- Socratically Self Critical
- Posts
- NH Proving once again that they are the south of the north; NH House passes bill to ban gender-affirming care for minors
NH Proving once again that they are the south of the north; NH House passes bill to ban gender-affirming care for minors
Hey folks, obligatory “Have you considered subscribing to Socratically yet?” chat. While a little behind in the last month or so due to the holidays, we post nearly every month, and every subscriber counts, free or paid.
On with the show!
The New Hampshire State House passed a bill on January 4th that, if it passes, the Republican-led NH State Senate could restrict the ability for minors to receive gender-affirming care.
The bill in question, HB 619, would prohibit any doctor or other healthcare professionals from performing “genital gender reassignment surgery” to anyone in New Hampshire under 18. It would also prohibit healthcare workers from referring minors out of state to those that offer those procedures.
If signed into law by Sununu, New Hampshire would be the 21st state to enact such a ban, after Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia, according to U.S. News and World Report.1
Citing concerns over “lack of data,” Rep. Erica Layon, a Derry Republican, argued that the state should bar the procedure until more data is available from states that offer the procedures to minors. “We need to wait,” she said. “We need to pause.” Ever the moral authority on what is right and wrong, Layon pleaded guilty in 2022 to a DUI, complaining to the responding officers that she had had a bad day after her “Parental Bill of Rights” was defeated in the house.
Aside from the controversial parent’s bill of rights, which opponents claimed would out gay teens to their parents, Layon was a lightning rod for controversy last session. She sponsored a bill to revive a Cold War era anti-Communist loyalty oath for teachers which would ban them from advocating for socialism or communism in the classroom.
The bill would also ban teaching anything negative about the founding of the United States.
“No teacher shall advocate any doctrine or theory promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America in New Hampshire public schools which does not include the worldwide context of now outdated and discouraged practices. Such prohibition includes but is not limited to teaching that the United States was founded on racism,” the now-defeated bill stated.
When asked by WMUR, Layon refused to say that the Three-Fifths Compromise was racist. The Three-Fifths Compromise from the 1787 Constitutional Convention states that every enslaved American would count as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation purposes.2
House Democrat Rep. Jonah Wheeler stated during a speech before the vote took place, “This is a question of whether or not you believe children should be able to get an irreversible surgery,” Wheeler said. “So yeah, despite being a liberal who believes in human rights, I do not think that children should be able to get irreversible surgery. So I’ll take all the heat that comes from this.”
Yet again, we are faced with this paradoxical thinking devoid of common sense. Simply following the thread of actions leading to surgery on a minor is a path wrought with a series of doctor and mental health professional consultations and diagnoses. Getting approved for elective surgery is not done on the whim of a child. It is done through the approval and recommendation of their trusted healthcare professionals and permission from their parents. It’s not a clinic with a same-day procedure—these go far past impulsive decisions when you consider the pure amount of thorough evaluation and non-surgical therapy required before approval.
Despite this, continued claims attempting to validate this and similar measures are proliferating around the country. A continued and concentrated effort to ensure gender-affirming healthcare is not made available to the 1.3 Million people aged 13 or older who identify as Transgender, with ~300K between the ages of 13 and 17, 700 of which are within the state of New Hampshire.
Using the fear of “irreversible surgery,” NH State lawmakers hope to prevent a surgery performed on only 0.08% of the total ~300,000 estimated transgender minors nationwide. If you do the math down to the state level, .08% of the ~700 estimated transgender minors in NH comes to 0.56, rounding up to 1 child. Lawmakers in NH are targeting 1 child per year and telling them they know better than doctors, mental health professionals, and their own parents.
What’s not being considered though is the estimated ~244,000 cosmetic surgeries performed in 2022 according to the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ASPS). These surgeries range from breast augmentation, breast reductions, breast reduction in males, breast uplifts, face lifts, butt lifts, chin augmentation, nose reshaping (rhinoplasty), and Botox. These surgeries are often just as irreversible and potentially life-threatening, but because they do not serve to further a transphobic agenda, they are not even considered in the discussion about “protecting minors from irreversible surgery.”
But That’s Not All!
Unfortunately, this isn’t where the story ends; NH House representatives voted on 2 other bills relating to Transgender rights that day, HB 264 and HB 396.
HB 264 was a bill that would have allowed people to request a new birth certificate to reflect their gender identity; currently, this process requires a court order. House Republicans voted against this bill, optioning to maintain the requirement for a court order to change your Birth Certificate.
HB 396 is a bill carving out an exception to allow discrimination based on biological sex in cases of athletic sports, prison or mental institutions, and public restrooms.
The general court also finds that, notwithstanding New Hampshire’s
fundamental commitment to treat all persons without discrimination and with equal dignity and respect, which commitment the legislature fully accepts and strongly endorses, there are certain limited circumstances in which classification of persons based on biological sex is proper because such classification serves the compelling state interests of protecting the privacy rights and physical safety of such persons and others. The legislature finds that permitting classification of persons based upon biological sex serves this compelling state interest in the 3 circumstances described in RSA 354-A:25-a. 2 New Section; Law Against Discrimination; Classification of Persons Based Upon Biological Sex. Amend RSA 354-A by adding after section 25 the following new section: 354-A:25-a Classification of Persons Based Upon Biological Sex.
Notwithstanding RSA 354-A:2, XIV-e or any other provision of this chapter or any other law or regulation, it shall not constitute unlawful discrimination based on sexual or gender identity for any person or organization, public or private, to classify based on biological sex with respect to the following matters:
Once again, proving that the most pressing matter facing NH lawmakers is whether or not transgender people are allowed to participate in society—certainly not the mountain of very real issues facing the State at large. Instead, lawmakers have issued a slew of bogus culture war-based bills for the 2024 House to vote on:
HB 1011 - A bill to establish the crime of "male genital mutilation," except for male circumcision. Making it a felony to perform gender-affirming surgery on a minor, expanding the “abused child” indication to include this proposed “crime.” Again a situation that is happening to less than 1 person per year in the state of NH, truly pressing matters here.
HB 1664 - Bill designed to make it easier to sue medical providers for administering gender-affirming care if care was provided to a person under the age of 21. A person would have until age 41 to sue.
SB 562 - A State Senate bill to allow separations in sports, bathrooms, treatment centers, etc., based on biological sex. Similar to the bill passed in the house, HB 369.
HB 1546 - Prohibits any state, county, or local government entity from contracting with or purchasing goods or services from companies that discriminate in hiring, promotion, or job assignment on the basis of sex, race, sexuality, national origin, ethnicity, or ideology. This bill defines discrimination to include "permitting diversity, equity, and inclusion statements." You heard me; they want to ban businesses that promote anti-discrimination because they view anti-discrimination as discrimination against whites.
As you can see, the state lawmakers are very unserious people and intend to continue to strip away rights and decency from citizens who do not fall into their worldview. The Live Free or Die state, who has yet to ever enact laws requiring seatbelts or helmets, has suddenly become very concerned with the medical goings on of its citizens. Instead, opting to restrict your freedom to healthcare, abortions, gender-affirming care, recreational marijuana, and voting access. Eroding your rights under the guise of my betterment is the antithesis of Living Free. They should consider removing Live Free from the slogan.
Reply