Support02:35:33.083 - 3:34:14 PM
Simon Amaya Price, who used to identify as trans, shares experiences with detransitioners suffering pain from medical malpractice. He argues that detransitioners take years to understand the harm, with surveys showing transgender identities persisting 7-10 years, beyond current statutes. Investigations reveal rushed, miscoded treatments making harm hard to recognize. He urges passage to provide justice for approximately 8,160 young adult transitioners in New Hampshire, comparing it to banning murder even without occurrences to deter it.
HB1356
Support02:37:38.128 - 3:36:19 PM
Claire Abernathy, a 21-year-old detransitioner, testifies unpaid, having driven from an hour south. She describes being permanently barred from adult experiences due to interventions at 14, with harms she did not and may still not fully understand, evolving over time. Research shows regret takes 8-10 years to surface, unaccommodated by current laws. She cites Texas cases where endocrinologists continued prescribing post-ban, facing lawsuits. She argues the bill provides financial recourse if laws are violated, affirming detransitioners' real harms and need for court access, urging a yes vote.
HB1709
Support02:41:32.909 - 3:40:13 PM
Representative Alexander introduces HB 1499 as a companion to HB 1709, addressing housing shortages exacerbated by criminal illegal aliens renting units. The bill makes it a felony for landlords to rent to illegal aliens previously convicted of felonies, deported, and re-entered, confirmed by DHS. It mandates sheriffs to arrest violators safely, enforcing federal immigration laws to remove violent criminals from communities and free housing for citizens. He notes it aligns with zoning reforms and sanctuary protections. In response to questions, he clarifies it targets violent felons, not all illegal entrants (a misdemeanor), and while exact numbers are unknown, it addresses units taken by such individuals.
HB1709
Oppose02:46:29.672 - 3:45:10 PM
Representative Horgan opposes HB 1709, noting its broad application to any occupant or tenant, including commercial or temporary stays, but narrow restrictions limit its impact. It targets those deported after felony convictions who re-enter, confirmed by DHS—individuals already in severe legal trouble likely facing deportation. He questions the utility of adding a state misdemeanor. He argues immigrants are scapegoated for housing shortages and actually help by building and maintaining housing, recommending inexpedient to legislate as it applies to few or none.
HB1709
Oppose02:48:29.872 - 3:47:10 PM
Rachel Odier argues HB 1709 transforms housing and eviction laws into tools for federal immigration enforcement, shifting focus from tenant behavior to immigration status and past convictions. Good tenants could face class A misdemeanor charges. It burdens landlords, courts, and sheriffs with federal duties, creating costs, liability, and mission creep by mandating arrests during evictions. Only four sheriffs currently assist ICE via 287G agreements, but this forces all into immigration enforcement, overriding local control. Polling shows majority view ICE as making the U.S. less safe and support abolishing it, indicating no demand for local enforcement through housing.
HB1788
Information Only02:54:23.083 - 3:53:04 PM
Representative Nalivanko, prime sponsor and clerk of House Finance Division 3, introduces HB 1788 to clarify RSA 21-I:112 and 114 regarding prohibitions on DEI in public contracts. It adds language excluding DEI considerations from definitions and voids violating contracts, allowing full rescission by courts. It enables any citizen to sue violating entities for injunctive relief and attorney's fees, engaging taxpayers in enforcement as good governance. He notes the law's recent implementation amid litigation, with partial compliance like renaming departments at UNH, but persistent DEI evidence. In questions, he discusses potential contract renegotiations, defends legislative authority to mandate rescission as clarifying intent without separating powers, and addresses ongoing constitutionality challenges, applying to all state agencies including universities.
HB1788
Oppose03:12:07.170 - 4:10:48 PM
Kate Horgan testified on behalf of the New Hampshire Association of Counties, expressing concerns about the bill's broad language allowing 'any citizen' to sue, which could include out-of-state individuals causing unnecessary litigation. She highlighted issues with nursing homes' Medicaid requirements for religious care training, noting that such provisions could be misinterpreted as DEI, putting counties in a difficult position between federal mandates and state restrictions.
