Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (05/06/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB71 00:12:00.279 - 12:10:56 PM	Executive Session	(Third New Title) prohibiting school facilities from being used to provide shelter for aliens; relative to department of health and human services contracts; and requiring the use of public notices before reassessment of property values for tax purposes.	Harvey-Bolia, Juliet(R)[A-]2025
HB88 00:15:48.600 - 12:14:44 PM	Executive Session	establishing community property trusts.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A]2025
HB188 00:16:55.399 - 12:15:51 PM	Executive Session	relative to contempt of the general court.	Packard, Sherman(R)[SP]2025
HB616 00:21:55.320 - 12:20:51 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to the confiscation of animals from persons suspected of or charged with abuse of animals and establishing a committee to study the animal cruelty statutes.	Aron, Judy(R)[A-]2025
HB733 00:23:05.919 - 12:22:01 PM	Executive Session	relative to reporting requirements for persons or entities financing lawsuits.	Cole, Brian(R)[A-]2025
HB433 00:34:10.879 - 12:33:06 PM	Public Hearing	making 17 the age of consent for marriage if either party is active duty military and removing language regarding age waivers for marriage registration records, since age waivers are no longer issued in New Hampshire.	Drye, Margaret(R)[B+]2025
HB433 01:27:18.239 - 1:26:14 PM	Executive Session	making 17 the age of consent for marriage if either party is active duty military and removing language regarding age waivers for marriage registration records, since age waivers are no longer issued in New Hampshire.	Drye, Margaret(R)[B+]2025
HB506 01:29:28.159 - 1:28:24 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to background checks during motions to return firearms and ammunition and relative to invalidating out-of-state driver's licenses issued to undocumented immigrants and relative to requiring schools to engage an owner's project manager for construction of school building aid projects at the time of application.	Mannion, Dennis(R)[B+]2025
HB148 02:20:11.920 - 2:19:07 PM	Public Hearing	permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain circumstances.	Kofalt, Jim(R)[A+]2025
HB191 04:04:06.080 - 4:03:02 PM	Public Hearing	(Second New Title) providing criminal penalties for the transporting of an unemancipated minor in order to obtain a surgical procedure or a termination of the minor's pregnancy without parental permission.	Cordelli, Glenn(R)[B+]2025

HB71: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:12:00.279 - 12:10:56 PM; The senator expressed confusion regarding the support for the bill, noting that the testimony received was varied and not directly related to the bill's content. Mentioned were concerns about a school in Brooklyn, vaccines at Dartmouth Hospital, incidents at Logan Airport, and a US Army facility damaged during Hurricane Katrina.
HB71: Unnamed Senator Support00:13:28.160 - 12:12:24 PM; The senator expressed support for the bill after discussing it within their district and caucus, believing it has merit and should become law.
HB71: Senator Ganon Information Only00:13:28.160 - 12:12:24 PM; Senator Ganon raised concerns about potential conflicts between the bill's wording and federal guidance on the Refugees Resettlement Act, suggesting a delay in the decision until further investigation.
HB71: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:14:38.639 - 12:13:34 PM; The senator clarified that the Reggie Lewis community center and Logan Airport were used as examples of inappropriate use of public facilities, but noted that the bill specifically addresses schools.
HB88: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:15:48.600 - 12:14:44 PM; The senator moved for an ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on HB88, noting minimal discussion and that New Hampshire is not a community property state. The senator felt there was insufficient testimony to justify passing the bill.
HB188: Unnamed Senator Support00:16:55.399 - 12:15:51 PM; The senator supported moving forward with HB188, emphasizing the need for penalties to enforce subpoena power, suggesting it mirrors existing law and provides necessary consequences for non-compliance.
HB188: Unnamed Senator Oppose00:18:25.360 - 12:17:21 PM; The senator opposed HB188, questioning the need for criminal offenses when the existing subpoena power has never been utilized, and criticized the bill for including severe responses without clear justification.
