From:

Sent:

To:

Julianne Young
2/6/2020 1:27:24 PM
"Kelsey Coalition" <kelseycoalition@gmail.com>, "Natasha Chart" <natasha.chart@gmail.com>, "Richard Mast"
<RMast@lc.org>, "Steve Smith" <steve@stevesmithlaw.com>, "Fred Deutsch" <drfred@deutschclinic.com>, "Mary
McAlister" <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>, "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>, "James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe)" <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com>, "Michelle Cretella"
<drmcretella@gmail.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>


Cc:

Subject:
Re: Idaho Vital Statistics Integrity Act - short window for comments - by Friday, January 24
Attachments: Vital Statistics draft (5).pdf

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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> wrote:
And with one more small change in (4) as recommended by ADF.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 5:53 PM Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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.
who are providing review on this!

Again, feedback is appreciated.

Thank you to those

Representative Young
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:06 AM Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <RMast@lc.org> 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