HB1788
Oppose03:14:15.050 - 4:12:56 PM
Sarah Burt Cohen represented the New Hampshire Municipal Association in opposing HB 1788. She pointed out the undefined term 'citizen' in the municipal section, potentially allowing suits from non-residents leading to legal fees for municipalities. She discussed disruptions in contracting and procurement, including voiding contracts, renegotiation challenges, potential vendor loss, breach of contract lawsuits, and increased administrative burdens, all of which would impose financial and resource costs on municipalities.
HB1788
Oppose03:17:05.749 - 4:15:46 PM
Representative Timothy Horrigan opposed HB 1788, referencing his written testimony submitted to House ED&VA. He noted strong constituent support for DEI and criticized provisions snuck into the budget as unconstitutional. He argued the bill attacks freedom of expression, as seen in opposition from the New Hampshire Association of Public Libraries, and undermines disability rights and fairness. He defined DEI positively as diversity, equity, and inclusion, urging the committee to delete these provisions from the RSAs entirely.
HB1788
Information Only03:20:09.389 - 4:18:50 PM
Sean Locke, directing the Civil Rights Committee at the Attorney General's office, provided technical guidance on HB 1788, which amends laws from HB 2 prohibiting DEI in contracts. He noted ongoing federal injunctions preventing enforcement and expressed concerns that the bill would create additional litigation fronts, complicate defense efforts, place the state and localities in proxy fights between citizens and contractors, award attorneys' fees to prevailing citizens, and introduce unendorsed citizen standing beyond taxpayer requirements. He clarified that the bill does not require exhausting non-litigation remedies before suing.
HB1788
Oppose03:26:15.757 - 4:24:56 PM
Representative Wayne Burton opposed the bill, calling it contrary to the U.S. Constitution, referencing Judge Landya McCaffrey's ruling in a related case. He warned that the bill would terminate 32,000 IEPs by banning DEI activities, including federal IDEA requirements for identifying students with disabilities, as the exemptions do not cover IDEA. He shared a story about his special education bill for higher ed being delayed due to the ongoing lawsuit, with an OLS attorney's email cited in court as evidence of legislative recognition of the conflict.
HB1788
Oppose03:30:42.479 - 4:29:23 PM
Debra House opposes HB 1788, arguing it harms students' right to a robust education and puts teachers at risk for doing their jobs. The bill expands unconstitutional anti-DEI provisions from HB 2, blocked by federal courts for violating due process and civil rights laws. It could end special education by prohibiting grouping students with disabilities, affect English language learners, and deter teaching accurate history or addressing bullying. The vague language invites lawsuits and wastes taxpayer money. Similar anti-DEI laws have been overturned nationwide, including in federal cases.
HB1788
Oppose03:35:28.732 - 4:34:09 PM
Rachel Potter urges rejection of HB 1788 for expanding unconstitutional anti-DEI provisions from HB 2, blocked by a federal injunction in October 2025 for violating due process and encouraging arbitrary enforcement. A prior 2024 ruling struck down similar laws as vague. The bill fails to fix these issues, adds punitive penalties like citizen lawsuits and code of conduct violations, creating fear and litigation for educators without clarifying violations.
HB1788
Oppose03:37:26.388 - 4:36:07 PM
Brian Hawkins concurs with prior testimony that HB 1788 builds on an unconstitutional law, adding penalties targeting educators' licenses via the Educator Code of Conduct. This invites arbitrary enforcement and exacerbates teacher shortages by fostering fear of teaching controversial topics, as noted in a bipartisan report. He urges defeating the bill or repealing the underlying law.
HB1788
Information Only03:43:37.186 - 4:42:18 PM
Elizabeth Brown provides information on page 2 of HB 1788, explaining that violations target school districts but implicate licensed educators like superintendents and principals under the Educator Code of Conduct. Citizens can sue districts or the Department of Education broadly, beyond taxpayer standing, leading to increased litigation and attorney fees. The Department lacks staff for required investigations, risking lawsuits for negligence despite understaffing.