HB188: Unnamed Senator Support00:19:33.520 - 12:18:29 PM; The senator supported HB188, arguing that without consequences, subpoena power is ineffective. They compared the proposed penalties to those in judicial contempt proceedings.
HB188: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:20:36.720 - 12:19:32 PM; The senator inquired about the scope of subpoena power under HB188, specifically whether it could extend to any state employee or citizen. The response clarified that the bill concerns the response to non-compliance rather than changing the process for issuing subpoenas.
HB616: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:21:55.320 - 12:20:51 PM; The senator moved for an ITL on HB616 and mentioned that an amendment proposed by Senator Pearl was not discussed and deemed insufficient.
HB733: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:23:05.919 - 12:22:01 PM; The senator decided to hold off on HB733 until the next week, indicating a last-minute change in plans.
HB433: Representative Margaret Dryer, Sullivan District 7 (Plainfield, Cornish, Newport, Unity, Charlestown) Support00:34:10.879 - 12:33:06 PM; Representative Dryer presented HB433, which does not repeal the law setting the age of consent for marriage at 18 but proposes an exception allowing 17-year-olds who are active duty military members to marry. She highlighted that military benefits, including medical insurance, can only be shared with spouses, and thus this exception is necessary for 17-year-olds in the military to provide for their families. She mentioned that New Hampshire already considers 17-year-olds adults in some contexts, such as child support and dependency, and pointed out the discrepancy between the age of consent for sex (16) and marriage (18). Dryer addressed concerns about the bill potentially leading to child marriage or abuse, emphasizing the bill's narrow scope and the requirement for parental consent. She also mentioned support from the National Guard and Veteran Services and suggested amendments if necessary to limit age differences between partners.
HB433: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:42:37.839 - 12:41:33 PM; An unnamed speaker raised concerns about the potential for a 17-year-old to be married to someone significantly older and then be shipped away, potentially into an abusive situation. They questioned how a 17-year-old could extricate themselves from such a legal contract, suggesting that the bill might transfer guardianship to the spouse. Representative Dryer responded by suggesting amendments to limit age differences and add judicial consent if necessary.
HB433: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:46:00.400 - 12:44:56 PM; Another unnamed speaker clarified that military members can assign their death benefits to anyone without marriage, but other benefits like medical, insurance, housing, and overseas stationing require marriage.
HB433: Representative Alicia Gregg, Nashua Ward 7 Oppose00:46:51.920 - 12:45:47 PM; Representative Gregg, who sits on the Children and Family Law Committee, opposed the bill. She argued that the bill was not based on a real-life event necessitating change and raised concerns about the lack of age restrictions, which could lead to an adult marrying a minor. She emphasized the recent decision to raise the age of consent for marriage to 18 and urged the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL), suggesting reconsideration only if a real-life situation arises.
HB433: Kristen Martino, Secretary of State's Division of Vital Records Information Only00:49:06.640 - 12:48:02 PM; Kristen Martino testified neutrally, discussing the implementation of the bill if passed. She highlighted a fiscal impact of about $25,000 for software updates and form reprinting. Martino requested a longer implementation period, ideally starting at the beginning of the year, to educate clerks. She also suggested defining 'active duty military' in the statute and changing the written permission requirement to a notarized affidavit. Additionally, she proposed an amendment to clarify the bill's language.
HB433: Barb Patch, Barrington, New Hampshire (All Girls Allowed, New Hampshire Trafficking Free Coalition) Support00:51:51.760 - 12:50:47 PM; Barb Patch supported HB433, acknowledging the need for potential amendments. She referenced a study showing the prevalence of child marriage in the U.S. and noted New Hampshire's low rate of child marriage. Patch argued that the bill's exception for 17-year-old active duty military members is reasonable, citing their maturity and responsibility. She addressed concerns about exploitation by supporting amendments to limit age differences and ensure proper consent mechanisms.
