From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

"James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe)"
2/22/2020 11:57:30 AM
"Mary McAlister" <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>, "Michelle Cretella" <drmcretella@gmail.com>
"Kelsey Coalition" <kelseycoalition@gmail.com>, "Julianne Young" <juliannehyoung@gmail.com>, "Natasha Chart"
<natasha.chart@gmail.com>, "Richard Mast" <rmast@lc.org>, "Steve Smith" <steve@stevesmithlaw.com>, "Fred Deutsch"
<drfred@deutschclinic.com>, "David Pickup" <davidpickuplmft@gmail.com>, "Eunie Smith" <alaeagle@charter.net>, "Gary
McCaleb" <mccgsm@gmail.com>, "Glenn Ridder" <glenn.ridder@outlook.com>, "Horvath Hacsi" <birdcatcher9@yahoo.com>,
"Michael Laidlaw" <mike@drlaidlaw.com>, "Jane Robbins" <rlrobb123@gmail.com>, "Lappert Patrick"
<patrick@lappertplasticsurgery.com>, "MD Paul Hruz PhD" <hruz_p007@att.net>, "Margaret Clarke"
<margaretclarke317@icloud.com>, "Matt Sharp" <msharp@adflegal.org>, "McHugh Paul" <pmchugh1@jhmi.edu>, "Monique Robles
MD" <pamosa27@comcast.net>, "Quentin Van Meter" <kidendo@comcast.net>, "Roger Brooks" <rbrooks@adflegal.org>, "Timothy
Millea MD" <tmillea@qcora.com>, "Vernadette Broyles" <vbroyles@childparentrights.org>, "Walt Heyer"
<waltsbook@yahoo.com>, "William Malone" <malone.will@gmail.com>, "Scott, Greg" <greg.scott@heritage.org>,
sjvick@senate.idaho.gov


Bcc:

Subject: Re: Idaho Vital Statistics Integrity Act - short window for comments - by Friday, January 24

As these bills are advanced, I think it's important to do at least some education on the history of gender identity,
even if just briefly, because I don't believe there are very many lawmakers that are actually knowledgeable on the
topic. No doubt many of them will find it disturbing to learn they're older than the quack theories behind the whole
sham.
James

On Saturday, February 22, 2020, 02:48:38 PM EST, Michelle Cretella wrote:

But it is even worse than any other example in history in the sense that the State is forcing people to participate
in a lie akin to 2+2=5 ... I mean NO ONE should have to appeal to their "Freedom of Religion/Conscience" to stand
up against 2+2=5 / a man is NOT a woman! If this is not the definition of insane I don't know what is!
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:14 PM Mary McAlister wrote:
> Excellent point Dr. C. That is one of the arguments we are making regarding the school affirmation policies, i.e.,
the state is compelling students to utter a false statement, which violates free speech and free exercise rights (or
rights of conscience generally). That's underlying pronoun policies and privacy facilities use policies requiring
children to affirm classmates are girls when they are boys.
>
> Mary E. McAlister, Esq.
> Senior Litigation Counsel

