Re: Idaho Vital Statistics Integrity Act - short window for comments

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Julianne Young
3/4/2020 7:49:11 AM
"Michelle Cretella" <drmcretella@gmail.com>
"Kelsey Coalition" <kelseycoalition@gmail.com>, "James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe)" <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com>, "Mary
McAlister" <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>, "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

Subject:
Re: Idaho Vital Statistics Integrity Act - short window for comments - by Friday, January 24
Attachments: Attorney General Opinion.pdf

I believe that our ability to address the negative AG opinion which came out Friday (after H509 passed the House)
will be critical. I'm attaching the opinion (with my scribbles). Your criticism and suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 7:44 AM Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> wrote:
I heard from the Speaker last night that we will have a hearing for H509 on the Senate side. I will be more
confident in this when I hear it from the chairman, but I have good reason to hope. It's time to think about what
we will present and who might be able to testify. I will let you know as soon as I have more information.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM <drmcretella@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. This must be personalized!
Stories - not facts - move people to act!
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 22, 2020, at 4:25 PM, Kelsey Coalition <kelseycoalition@gmail.com> wrote:

Although we all know this whole thing is ridiculous and it is Orwellian that we have to have a bill to say
that 1+1=2, I think sometimes people can see this issue more clearly when we can personalize the issue.
Consider if you are a mother of a daughter. One day your daughter could decide without your involvement to
change her birth certificate. This legal document would now say that you gave birth to a son. You have zero
say. This document is a lie about your personal life and your health history and is happening to KC parents
in many states. https://transgenderlawcenter.org/resources/id/state-by-state-overview-changing-gendermarkers-on-birth-certificates

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:57 PM James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe) <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> wrote:
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 <drmcretella@gmail.com> 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 <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. 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 <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:05
PMTo: Richard Mast <RMast@LC.org>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 <RMast@lc.org> 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 10:18 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Richard Mast <RMast@LC.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <RMast@lc.org> 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 “nonbinary,” 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 <juliannehyoung@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 9:40 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bernard Hudson <loyolamd82@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: 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>; 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>; Scott, Greg <Greg.Scott@heritage.org>; Timothy
Millea MD <TMillea@qcora.com>; Vernadette Broyles <vbroyles@childparentrights.org>; Walt Heyer
<waltsbook@yahoo.com>; William Malone <malone.will@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <loyolamd82@gmail.com> 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 <kelseycoalition@gmail.com> 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 <natasha.chart@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is great, I love it. Thank you for doing this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020, 9:43 AM Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> 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 cisgender-identifying 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 <RMast@lc.org> 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

>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--

www.KelseyCoalition.org