HB433: Representative Melissa Lichfield, Brentwood, Danville, and Fremont Support00:57:55.440 - 12:56:51 PM; Representative Melissa Lichfield shared a personal testimony about her in-laws who married at a young age. Her mother-in-law was 17 when she became pregnant, and her father-in-law was drafted into the military. They took their four-month-old baby to Germany and had a long-lasting marriage, which resulted in two children and six grandchildren. Lichfield expressed gratitude for their marriage and the life it brought her, including her husband and four children.
HB433: Representative Sir Oris Support00:59:16.000 - 12:58:12 PM; Representative Sir Oris spoke in support of HB433, sharing his personal experience of joining the Army at 17 and reflecting on his maturity at that age. He mentioned a colleague, Representative Harry Bean, who married at 16 and his wife at 17, leading to a large family over the years. Sir Oris argued that young people who seek to marry at this age are often responsible and highlighted his own long marriage and that of Bean's as examples. He addressed concerns about age differences but supported the bill without age restrictions beyond parental consent.
HB433: Drake Fields, Unchained at Last Oppose01:02:30.240 - 1:01:26 PM; Drake Fields, representing Unchained at Last, urged a no vote on HB433, arguing that it would undo progress made in banning child marriage in New Hampshire. He highlighted that only Alaska allows a military exception to the marriage age and criticized this as a loophole that could lead to human rights abuses. Fields detailed the risks of domestic violence and isolation faced by minors married to service members, emphasizing the difficulty for these minors to escape abusive situations due to military-related legal delays. He also refuted claims that marriage provides necessary benefits to minors, stating that these are available without marriage.
HB433: Lori Cororsen, State Rep for Coos County District 7 Support01:09:19.439 - 1:08:15 PM; State Representative Lori Cororsen supported HB433, emphasizing the importance of allowing exceptions for 17-year-old service members. She shared a personal story about her parents who married young before her father was deployed to Vietnam. Despite the hardships, including a near-death experience for her father, their marriage endured, leading to a large family. Cororsen argued that such marriages can be vital for emotional support during military service and urged support for the bill.
HB433: State Rep. Peter Patrino, Milford Oppose01:11:24.239 - 1:10:20 PM; State Representative Peter Patrino opposed HB433, arguing against lowering the marriage age to 17 even with exceptions for military members. He questioned why exceptions should be made for military members but not for other professions. Patrino stressed the importance of maintaining the age of 18 as the marriage age and expressed concern over the potential for older individuals marrying minors, calling it 'creepy'. He urged the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL) and reminded them of the U.S. State Department's stance on marriage before 18 as a human rights abuse.
HB433: Representative Cassandra Le, Strafford Oppose01:14:18.880 - 1:13:14 PM; Representative Cassandra Le from Strafford opposed HB433, arguing against child marriage, especially to active duty military personnel. She highlighted the challenges faced by military families, including frequent relocations and the mental health issues of service members. Le stressed that children marrying into such situations are not equipped to handle them and shared her personal commitment to ending child marriage since she was 15, emphasizing the lack of benefits for children marrying adults.
HB433: Shelley Ho, Hopkinton Oppose01:19:44.159 - 1:18:40 PM; Shelley Ho, a retired Air Force officer from Hopkinton, opposed HB433, criticizing the bill's sponsors for using patriotism to justify child marriage. She argued that the bill would allow adults to marry minors and remove them from New Hampshire, a state where they have legal rights to divorce. Ho debunked claims that marrying a service member is necessary for a child to receive military benefits, clarifying that a baby is eligible for benefits when the military father is named on the birth certificate. She emphasized that the bill is based on false premises and could reinstate a human rights abuse.
HB433: Mary Wana Georgees, Representative and nonprofit leader Oppose01:23:31.600 - 1:22:27 PM; Mary Wana Georgees, a representative and nonprofit leader, opposed HB433, citing personal experiences and observations from her background. She emphasized the importance of education for young women and shared stories of women who suffered from marrying too young, including a woman from San Diego who testified about her hardships after marrying at 17. Georgees argued that marriage at a young age can hinder development and lead to abuse, and she urged support for children's rights and well-being.