> Child & Parental Rights Campaign
> P.O. Box 637
> Monroe, VA 24574
> 434 610-0873
> mmcalister@childparentrights.org
> childparentrights.org
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 1:36 PM Kelsey Coalition wrote:
>> Just to expand a bit on the parent argument...it not simply the state being complicit in a legal fiction (that a
girl was actually born a boy), but it is the state compelling an unwilling party to party to that legal
fiction...parents whose legal records state they gave birth to a son when they really gave birth to a daughter.
>>
>> Haven't had a chance to watch the hearing, but was this argument part of the testimony?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:22 AM Kelsey Coalition wrote:
>>> Thank you, Julianne. Have you considered the argument from the parent perspective? When birth certificates are
changed, they create a legal fiction involving unwilling parents: That a mother who gave birth to a daughter gave
birth to a son, and vice versa. As recently as last month, a mother wrote to us expressing absolute shock that her
young adult daughter can change her birth certificate without her permission. As she stated, she and her husband do
not want their names connected to a "blatant lie."
>>>
>>> FYI, to encourage people to write to Idaho House members, I tweeted out a link to the bill and the House
Members' emails here:
>>> https://twitter.com/CoalitionKelsey/status/1231246802189475842?s=20
>>>
>>> If any of you are on twitter, please retweet. Thank you! -K
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:42 AM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>> The House State Affairs committee sent our bill to the floor on a party line vote with a do-pass
recommendation.
>>>>
>>>> We had some great testimony (in opposition) from the National Organization of Women representative, Janelle
Winterstein. Janelle opposed the bill, suggesting that it is uncharacteristic of the acceptance and kindness she
has felt from Idahoans, including many of the more conservative members of the state affairs committee. It seems
that this testimony would be a great benefit should a court be seeking evidence that this bill is motivated by
animus.
>>>>
>>>> Our strongest opposition came from the Lambda Legal Attorney who represented the plaintiffs in F.V. v Barron (a
very tall woman if you're skimming the video looking for her testimony). She countered some of my statements which
suggested that this issue has not been robustly examined based on it's impacts on public policy and the state
generally because the state conceded everything and the arguments make (based on the West Law minutes) addressed
only the interests of the agency and not the public at large. She argued that everything I brought up had already
been heard and considered by the court and that they have already decided this issue. By passing this bill, we are
placing the DHW in a position to be found in contempt of court. This argument, coupled with the court costs may
sway moderate republicans in the House and could stop the bill in the Senate if we don't have a strong counterargument on the House floor. It could be up for debate on the floor as soon as next Tuesday and must be transmitted
to the Senate by the end of the week.
>>>>

>>>> The video of the hearing is available
here: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2020/standingcommittees/HSTA/ . It does take awhile to open. It
was about a 2 hour hearing. There was a very short bill right before mine but it only took a couple of minutes.
Most of the file is our bill.
>>>>
>>>> Counter arguments I am considering include:
>>>>
>>>> The proposed statute complies with the requirement of the injunction in that the statute does not automatically
reject applications to amend this category of material facts, but establishes a process by which those applications
may be reviewed and considered. This process protects the interest of the state in ensuring the accuracy of
material statistics.
>>>>
>>>> The legislature rejects the argument that biological sex is gender identity.
Courts are required to observe
the definitions established in the law. The legislative branch, including on the federal level, has consistently
acted on a biological definition of sex. Yet, this court relied upon the conflation of sex and gender identity in
issuing their ruling. The conflation of these terms in the law severely undermines the compelling interest of the
state and jeopardizes the health and safety of all Idahoans.
Sex specific policies have been upheld by the courts
for decades specifically because of the material distinctions between male and female, statistically speaking. If
we accept the premise that these distinctions are irrelevant, that sex is gender identity irrespective of biological
fact, we must also find that all sex-based distinctions are discriminatory.
>>>>
>>>> I would sincerely appreciate legal feedback and suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Julianne Young
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:34 AM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>> The Idaho Vital Statistics Act will be heard tomorrow morning in State Affairs. Our meetings are usually at 9
but I won't be surprised if we start at 8 AM. It will be available live online or recorded if any are interested in
listening. We may get some ideas that will help as we head to the Senate.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:59 PM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>> Does anyone have a contact in the research and statistics world or someone in the insurance industry (medical
or car) that could provide a statement explaining the value of accurate information regarding biological sex as a
qualifying characteristic for sex specific differences in policies, etc? These are research based private
policies. When we fundamentally alter the legal definition of sex we undercut their ability to effectively
implement those research-based policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:05 PM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am adding Senator Steve Vick to this email group. He will be carrying the bill on the Senate side. We
are on the agenda to print the bill in House State Affairs on Thursday and are working toward a full hearing a week
from Wednesday. Welcome Senator Vick! We are glad to have you on board!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Julianne Young
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 9:54 PM Julianne Young wrote:

