House passes ban on puberty blockers, hormone therapies for minors
Rep. Alice Wade, a Dover Democrat and a transgender lawmaker, speaks against House Bill 148, which would roll back some anti-discrimination protections for transgender people, on Thursday, March 20, 2025. On March 27, Wade also spoke out against HB 377. (Photo by Ethan DeWitt/New Hampshire Bulletin)
Transgender children and teenagers would be barred from receiving hormone therapy and puberty blockers under a bill that passed the New Hampshire House Thursday on nearly party lines.
House Bill 377 would prohibit any medical procedures for people under 18 'for the purpose of altering or attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor's perception of his or her gender or sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor's biological sex.' That prohibition includes puberty-blocking and hormone medication.
Democrats decried the bill as discriminatory against transgender children, and said parents should be able to decide whether their children should have the treatments. Opponents noted that the medications would be denied only to minors who are seeking to realize their gender identity but would still be available for certain physical conditions, which they said meant the bill is aimed at transgender people.
The bill 'unfairly targets a very small number of minors from getting the care that their parents and their medical providers believe they need,' said Rep. Jessica LaMontagne, a Dover Democrat. 'Despite what some proponents of this bill are telling you, these drugs are used safely and effectively for other reasons and their effects are reversible.'
A number of Democratic representatives read testimony from children who have received gender-affirming medication and have improved their lives.
But Republicans argued the procedures are dangerous, are difficult to undo, and that too little is known about their side effects.
'These drugs are not perfectly safe,' said Rep. Erica Layon, a Derry Republican. 'Anybody who says that is misleading parents, misleading kids, and misleading all of us.'
Much of the Republican caucus left the House chamber during Democrats' speeches opposing the bill.
The act specifically bans medical procedures 'enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's biological sex and asserted identity.' Medical professionals who violate the proposed law could be charged with a Class B felony, which can carry up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to $4,000.
The bill has exceptions for procedures for minors 'with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development.' And it would allow medical professionals who had already started a minor on such treatment before the bill takes effect to continue the treatment if stopping it 'would cause harm to the minor,' but requires the dosage to be tapered and reduced.
The bill would take effect Jan. 1, 2026.
HB 377 would expand upon a bill that passed in 2024 and that banned gender transition 'bottom' surgeries for people under 18 in New Hampshire. Research indicates that gender-affirming procedures are rare for minors; a 2025 study from Harvard analyzing insurance claims from 2018 to 2022 found that about 0.1 percent of adolescents between age 8 and 17 have received puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy.
LaMontagne argued the bill prevented families from making the decision to support their child, and said the procedures usually follow years of therapy and discussion.
'This body just passed the parental bill of rights that includes the right to make health care decisions,' she said. 'So I call on all of you that voted for the parental bill of rights: Do you believe that parents know best, or do you not?'
Rep. Alice Wade, a Dover Democrat who is transgender, said the therapies helped her transition and saved her life during a period when she was suicidal. Wade transitioned after she turned 18 but argued that other teenagers benefit from the procedures.
'Imagine receiving life-saving care, then having someone with no understanding or experience try to rip that away from you because they think they know better,' Wade said.
She added: 'When people in this body say that we need nuanced discussions and compromise, I agree. The problem is that my position is I'd like to have access to health care, equal treatment, and to mind my own business.'
But Rep. Lisa Mazur, a Goffstown Republican, argued that children and families did not know the risks of what they are choosing to adopt.
'Children cannot fully comprehend the lifelong consequences of altering their bodies with powerful medications,' Mazur said. '… Gender dysphoria is real and it's painful, and those struggling deserve compassion, but rushing minors into irreversible medical interventions is not the answer.'
Layon added: 'Parents can't give informed consent if they aren't told of the risks of drugs and if they are told that the only alternative to treatment is as a dead child, because that is coercion and not consent.'