HB433: Committee Vote01:27:18.239 - 1:26:14 PM; The committee moved to close the public hearing on HB433 and immediately moved into an executive session. A motion to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL) was proposed and seconded, with the committee agreeing to the motion without further discussion. The session concluded with a motion to move out of the executive session.
HB506: Representative Dennis Manion, Rockingham 25, Salem Support01:29:28.159 - 1:28:24 PM; Representative Dennis Manion from Salem introduced HB506, which aims to expedite the return of firearms and ammunition to individuals upon the termination or expiration of a court order. He explained that the bill provides for a prompt return unless prohibited by law, discusses the background check process, and outlines procedures for denial and appeals. Manion highlighted the importance of returning property in a timely manner, especially when individuals can purchase new firearms but struggle to reclaim their own.
HB506: Jonathan Stone, Claremont Support01:38:55.360 - 1:37:51 PM; Jonathan Stone from Claremont supported HB506, emphasizing the need for statutory time frames for the return of firearms. He noted that without such time frames, individuals can purchase new firearms but cannot get their own back due to delays by the court. Stone stressed the importance of returning property to its rightful owners in a timely and legal manner.
HB506: Captain Muzzy Information Only01:40:52.960 - 1:39:48 PM; Captain Muzzy provided information on the practical application of HB506, particularly regarding the use of the term 'may' versus 'shall' in the bill's language. He explained that the State Police preferred 'may' to allow flexibility in informing the court of any new criminal activity by the individual. Muzzy emphasized the importance of timely returns while ensuring that the State Police can provide necessary information to the court. He also discussed the broader context of property returns by law enforcement agencies.
HB506: Holly Novitzki Support01:54:03.840 - 1:52:59 PM; Holly Novitzki, the constituent who requested the bill, shared her personal experience of having her firearms and ammunition seized based on a false claim of threatening behavior. Despite the police and court dismissing the claim as noncredible, it took 100 days to get her property back, with 69 of those days occurring after the court dismissal. She supports HB506 because it proposes a 12-day timeframe for the return of firearms and ammunition, which would have significantly reduced her waiting time. She emphasized the need for timely due process and highlighted the burden on the court system caused by such delays.
HB506: Jay Simkin Information Only01:56:34.880 - 1:55:30 PM; Jay Simkin, a federally licensed firearms dealer with over four decades of experience, provided detailed information on the regulations surrounding the FBI's NICS system. He clarified that only a criminal justice agency in possession of firearms can initiate a NICS check, not a court. He pointed out that the Department of Safety can act as an agent for a licensed dealer but cannot initiate a check on firearms they do not control. He also mentioned the legal implications of mailing firearms, noting that a NICS check is not required when returning a firearm to its owner after repair or upgrade by a gunsmith.
HB506: Unknown Speaker Oppose02:00:28.480 - 1:59:24 PM; The speaker expressed concerns about the understanding and application of the NICS system in relation to HB506. They noted that ownership of firearms is not lost when seized under a restraining order, only control is lost. They questioned the necessity of a NICS check before returning firearms to their owner, suggesting that the agency should confirm the lapse or withdrawal of the order. They also criticized the bill for being based on misunderstandings of the NICS system and its intended use. Additionally, they pointed out that the 10-day limit for a hearing in the bill does not provide enough time for the owner to gather necessary documentation. They suggested that any denial by the agency should include detailed information about the specific offense and court details to help the owner or their attorney understand and address the issue.
HB148: Jim Copal, Hillsborough County District 32 (Wilton, Temple, New Ips.) Support02:20:11.920 - 2:19:07 PM; Representative Jim Copal introduced HB148, which is similar to previous bills passed by both chambers but vetoed by the governor. The bill allows for the recognition of biological sex as a criterion for access to intimate spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms, and for participation in athletic competitions. Copal argued that the bill addresses issues that have occurred in New Hampshire, citing examples in Milford, Mascenic, and Keene school districts where biological males identifying as females caused disturbances in girls' locker rooms. He emphasized that the bill does not mandate a specific policy but allows for local control and flexibility. For instance, schools could designate certain bathrooms for biological males and females while maintaining others as per current rules. Regarding enforcement, Copal suggested it would be similar to existing policies for gender-specific facilities. He also addressed concerns about the impact on transgender individuals, stating that the bill aims to balance privacy and security for all, including transgender people.