HB1442
Support03:49:39.338 - 4:48:20 PM
Representative Leon introduces HB 1442, defining gender identity based on biological sex using genetics and the SRY gene, handling disorders of sexual development. Motivated by a Title IX complaint in Conway School District over a biological male in girls' locker rooms and issues at the State House. The bill ensures women's and girls' facilities are for biological females, allows all-gender options, and clarifies statutes to protect privacy, fairness, and safety without exclusion.
HB1442
Support04:03:05.956 - 5:01:46 PM
Stephen Scar supports HB 1442, arguing women and girls deserve private spaces based on sex determined at conception, not stereotypes. Transgender women are men and should use men's facilities without discrimination. Enforcement is feasible as most comply; suicide threats lack evidence linking to access. No attacks by trans individuals in bathrooms have been cited, but the law protects without erasing trans people.
HB1442
Oppose04:06:45.597 - 5:05:26 PM
Representative Horgan, from House Judiciary which unanimously rejected HB 1442, opposes it as redundant to other bills and poorly defined, excluding women post-hysterectomy from female definitions. Men are less reactive to women in their spaces. He urges finding it inexpedient to legislate, criticizing party-line advancement.
HB1442
Oppose04:09:37.457 - 5:08:18 PM
Nancy Brennan opposes HB 1442, citing studies on intersex conditions, twin studies suggesting biological bases for transgender identity, and brain structure research aligning with gender identity. She suggests interim study with listening sessions for stakeholders to share experiences without dismissal.
HB1442
Oppose04:13:34.151 - 5:12:15 PM
Pasha Roberts, an intersex person, opposes HB 1442, noting over 80 genes determine sexual differentiation, not just SRY, which the Olympics abandoned 30 years ago due to issues. Examples like supermodel Hanne Gaby Odiele (XY with female traits) show flaws. The bill creates loopholes for aging men losing Y chromosomes and financial burdens for tests costing $1,000 without funding. Geneticist Andrew Sinclair advises against using SRY for categorization. Urges inexpedient to legislate.
HB1442
Oppose04:17:08.231 - 5:15:49 PM
The speaker, who discovered the SRY gene in 1990, argues against using the SRY gene test for determining sex in women athletes, calling it misguided. They explain that there are 80 genes involved in sex determination and that contamination from a male lab tech can lead to false positives, potentially ruining careers or leading to criminal charges. The test is ineffective for older generations, likely giving false positives for most of the legislature. The Y chromosome is fragile and degrades over time, making it unreliable after early fetal development. The speaker brought an article criticizing the test and notes that a high-level medical professor from Boston was dismissed quickly in the House without questions, expressing outrage at the legislation.
HB1442
Oppose04:19:39.871 - 5:18:20 PM
Amy summarizes testimony heard across multiple years and bills, including from experts predicting vetoes, scientists and intersex individuals explaining the nuance of anatomy and gender that cannot be legislated, business owners concerned about enforcement and lawsuits, residents wanting government out of bathrooms, caretakers worried about accompanying children, care providers facing logistics for mobility-impaired individuals, and cis women like herself highlighting safety and privacy issues with enforcement. She criticizes prioritizing out-of-state groups and national politics over New Hampshire issues, calling the bill divisive, distracting, dilatory, and discriminatory. She urges recommending Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1442. In response to a question on alternative definitions, she states there are 40 types of biological sex discovered, too nuanced to legislate.
HB1442
Support04:22:47.386 - 5:21:28 PM
Claire, a 21-year-old detransitioner, shares her experience of undergoing testosterone injections and a double mastectomy in eighth grade to appear male, then being placed in boys' facilities at a new school. Despite changes, her female traits made her vulnerable; she was attacked in the restroom, beaten, and later sexually assaulted in the locker room, with the school dismissing it. She avoided using facilities to stay safe but was still harmed. She argues that sex-based differences in strength and aggression persist despite hormones and are crucial for children's safety. A bill like HB 1442 would have protected her by ensuring placement in girls' spaces.
