From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Michelle Cretella
2/22/2020 11:48:25 AM
"Mary McAlister" <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>
"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>,
"James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe)" <jamie.shupe@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

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

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 <mmcalister@childparentrights.org> 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 <kelseycoalition@gmail.com> 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 <kelseycoalition@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 counter-argument 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 <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.
to those who are providing review on this!

Again, feedback is appreciated.

Thank you

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