HB148: Jim Copal, Hillsborough County District 32 (Wilton, Temple, New Ips.) Information Only02:33:40.040 - 2:32:36 PM; Jim Copal discussed the need for laws addressing stalking, harassment, and bullying, suggesting that existing laws are sufficient but not always enforced in schools. He emphasized the importance of privacy and safety in locker room settings, particularly during puberty, and the need for clearer lines on what constitutes bullying, harassment, or stalking.
HB148: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:37:34.479 - 2:36:30 PM; The speaker engaged in a dialogue about the flexibility of bathroom policies and the need for safety and comfort for everyone, including transgender individuals. They discussed a scenario with multiple bathroom options to accommodate different needs and argued that this bill offers a middle-ground compromise.
HB148: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:40:07.680 - 2:39:03 PM; The speaker continued the discussion on the bill's impact on transgender individuals and questioned whether the bill encourages self-segregation. They highlighted situations where privacy and safety are compromised and argued for a two-way street approach to accommodate everyone's needs.
HB148: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:43:57.399 - 2:42:53 PM; The speaker addressed concerns about prisons and sporting competitions, emphasizing the state's compelling interest in safety and fairness. They explained that local school districts should establish policies best suited for their students' safety.
HB148: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:45:52.680 - 2:44:48 PM; The speaker discussed the bill's provision on flexibility, arguing that it aims to balance privacy, safety, and security for all individuals, including transgender people, and is not fundamentally discriminatory.
HB148: Mia Engleberg Oppose02:46:51.080 - 2:45:47 PM; Mia Engleberg opposed the bill, arguing that there is no clear definition of biological sex and that any attempt to legislate bathroom use based on this criterion will fail to accommodate everyone. They criticized the bill as discriminatory and urged the committee to table it.
HB148: Unknown Speaker Oppose02:50:09.399 - 2:49:05 PM; The speaker shared personal experiences of assault and misgendering to argue that biological sex policies do not protect anyone and may harm cisgender individuals and the transgender community. They emphasized the impracticality of creating additional bathrooms in schools.
HB148: Betsy Harrington, Dearing, New Hampshire Support02:53:50.880 - 2:52:46 PM; Betsy Harrington supported the bill, arguing for the necessity of separate spaces based on biological differences for safety and fairness. She shared personal experiences and emphasized the importance of maintaining these spaces for biological women.
HB148: Vivian Oppose02:56:47.640 - 2:55:43 PM; Vivian opposed the bill, arguing against conflating sex and gender and punishing transgender individuals for others' illegal actions. They urged the committee to protect all citizens equally and vote inexpedient to legislate on the bill.
HB148: Unknown Speaker Oppose02:57:50.479 - 2:56:46 PM; The speaker emphasized the vulnerability and fear experienced by transgender individuals in public restrooms and argued that they are not the ones committing crimes. They urged the committee to protect all citizens and vote against the bill.
HB148: Shy Joe Lamb Connelly, Kansas Oppose03:00:08.399 - 2:59:04 PM; Shy Joe Lamb Connelly strongly opposes HB148, arguing that it misleadingly presents itself as a law against discrimination while actually promoting it. As a transgender individual who moved from Kansas to New Hampshire for a more accepting environment, Connelly expressed personal experiences with discrimination and emphasized that existing laws already address issues like public indecency and sports regulations, making HB148 unnecessary and harmful. Connelly urged the committee not to take away their rights, stressing the importance of living freely.
HB148: Cameron Muns Oppose03:03:25.120 - 3:02:21 PM; Cameron Muns testified in strong opposition to HB148, highlighting the redundancy of the bill as existing laws already cover the issues it aims to address. Muns criticized the intent behind the bill, suggesting it could lead to harm and discrimination against the transgender community. They challenged the committee to consider the personal impact of the legislation and urged them to listen to transgender voices.