>>>>>>>> And one last document-- This is an op-ed/ press statement if it passes muster:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8k-zehU6_j9JN-iHbG5-NV1LeQrlddM3Cryl_LXzFw/edit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Feel free to comment on it and mark it up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:31 PM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you all so much for your help and input. Here is an outline of talking points. Please weigh in and
share cautions, resources, or additional ideas. Our full hearing will be a week from Wednesday.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FckQ5aKuniUTqJ8psNrWRRIYTNzn84uqLvQWRyj4FGI/edit
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:12 AM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Friends,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Attached below is the draft which we RS'd on Friday. The Lord is blessing our efforts! We anticipate a
print hearing in House State Affairs this Wednesday and a full hearing towards the beginning of next week. I am
working on talking points and a press release. We need to keep our messaging very controlled. Also, I would
welcome input on plans for public testimony at the hearing. I am working on some drafts which I will post ASAP.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Julianne Young
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:38 PM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Any last comments are invited. We'll RS at the end of the day.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:27 PM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> And one more small change from our attorney general in 39-245A (1) (iv) and (v).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:56 AM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And with one more small change in (4) as recommended by ADF.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 5:53 PM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was able to visit with Matt Sharpe at ADF about my previous questions and have incorporated what I
believe is a much improved strategy in section (5). I am sending this final draft [vital statistics draft(3)
attached below] to you, to ADF , and to our folks here a vital statistics. Hopefully we are near or at our final
draft so that we can work on securing support from the governor's office. Leadership appears to be supportive so I
have good reason to hope we will soon have a hearing. Thank you again for your help!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 12:19 PM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In regard to the last question: a colleague who is an attorney suggested that a better approach may
be to stipulate that the physician make a presumptive determination of male or female and that after undergoing the
appropriate combination of genetic analysis and evaluation of the individual's naturally occurring internal and
external reproductive anatomy a signed affidavit from the parents and the physician may be submitted within 3 years
or the presumptive determination may be challenged in a court as stipulated in (4). This eliminates the potential
for an open-ended indeterminate status.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts on this idea?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:55 AM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies if this is redundant. I have tried to 'reply all' in order to share this with the

larger group but I'm not sure that it worked. If you could ensure that the larger group has access to this request
I would appreciate it. Thanks so much.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our vital statistics folks in the Department of Health and Welfare have raised some questions which
we have attempted to address in the attached draft. Their comments focused primarily on 39-245A (4) and (5).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They wanted to ensure that the language stipulated that the affidavit be one provided by the
department and asked that we make some changes in formatting to make the process more clear to the public. I
believe the changes to (4) are straightforward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They raised some good questions regarding (5) though:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1- Our current language does not require verification from a medical professional that the
appropriate chromosomal analysis and evaluation of anatomy has taken place and that the decision of sex is
appropriate based on that analysis and evaluation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2- Our language is silent about what happens if they don't resolve the indeterminate status within
the three years. Do we need to specify that it can be resoled in court after this? Do we need to specify any
requirements should that be the case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The drafter and I took a stab at it in the attached draft. Again, feedback is appreciated. Thank
you to those who are providing review on this!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Representative Young
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:06 AM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you receive the email I attempted to add as 'reply to all' with the questions raised by our
Department of Health and Welfare vital statistics folks?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:41 AM Richard Mast wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The comment was re SEGM language; I second the motion to stay away from “separate but equal.”
“Differential treatment” is fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard L. Mast, Esq.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Litigation Counsel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty Counsel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 540774
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orlando, FL 32854
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (407) 875-1776 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (407) 875-0770 fax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LC.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Offices in DC, FL, and VA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Licensed in Virginia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Julianne Young Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:05 PMTo: Richard Mast Subject: Re:
Idaho Vital Statistics Integrity Act - short window for comments - by Friday, January 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Richard-- just to be clear is your comment in regard to the question about the language
from SEGM or the 'differential treatment' language? Or both? Gmail makes it hard to know which thing is in
response to what.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 9:52 AM Richard Mast wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard L. Mast, Esq.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Litigation Counsel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty Counsel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 540774
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orlando, FL 32854
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (407) 875-1776 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (407) 875-0770 fax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LC.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Offices in DC, FL, and VA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Licensed in Virginia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Julianne Young
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 10:18 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Richard Mast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Idaho Vital Statistics Integrity Act - short window for comments - by Friday,
January 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will did respond with the following suggestion that we incorporate a summary rather than a quote
as follows:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The society of evidence-based gender medicine has declared that the conflation of sex and
gender in health care is alarming, subjects hundreds of thousands of individuals *to the risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of* unintended medical harm, and will greatly impede medical research.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I'm not sure addresses your fundamental concern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:47 AM Richard Mast wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with removing the SEGM quote from the findings. I do not know if the Society for
Evidenced Based Gender Medicine is on our side, to where the quote can be changed, or not. If they testify, and are
on our side, I would be very wary of them saying anything regarding TG, CG or “non-binary,” and perhaps have a