The bill passed 197-167, with two Democrats, Reps. Dale Girard of Claremont and Jonah Wheeler of Peterborough, joining Republicans in favor, and four Republicans, Reps. Nicholas Bridle of Hampton, David Nagel of Gilmanton, John Styek of Salem, and Susan Vandecasteele of Salem, joining Democrats opposed. It heads next to the Senate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
35 minutes ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
USA Today
35 minutes ago
- USA Today
Michelle Obama won't run for office, but her podcast may guide Democrats
As Democrats search to counter Trump it may not be Barack Obama, the party's most popular figure, that they should turn to, but Michelle. Michelle Obama is back – just not on the political stage. At a time when the Democratic faithful are hungry for dynamic leadership, the former first lady is getting cozy and personal in a podcast called "IMO," a breezy hour-long celebrity chat co-hosted by her brother, basketball executive Craig Robinson. "I feel like at 60, this is the first time where all my decisions are for me," Obama said on her June 19 episode with radio show host Angie Martinez. With her daughters Sasha and Malia launched in their own young adult lives, "this is a period of freedom." Each week, Obama and Robinson are joined by celebrities like comedians Damon and Marlon Wayans, producer Issa Rae or actress Keke Palmer – with just a glint of politics. It's her space to talk with friends. References to her husband, former President Barack Obama, or the eight years they spent raising young children in the White House are matters of fact, but the political wildfire of the second Trump administration is barely noted, except as a launching point to talk about how people are impacted by Trump's new policies. As recently as last July, an Ipsos poll revealed that only Michelle Obama stood a chance of besting Donald Trump in the presidential election. Even before leaving the White House in early 2017, a corner of the Democratic Party clamored for her to run. She has repeatedly slammed the door on that. But as Democrats search for a liberal counter to the right-wing media ecosystem that helped Trump win back the White House by reaching millions who don't pay attention to mainstream media, the online show of a relatable and popular Democrat could be what they are looking for. Regardless of what Democrats want her podcast to be, Michelle Obama has demonstrated she'll do her show her way. For now, she's using a platform that reflects the former first lady's larger, and perhaps more effective, cultural strategy that mirrors how Black women voters - part of the party's loyalist base - are coping after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election, said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. "So this is the best way that she can create space and show the multi-dimensional nature of Black women: our thinking; how we engage friends; how we engage with people across racial lines; how we engage with our siblings; and the fullness of us, while also allowing her to speak to the issues of the moment," Smith said. IMO (short for "in my opinion"), is largely devoid of juicy gossip, let alone talk about any current or former White House occupants. The Father's Day episode, which featured Bruce Springsteen and watched by roughly 216,000 viewers on YouTube, came just days after Trump berated the rock music icon for calling the administration "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous." While Trump's name never came up, they both chuckled when Michelle Obama made a joke about some people being president who need therapy. Instead, they talked about going to therapy, building relationships with absentee parents and being present for their children during formative years "I realized that parenting is pennies in the bank," Springsteen said. "It's that time when you were working and you didn't want to stop, but you did. That made a huge difference to me. I always felt that if I had failed with my kids I would have failed tremendously at life." More: Pop stars, massive crowds and history: How the Obama and Harris campaigns compare Michelle Obama responded with a story from her childhood about what it meant when her father, who worked long hours as a city worker in Chicago, turned his full attention to her and her brother. "When he was present he was present in very small but meaningful ways," she said. 'She hates politics' Michelle Obama, a corporate lawyer specializing in marketing and intellectual property law, was carried into the national spotlight when a skinny senator with a Muslim middle name beat the old guards in both parties with a message of a new America founded upon hope. For most of that time she had to be more mindful of her husband's agenda and image. Since Trump took office, she's been openly critical of him, but on her terms, such as at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Chicago, rather than on her podcast. Speaking up and what she considers the right moment will likely continue, said Democratic strategist Lynda Tran. "I would not be surprised to see her using her voice to rally Democrats in the future assuming the appropriate venues and strategic value. And I would expect an overwhelmingly positive response from Democrats when she does," Tran, who worked in the Obama administration, told USA TODAY. But her participation in politics might be through raising money and giving speeches, rather than a central role in the party's future. Her focus in the last few years has been on outside projects, her family and now the new podcast she co-hosts with her brother. Demands to do more from either Barack or Michelle Obama are often met with scoffs by longtime supporters, such as Natalie Graves, a clinical social worker who was at Chicago's Grant Park when the couple took the victory stage in November 2008. More: Obama warns Trump administration has 'weak commitment' to democracy in Connecticut speech "My first response is an eye roll," Graves, a 55-year-old registered Democrat, said of ongoing efforts to recruit the former first lady to run for president. "If a person says that they don't want to run, what are we talking about? They're ignoring the fact that she has made it very clear that she hates politics." 