HB148: Stephanie Collie, Conway Oppose03:08:20.000 - 3:07:16 PM; Stephanie Collie, a transgender woman from Conway, New Hampshire, opposed HB148 by pointing out the lack of evidence supporting claims of increased inappropriate behavior in public facilities since the passage of transgender rights. Collie described the bill as unnecessary and unenforceable, emphasizing the potential for unintended consequences and the offensive nature of terms like 'biological boy or man'. They challenged the committee to consider the implications of forcing transgender individuals to use facilities that do not align with their gender identity.
HB148: Avery Roy Oppose03:11:39.600 - 3:10:35 PM; Avery Roy, a lifelong New Hampshire resident and transgender woman, opposed HB148, noting its broad application beyond schools and its potential to enable harassment and discrimination in various settings. Roy highlighted the lack of definitions and enforcement mechanisms in the bill, which could lead to accusations and harassment based on gender. They expressed concerns about the bill's impact on the state's attractiveness to families and young professionals.
HB148: Timothy Hort, Durham Oppose03:14:18.399 - 3:13:14 PM; Representative Timothy Hort from Durham opposed HB148, comparing it to other similar bills he believes deserve to be defeated. He criticized the scapegoating of the transgender community and the bill's lack of a clear definition of biological sex, which he sees as crucial for its fairness. Hort urged the committee to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL).
HB148: Lori Thorson Support03:18:19.200 - 3:17:15 PM; Representative Lori Thorson supported HB148, arguing for a distinction between sex and gender. She believes that separating people based on biological sex, which she describes as unchanging, would reduce confusion and be more straightforward than using gender, which she sees as fluid. Thorson suggested that the bill's focus on biological sex aligns with a clearer and more effective approach.
HB148: Lauren Celig, Durham Oppose03:20:21.200 - 3:19:17 PM; Representative Lauren Celig from Durham opposed HB148, sharing personal anecdotes to refute claims about transgender people in locker rooms and restrooms. She emphasized that existing laws already address inappropriate behavior and criticized the bill's potential to promote discrimination rather than equality. Celig urged the committee to oppose the bill and highlighted its discriminatory nature.
HB148: Nancy Brennan Oppose03:22:56.640 - 3:21:52 PM; Nancy Brennan opposed HB148, citing Governor Sununu's veto of a similar bill and arguing that it addresses non-existent problems while inviting discord. She shared concerns about the increasing hostility towards transgender individuals, leading to higher risks of self-harm and suicide. Brennan urged the committee to consider the human impact of the bill and to reject it.
HB148: Denise Kimble Oppose03:27:15.520 - 3:26:11 PM; Denise Kimble opposed HB148, criticizing it for permitting discrimination under the guise of privacy and safety. She questioned the practicality and ethics of enforcing the bill, suggesting it could lead to invasive checks and further discrimination. Kimble expressed a preference for being around transgender people over those supporting the bill, emphasizing her opposition.
HB148: Patrick Treat, Milford Oppose03:29:57.920 - 3:28:53 PM; Patrick Treat from Milford opposed HB148, sharing personal experiences of being different as a child and the challenges that come with it. He highlighted the high suicide attempt rate among transgender youth and criticized the bill for potentially exacerbating these issues. Treat invoked the state's motto, 'Live Free or Die', to urge the committee to protect the rights and well-being of transgender individuals.
HB148: Emily Nelson, New Hampshire Oppose03:32:16.080 - 3:31:12 PM; Emily Nelson, a New Hampshire native, opposed HB148, emphasizing the state's high queer and transgender population and the potential negative economic impacts of such legislation. She criticized the influence of external lobbying and political campaigns on local rights and warned of the broader effects on families, tourism, and the state economy. Nelson urged the committee to oppose the bill for the sake of individual rights and the state's future.
