The Republican-controlled New Hampshire state House approved a law prohibiting doctors from conducting gender-affirming genital procedures on ‘transgender’ adolescents on January 4th. The contentious proposal was sent to the Senate, where it is also anticipated to succeed.
Additionally, the State House voted to forward House Bill 396 to the Republican-controlled Senate. This bill would legalize the classification of persons based on biological sex in areas such as sports, jail, and the use of public facilities.
According to reports, HB 396 maintains the state’s authority to distinguish between the biological sexes in public locations, including sporting events, jails, and bathrooms.
Granite Staters are presently able to freely pick whichever gender they want on their driver’s licenses because of New Hampshire’s permissive regulations surrounding gender and state ID.
Liberal federal courts in other parts of the nation are reading parallel state statutes in a way that requires using state documents alone when deciding how to classify people into male and female. This might lead to the conclusion that any differentiation should be based on an individual’s expressed desire alone, regardless of other factors like medical transitioning. If similar laws in New Hampshire are being applied incorrectly, this measure aims to fix that.
House Bill 619 was revised to restrict genital surgeries—which are already very uncommon for kids—instead of all gender-affirming medical treatments, including hormones and puberty blockers, which were initially intended to be banned for ‘transgender’ children. The Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have issued recommendations against such treatments for ‘transgender’ youth under the age of 18.
The bill passed 199 to 175 in the House. The bill, which would also make it illegal for medical professionals to send kids out of state for these procedures, was approved by a vote of 12 Democrats. Opposing it were two Republicans.
Reports show that although genital procedures for minors are very rare, opponents of the measure have mainly contended that outright prohibiting them might establish a worrying precedent for government intervention in medicine.