'Served their time' The former first lady firmly shut the door on running for president in March, saying her daughters, who are both in their 20s, had "served their time" in the limelight and should get to be private young adults. "I wanted them to have the freedom of not having the eyes of the world on them. So when people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no," Obama said on Kyle Kelcie's 'Not Gonna Lie' podcast. "If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice your kids make when your parents are in that role." Democrats are casting about for trusted voices to better connect with different voters and help create a left-wing media ecosystem to match that of the right. Some liberal strategists are asking donors to contribute to finding voices and influencers on the left to counter people like Steve Bannon and Joe Rogan who helped propel Trump to office, the New York Times reported last month. Democrats statistically have more trust in mainstream media than Republicans, said Texas Christian University political science professor Adam Schiffer. The Democratic brain trust is asking 'who is the Democratic Joe Rogan?' he said, but 'it's not necessarily clear that there could be one because Democrats don't necessarily find that gratifying and entertaining.' More: Town halls, f-bombs and Elon Musk: How Democrats are waging a new messaging war Younger people have a radically different media consumption than their parents, Schiffer said, and it "could become a critical problem for Democrats" if they don't figure out how to get in front of them. No matter how popular, a former first lady in her sixties might not be the best emissary to young people, he said. Influencers played a large role in Harris' abridged presidential campaign last summer and fall, but they couldn't compete with a Republican online juggernaut that has been building for over a decade. And not everyone is an "IMO" fan. Some are calling out the former first lady's complaints about living in the White House. For example, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly mocked the podcast in a June 26 video posted to X, later saying Michelle Obama was "trashing her children and husband again." When Michelle Obama does talk about politics in her podcast, it mostly orbits around the future for Americans in her daughters' generation and how political decisions impact ordinary people. She's often echoing the kind of kitchen table politicking that only voters in swing states get to hear about every four years from presidential candidates. "I'm talking to so many young people who are deathly afraid of their futures in this climate," she said in the May 21 episode. "They're not just worried about jobs, they're worried about being able to become the next entrepreneur, they're wondering whether, you know, they'll have healthcare and housing [and] whether they'll be able to pay off their student loans." In that episode, Obama and her brother spoke with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky about the future of businesses under the Trump' administration's new tariffs. They talked about how the taxes on goods brought into the country are being passed on to consumers and hindering the ability of younger Americans trying to make it to reach their goals in the current economy. More: Will TikTok be banned? Donald Trump says he has a 'warm spot' for app as it faces January deadline "I mean, some people can hold on, but other people are not only losing their businesses, but they're losing their homes in the process," she said. "It's kind of scary." Michelle Obama did use the podcast to defend her decision not to attend Trump's January inauguration, which sparked rounds of criticism and speculation about her marriage. She insisted she was simply "making the choice that was right" for her. "Whatever the backlash was, I had to sit in it and own it. But I didn't regret it, you know? It's my life now, and I can say that, now," the mom of two said on a June 26 NPR podcast. Dems in a ditch Michelle Obama's show also arrives at a time when the Democratic brand remains in the ditch with progressive voters. About one-third of Democrats said they are optimistic about their party's future, a May poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Though several Democrats are starting to make moves toward 2028, liberals have struggled with the lack of a main character to match Trump's political moxie the way then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in his first term. Lately, Democratic officeholders have clashed with federal agents at press conferences, immigration hearings and ICE facilities, creating viral moments that have been cheered by mainstream and more left-leaning progressives. More: Vance defends using military to quell protests, refers to Sen. Alex Padilla as 'José' Such actions have never been in either of the Obamas' style, and some Black political activists and artists have been emphasizing the need for "self-care" over political action in the aftermath of the 2024 election. "It's important for her to stay within the public space, so it's good that she wants to be active. She endorses candidates and stuff of that nature. I have no problem with that," said Steven Uzoukwu, a 33, a cybersecurity analyst from Baltimore, Maryland. "I just think we shouldn't rely on the Obamas to save America."
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Suffers Major Legal Blow: 'Grave Constitutional Violations'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. On Friday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order targeting legal firm Susman Godfrey, ruling it was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." This is the fourth defeat in court Trump has suffered since imposing punitive measures on a number of law firms that either were involved in legal cases against him or represented his political rivals. Newsweek contacted the White House and Susman Godfrey for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and telephone respectively. Why It Matters In March, Trump issued a slew of executive orders targeting law firms resulting in a number taking legal action, though others struck deals with the White House which saw them agree to do unpaid work on behalf of causes the president supports. Critics argued Trump's move was unconstitutional and an assault on free expression, whilst the White House said it was needed to combat what it termed "dishonest" activity. What To Know The executive orders Trump imposed on various law firms, including Susman Godfrey, featured a number of punitive measures such as blocking their employees access to government buildings, terminating government contracts and suspending security clearance. Friday saw District Judge Loren AliKhan conclude that in the case of Susman Godfrey, Trump's order was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." She said: "Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." President Donald Trump speaking during a press conference in the James S. Brady Briefing Room at the White House, on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump speaking during a press conference in the James S. Brady Briefing Room at the White House, on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C. MEHMET ESER/Middle East Images/AFP/GETTY Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey was already the subject of a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 15. Susman Godfrey is the fourth law firm targeted by Trump's executive orders that has successfully fought to get them blocked in court, following Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. The rulings were issued by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. What People Are Saying In a statement, Susman Godfrey said: "The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." In his ruling on WilmerHale's case, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said: "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. "The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence." What Happens Next Friday's judgement means the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey will not go into effect. The Trump administration has not said whether it plans to appeal.