HB148: Kelly Twist, Kingston, New Hampshire Oppose03:34:46.560 - 3:33:42 PM; Kelly Twist expressed strong opposition to HB148, stating that it poses a significant risk of harm to transgender, non-binary, intersex, and gender non-conforming individuals. She argued that the bill threatens the Constitution and lacks definitions, enforcement standards, and implementation guidance for classifying people by biological sex. Twist highlighted that no IDs or documents exist to establish biological sex, leading to potential abuses like genital checks. She criticized the bill as being modeled on discriminatory legislation from other states like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee, and warned that it invites lawsuits and is unconstitutional. She urged the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL), emphasizing that New Hampshire should not adopt such discriminatory practices.
HB148: Michelle J. Francesco Oppose03:38:06.640 - 3:37:02 PM; Michelle J. Francesco strongly opposed HB148, describing it as a dangerous and discriminatory proposal that would exclude transgender people from facilities matching their gender identity. She emphasized the lack of need for such legislation in New Hampshire and warned of the confusion and harm it would cause, including increased risks of harassment and violence against transgender individuals, particularly youth. Francesco criticized the potential for legal ambiguity and the burden it would place on teachers, recreation directors, and correctional officers to enforce the bill. She highlighted the negative mental health impacts on transgender individuals and urged the committee to vote against the bill to protect the dignity, privacy, and freedom of all residents.
HB148: Dr. Jen Smith Oppose03:41:04.800 - 3:40:00 PM; Dr. Jen Smith, a medical physician and transgender woman, opposed HB148, focusing on its unworkability. She explained the challenges in determining biological sex due to intersex individuals and misclassification at birth. As a member of a women's tennis team, she shared her concerns about the bill's potential impact on her participation in sports and the broader implications for transgender individuals in various settings. She highlighted the absurdity of enforcing such a policy and the potential for it to drive her and others out of the state. Dr. Smith urged the committee to reject the bill due to its impracticality and potential for harm.
HB148: Louise Spencer, Concord, New Hampshire Oppose03:43:35.680 - 3:42:31 PM; Louise Spencer, from Concord and part of the Kent Street Coalition, opposed HB148 based on her personal experiences. She recounted being assaulted in a bathroom during middle school, emphasizing that such incidents are not related to transgender individuals but rather to general violence. Spencer also shared her discomfort with the lack of privacy during school showers and her later life experiences with medical conditions. She criticized the bill for forcing transgender individuals to justify their gender identity publicly, likening it to an invasion of privacy. Spencer urged the committee to stop the unnecessary bullying and discrimination, advocating for the safety and inclusion of all children.
HB148: Sarah Terrell, Plymouth, New Hampshire Oppose03:46:23.040 - 3:45:19 PM; Sarah Terrell, the mother of a transgender daughter, opposed HB148, sharing her daughter's experiences and the potential impact of the bill on her life. She described her daughter's involvement in a lawsuit against a sports ban bill and her excitement about attending prom. Terrell illustrated the absurdity of her daughter having to use the men's bathroom in her prom dress under the proposed bill, highlighting the emotional and psychological toll on transgender youth. She emphasized the lack of harm caused by her daughter using the bathroom aligned with her gender identity and urged the committee to consider the real human challenges faced by transgender individuals when voting on the bill.
HB148: Billy Strong, Gilmanton and Northfield, New Hampshire Oppose03:53:19.680 - 3:52:15 PM; Billy Strong, a transgender woman from Gilmanton and Northfield, opposed HB148, focusing on its lack of a definition for 'biological sex' and the impossibility of accurately determining someone's physical sex in public interactions. She warned that the bill could encourage confrontations with gender non-conforming individuals, posing a threat to all women. Strong criticized the bill's broad scope, allowing any person or organization to classify based on biological sex, and the absence of explicit protections for trans and gender non-conforming people's safety and privacy. She urged the committee to reject the bill to prevent harm to a broad class of Granite Staters.
