From: Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 11:19 AM

To: Michelle Cretella <drmcretella@gmail.com>

Cc: 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>; Dr. 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

H509 passed the Senate 27-6 with the support of every Republican Senator. The governor is receiving national pressure to veto. Any
support that can be communicated is helpful: governor@gov.idaho.gov

Here is a link to my Facebook page where I posted my comments, as I provided them to CNN, along with a link to their 'news coverage' of
H509. https://www.facebook.com/YoungForIdahoHouse/

Thank you again for your help and support in this effort. Prayers for the governor and his staff now!

Julianne Young

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 7:34 AM Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> wrote:
Yesterday H500, a bill protecting female athletes from being displaced by biological males, was debated in the Senate and
passed 11 to 24. I believe the vote will be similar on H509. It is now about bill number 30 on the Senate third reading
calendar. I continue to pray that we get a vote before we are disbanded due to the coronavirus. If we adjourn, it will die. It
could be late today if bills move quickly or, perhaps, tomorrow.

Julianne Young

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 8:51 AM Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> wrote:
Our committee hearing went well and we came through Senate State Affairs with a party line vote. 509 has
been hanging on the Senate third reading calendar waiting for a floor vote for several days and they are not
moving business through very quickly. There are more than 50 bills ahead of us and they are talking about
adjourning mid-week next week because of the corona virus. We have the support of leadership but the
Democrats will be attempting to use the time pressure against us. Your prayers are appreciated.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 8:13 AM Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> wrote:
It has been confirmed that we will get a hearing toward the beginning of next week.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> wrote:
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/r
esources/id/state-by-state-overviewchanging-gender-markers-on-birthcertificates

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@childparentrig
hts.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@childparentrigh
ts.org
> childparentrights.org
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020,
1:36 PM Kelsey Coalition
<kelseycoalition@gmail.co
m> 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.co
m> 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/Coalition
Kelsey/status/12312468021
89475842?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.co
m> 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.idah
o.gov/sessioninfo/2020/stan
dingcommittees/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.co
m> 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.co
m> 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 researchbased policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 11,
2020 at 6:05 PM Julianne
Young
<juliannehyoung@gmail.co

m> 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.co
m> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And one last
document-- This is an oped/ press statement if it
passes muster:
https://docs.google.com/do
cument/d/1Z8k-zehU6_j9JNiHbG5NV1LeQrlddM3Cryl_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.co
m> 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/do
cument/d/1FckQ5aKuniUTq
J8psNrWRRIYTNzn84uqLvQ
WRyj4FGI/edit
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb
10, 2020 at 8:12 AM
Julianne Young

<juliannehyoung@gmail.co
m> 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.co
m> 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.co
m> 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.co
m> 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.co
m> 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.co
m> 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.co
m> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1Our 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2Our 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.co
m> 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.â€​
“Differential treatmentâ€​
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>