conversation with them to that effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not want to see anyone on our side intentionally put those terms into the record. Using
them surrenders the language. Language frames the debate. If the other side’s language frames the debate, we lose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard L. Mast, Esq.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Litigation Counsel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty Counsel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 540774
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orlando, FL 32854
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (407) 875-1776 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (407) 875-0770 fax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LC.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Offices in DC, FL, and VA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Licensed in Virginia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Julianne Young
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 9:40 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bernard Hudson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Kelsey Coalition ; Natasha Chart ; Richard Mast ; Steve Smith ; Fred Deutsch ; Mary
McAlister ; David Pickup ; Eunie Smith ; Gary McCaleb ; Glenn Ridder ; Horvath Hacsi ; James Shupe (Formerly Jamie
Shupe) ; Michelle Cretella ; mike@drlaidlaw.com; Jane Robbins ; Lappert Patrick ; MD Paul Hruz PhD ; Margaret Clarke
; Matt Sharp ; McHugh Paul ; Monique Robles MD ; Quentin Van Meter ; Roger Brooks ; Scott, Greg ; Timothy Millea MD
; Vernadette Broyles ; Walt Heyer ; William Malone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Idaho Vital Statistics Integrity Act - short window for comments - by Friday,
January 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the feedback I will not include the quote from SEGM in the bill, amending (v) on page
2, line 46-47 to simply state that the erasure of biological sex negatively impacts the health and safety of all
individuals. Then, any other evidence can be introduced in the hearing, rather than being included in the bill.
Also, I got some feedback from our vital statistics department today which I have incorporated in the process piece
of the bill (sections 4 and 5) and they suggested using 'material fact' rather than vital statistics in most
instances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They have raised 2 other good questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) In section 5, do we not want a medical authority to certify to the final designation of
sex? If so, do we want to limit this to a particular type of medical authority?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The draft you have reviewed is silent on what happens if they do not resolve the
indeterminate status within the stipulated 3 years (section 5). We included this to prevent certificates from being
left in an unresolved status. However, kicking it to the courts after this time could become problematic. What are
the recommendations to resolve this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attaching the current (final) draft :) for your comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your help in ironing out these final wrinkles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Representative Young
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:08 AM Bernard Hudson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee Whiz!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Humans are the only living species of Homo Sapiens. Given that fact, we are male and female,
there is no other. We are mammals, giving birth, carrying a XX or an XY, female or male. Otherwise, a bizarre
abnormality results in a state of disease: Turner’s Syndrome, Klinefelter’s Syndrome, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everybody is transgender, no one is transsexual, cis-gender is true for everyone! Try not to
use the nomenclature of non-science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-binary?!?!?
Disneyland comes to science. You are non-binary, then what? A worm? A
worker bee? A penguin in a European zoo? An ant? “I am Zero!”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Listen: Talk to me! Be real! Stop! No, no, you meant to say that you are claiming
something that does not exist except in your mind? Got it? Your mind? Take a look, please. See? Right! You are
a male or female so stop with the rigamarole and talk to me now!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Throw out words or phrases that have have shifting definitions, political realms, identity's
unscientific, and whims and notions that are NEVER studied in science. Never!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2020, at 9:44 AM, Kelsey Coalition wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks great! My only concern is with the quote from SEGM. Will, would you consider this?
First, the reference"cisgender-identifying individuals." I believe there is way to make this point, without using a
word like "cis" which indirectly endorses the ideology upon which transgender identities are based.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My other suggestion with the quote is to add non-binary. Even though transgender has become
an umbrella term covering both, some nonbinary individuals do not say they are transgender. Many forms offer both
categories for people to check when they identify themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will, could SEGM consider rewording this -- something like "not only transgender individuals,
but ALL persons" as well as add a reference to nonbinary? ~KC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:35 AM Natasha Chart wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is great, I love it. Thank you for doing this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020, 9:43 AM Julianne Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After visiting with Stephen Smith last night I have determined that the best way to
counter the arguments raised in the law-suit is the insert some additional language into our legislative intent,
rather than addressing another section of code. My additions are highlighted below. Your feedback is sincerely
appreciated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The legislature finds a compelling interest in maintaining accurate, quantitative,
biology-based statistics on Idaho certificates of birth which provide vital statistics fundamental to the
performance of government functions that secure the public health and safety, including, but not limited to,
identifying public health trends, assessing risks, conducting criminal investigations, and helping individuals
determine their biological lineage, citizenship, or susceptibility to genetic disorders; and,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The equality clause prohibits purposeful discrimination and not facially neutral laws of
general applicability such as a biology-based definition of sex which has been consistently applied since our
nation's founding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decades of court opinion have upheld the argument that the biological distinctions between
male and female justify separate but equal treatment under the law and a defined category of sex which relies on
biological fact is the only category which can be demonstrated to have obvious, immutable, and distinguishable