HB148: Courtney Reid, ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose03:57:18.880 - 3:56:14 PM; Courtney Reid, representing the ACLU of New Hampshire, expressed opposition to HB148, urging the committee to vote it Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). Reid highlighted federal statutory protections such as Title 9 and Title 7, and constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment. She discussed the application of Title 9 to protect LGBTQ students in educational settings, referencing court rulings in the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits. Reid also mentioned that the Supreme Court has rejected appeals related to bathroom bans in Virginia. Additionally, she referenced a New Hampshire District Court's preliminary injunction on a sports-related case, suggesting the committee should re-refer the bill until the litigation concludes. She also touched on litigation concerning prison policies and the Prison Rape Elimination Act, noting challenges under the 14th and 18th Amendments.
HB191: Glenn Cordelli, Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro, and Ossipee, New Hampshire Support04:04:06.080 - 4:03:02 PM; Representative Glenn Cordelli presented House Bill 191, emphasizing it as a parental rights bill that requires written parental consent for any surgical procedure on an unemancipated minor under 18. He clarified exceptions to the bill, such as transportation by ambulance drivers or parents. Cordelli outlined the civil action rights for parents if consent is not obtained. He referenced historical and legal precedents supporting parental rights, including the 1923 Supreme Court case Meyer v. Nebraska and a quote from John Locke. He responded to questions about the definition of 'surgical procedure,' clarifying his stance that abortion constitutes surgery based on the American Medical Association's definition and New Hampshire statutes. He also addressed inquiries about the process of checking notarized consent and the roles of stepparents and hospitals in this process, indicating that the person transporting the minor would hold the consent.
HB191: Unknown Speaker Information Only04:13:56.159 - 4:12:52 PM; The speaker discusses the time frame for parents to bring legal action if a surgery has been performed on their child. They mention that it could be apparent that a surgery was done and that parents would inquire about who took the minor for the procedure.
HB191: Unknown Speaker Information Only04:14:44.760 - 4:13:40 PM; The speaker questions the inclusion of stepparents in line 13 part a of the bill, and whether a stepparent retains the right to sue if they are no longer a stepparent after the procedure. They also discuss the situation of foster parents and whether they could sue if they learn about a procedure after the child has been reunited with their parents.
HB191: Senator Ruden Information Only04:17:29.840 - 4:16:25 PM; Senator Ruden raises a scenario about transporting a minor for a surgical procedure like wisdom teeth removal without written consent. They ask if the dental office would have to deny the appointment to the child.
HB191: Ben Bradley, Vice President of State Government Relations, Hospital Association Oppose04:18:27.159 - 4:17:23 PM; Ben Bradley expresses concerns about the bill's requirement for notarized written consent for transporting a minor to a surgical procedure. He uses the example of a youth coach needing to transport an injured player to the hospital without delay, suggesting that the bill might need more consideration before moving forward. He also mentions that New Hampshire law allows minors to consent to certain treatments, questioning the necessity of transport consent for such procedures. Bradley suggests that the bill might need more time and recommends it be deemed inexpedient to legislate.
HB191: Senator Abvis Information Only04:22:32.080 - 4:21:28 PM; Senator Abvis suggests that removing the notary requirement but maintaining the written consent could address some of Bradley's concerns about the bill. Bradley responds that even written consent could delay emergency care and potentially expose well-intentioned transporters to legal consequences.
HB191: Senator Ruden Information Only04:23:27.920 - 4:22:23 PM; Senator Ruden questions whether Bradley would be concerned about being liable for a suit for seven years after transporting a minor for a surgical procedure. Bradley confirms that he would be concerned about liability even for one day.
HB191: Unknown Senator Information Only04:24:35.040 - 4:23:31 PM; The senator discusses a scenario where a high schooler drives another to get medical care after an injury, questioning the potential legal exposure for the minor who drove if the injury leads to surgery. Bradley responds that it could put the transporter in a position to defend their intentions and could expose well-intentioned individuals to legal issues.

Gannon, Bill(Chairman)(R)[B-]2025	Abbas, Daryl(V Chairman)(R)[B-]2025	Carson, Sharon(R)[B]2025
Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2025	Reardon, Tara(D)[F]2025