HB1442
Support04:24:27.366 - 5:23:08 PM
Simon strongly supports HB 1442, sharing his journey from identifying as transgender to detransitioning. He refutes accusations of being paid out-of-state testimony, noting he drove from in-state at personal cost out of love for New Hampshire. He wants to protect his future children from the harms he experienced, like being misled about sex and groomed to reject it. He opposes men in women's bathrooms due to predation risks and urges telling hard truths over easy lies to protect women's spaces and safety, hoping the bill prevents future harms.
HB1442
Oppose04:28:08.827 - 5:26:49 PM
Rebecca, a lifelong New Hampshire resident and biologically female gender non-conforming person who presents variably and accepts all pronouns, opposes HB 1442 for risking harm to Granite Staters. She argues such bathroom bans do not enhance safety but make spaces less safe, citing past vetoes by Governor Sununu and Ayotte due to unenforceability. She questions how to enforce against trans people and shares a Massachusetts incident where a cis woman was harassed by security mistaking her gender. She fears similar harassment if dressed masculinely, like needing a cheek swab, making bathrooms unsafe for everyone.
HB1442
Oppose04:29:59.718 - 5:28:40 PM
Rachel Steidehar testified about the economic crisis in New Hampshire, highlighting the decline in enrollment at UNH Durham, which has lost nearly a thousand students in five years, many out-of-state who pay higher tuition. She argued that the bill would worsen this by driving away students due to state politics on LGBTQ rights, as one in four students consider this factor. She also addressed the state's brain drain, noting that 337 companies have stated that harsh LGBTQ laws hinder recruitment. Citing North Carolina's similar bathroom bill, which cost over $3.7 billion in lost business, including PayPal's canceled expansion and Deutsche Bank's plans, she questioned if New Hampshire could afford such losses, budget cuts for defense, and further economic harm.
HB1442
Oppose04:32:00.000 - 5:30:41 PM
Todd Eyre criticized the bill as evidence of problems with conservatives and Free Staters influencing New Hampshire politics. He pointed out the hypocrisy in prioritizing child safety by restricting bathrooms while supporting open carry of weapons on college campuses. He referenced past failed attempts to legislate against race and women, warning the committee that targeting the LGBTQ community would lead to strong opposition from a powerful group with significant resources, vowing to fight and ultimately defeat such efforts.
HB1442
Oppose04:34:29.375 - 5:33:10 PM
Eli Orn testified on behalf of a transgender man who was assigned female at birth but identifies and lives as male, having undergone hormone therapy, surgery, and legal name/gender changes. The peer described improved quality of life and being perceived as cisgender male, feeling safe in men's spaces without harassment. He expressed discomfort and safety risks if forced into female spaces under HB 1442, noting it would cause discomfort for others who see him as male, potential calls to authorities, forced disclosure of medical information, and legal issues since people don't carry birth certificates or undergo inspections. He argued the bill would prevent safe and legal access to public facilities.
HB1442
Oppose04:37:09.477 - 5:35:50 PM
Sam Hawkins opposed HB 1442 on behalf of NAMI New Hampshire, expressing grave concerns about the mental health impacts of stigma and discrimination on transgender and non-binary individuals. He referenced data in written testimony on mental health symptoms and outcomes for trans and non-binary youth in New Hampshire, emphasizing the direct effects from such policies and their discussions, which occur repeatedly across sessions. This affects not only trans individuals but their families, loved ones, and communities. He urged the committee to vote down the bill and similar measures, instead focusing on laws improving mental health outcomes.
HB1442
Oppose04:38:30.000 - 5:37:11 PM
Hazel Cain, a 30-year-old law student and New Hampshire resident, opposed the bill, noting it was her third time testifying against a bathroom bill. She shared experiences of being maligned on national media, doxxed, and defamed without basis. She argued the law won't deter trans women from using women's restrooms despite harassment, as she is accustomed to abuse, including past violence from her father. She prioritized her dignity over others' privacy concerns, explaining her gender identity is rooted in her brain and hypothalamus, not chromosomes or organs. Having tried living as a man for 28 years unsuccessfully, she presents as female for social acceptance. If the bill passes, she plans to stop 'passing' and continue using women's spaces, accepting fines or violence to expose opponents' intolerance, refusing to fight back.