characteristics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The definitional erasure of biological sex significantly impacts the rights of others and
would constitute manifest injustice in undermining the implementation of many policies which have been advanced to
secure the privacy and interests of individuals specific to their biological sex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The erasure of biological sex negatively impacts the health and safety of all
individuals. For example, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine has declared that “the conflation of sex
and gender in healthcare is alarming and is poised to subject hundreds of thousands of transgender and cisgenderidentifying individuals to unintended medical harm from receiving incorrect diagnoses and being subjected to
incorrect treatments. It will also greatly impede scientific research, not only in the area of transgender
treatments, which sorely lacks quality long-term outcome evidence, but also in other areas of medical research.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Vital statistics” is defined in Idaho Code Section 39-241(21) as “data,” (being the
plural of “datum”) which is a known fact; and,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Idaho certificates of birth are of an evidentiary character and prima facie evidence of
the facts recited therein (Code Section 39-274); and,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Age and Sex, unlike the names of natural parents whose rights have been terminated, are
legally applicable facts fundamental to the performance of public and private policies and contracts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The failure to maintain accurate, quantitative vital statistics and legal definitions upon
which government and others may with confidence rely constitutes a breach of the public trust; and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government has a compelling interest in maintaining the public trust and confidence and a
duty to fulfill, to the best of its ability, those functions which rely on accurate vital statistics; and,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the legislature directs that an Idaho certificate of birth documents specific
quantitative, material facts at the time of birth: time of birth, date of birth, place of birth and biological sex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:34 AM Richard Mast wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please meet Steve Smith, an Idaho allied attorney, and Idaho Representative Julianne
Young. They have been working on a birth certificate protection bill, to reverse a recent court decision striking
down sex-based birth certificates in Idaho. This will restore the status quo, making Idaho one of four states that
require birth certificates to reflect sex, along with Kansas, Ohio, and Tennessee.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julianne has a short window to receive comments (especially desired from the medical
experts).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sharp provided ADF factual findings for the recitals and some edits. I have accepted
his changes; made a few suggested edits of my own, and thus open it up to you all for any input for Julianne and
Steve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There may be an opportunity for expert testimony, but I leave the details on that to Rep.
Young.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard L. Mast, Esq.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Litigation Counsel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty Counsel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 540774
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orlando, FL 32854
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (407) 875-1776 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (407) 875-0770 fax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LC.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Offices in DC, FL, and VA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Licensed in Virginia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended for the person to whom it is addressed. If
you are not the intended recipient, notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your
computer, because any distribution of this message by you is strictly prohibited. Email cannot be guaranteed secure
or error-free. We do not accept responsibility for errors that result from email transmissions. Opinions expressed
in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the organization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.KelseyCoalition.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ->>>>
>>>
>>> www.KelseyCoalition.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ->>>
>>
>> www.KelseyCoalition.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>