HB1442
Oppose04:42:30.000 - 5:41:11 PM
The speaker, a transgender public servant working for DCYF in Nashua and living in Manchester with four years of service there and 14 years previously in Kansas, opposed the bill. She described fleeing Kansas after coming out due to lack of protections, choosing New Hampshire for its 'Live Free or Die' ethos, which she sees as a fulfilled promise allowing her to live her dream with her wife and child. The bill would force her to use the men's room at work, causing discomfort for her and male colleagues after years using the women's room. She outlined unsavory options: relocating again (having lost everything before) or ignoring the law, risking job loss and prosecution affecting her family. She noted such laws have been struck down by Republican governors and deemed inexpedient, vowing to live free despite government tyranny.
HB1442
Information Only04:46:45.063 - 5:45:26 PM
Tony Krieger from Brookline began testifying, mentioning he may have signed up but prepared a short statement. He listed names obtained from the internet via Google, including Nicholas, Chumpa Dow, Dana Allen Caruso from VDC staff, and others like Travis Demers, though the testimony appeared incomplete and focused on providing a list of names without clear context or further details.
HB1442
Oppose04:47:33.069 - 5:46:14 PM
The speaker lists several individuals, including Eric Muldowney, an unnamed masked man, Todd E. Prevost, Zachary Bishop, Johnson, and Yara Silvervich, noting that none are trans women but were convicted or charged with indecent exposure, harassment, or related incidents in women's bathrooms or locker rooms. They state they have yet to find a trans woman charged with such crimes, mentioning only the Conval case involving discomfort. They argue the bill is a solution to a non-existent problem, amplified by right-wing organizations, and compare it to the 'satanic panic' or 'trans panic' of the 2020s. Science and social norms disagree with the bill. As a trans feminine person legally named Tanya with a female license, the speaker does not expect welcome in ladies' rooms currently but anticipates it will be unsafe in men's rooms after surgeries and hormones. They support gender-inclusive spaces and unisex bathrooms but question the bill's zero-dollar budgetary cost for implementing them. As a security engineer living in New Hampshire for 20 years and owning a home in Brooklyn paying high taxes, they contribute to the economy but warn that such bills make New Hampshire unwelcoming, potentially leading to exodus like in Kansas and Idaho, where repeated bathroom infractions can result in life imprisonment.
HB1442
Oppose04:51:04.389 - 5:49:45 PM
The speaker thanks the committee for allowing ample time for testimony without cutoffs. They note the series of similar bills with evolving wording addressing concerns like intersex people or accompanying those needing care, but argue it stems from unfounded fear of men in women's bathrooms. As a trans man raised as a girl, the speaker identifies as male and would be required by the bill to use women's rooms, which is unsafe. They emphasize that trans identity is an adjective describing personal evolution, and trans women are women, often targeted despite high risks of violence and prejudice. Transgender women, identified male at birth, face specific attacks, while the speaker as a trans man experiences some privilege. In response to questions, they clarify private establishments enforcing bathroom rules could put trans individuals at risk, as they pose no threat but face suspicion or aggression. They stress the bill targets trans women, not men like themselves, who are a side effect, and highlight increasing violence against trans women due to misunderstanding, such as mislabeling them as 'men in dresses'.
HB1442
Support04:59:18.109 - 5:57:59 PM
The speaker, a representative, testifies briefly, stating the bill targets bad actors, not transgender individuals like those testifying or known trans representatives. They argue no policing or invasive checks are involved; accountability arises only from incidents like exposure in locker rooms or prisons. They reference reports of rapes in Maine from placing biological males in female prisons and a Planet Fitness incident in Rochester where a man identifying as female exposed himself, leading women to avoid the gym due to lack of recourse. They mention conversations with constituents and representatives, including Billy Butler from Somersworth, noting protections under current laws allow bad actors to claim identity without challenge, causing discomfort, such as a bearded man in female spaces at Bed Bath & Beyond. The bill addresses privacy and criminal acts not covered in the code, not routine bathroom use. In response to questions, they agree criminal laws should handle crimes but argue existing laws fail, providing cover for creeps, leading to business avoidance post-2018 law. They advocate defining terms in law for guardrails without hate or violence.