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
/resources/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@childparentr

ights.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@childparentrig
hts.org
> childparentrights.org
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020,
1:36 PM Kelsey Coalition
<kelseycoalition@gmail.c
om> 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.c
om> 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/Coalitio
nKelsey/status/123124680
2189475842?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.c
om> 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.ida
ho.gov/sessioninfo/2020/st
andingcommittees/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 sexbased 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.c
om> 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.c
om> 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.c
om> 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.c
om> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And one last
document-- This is an oped/ press statement if it
passes muster:
https://docs.google.com/d
ocument/d/1Z8kzehU6_j9JN-iHbG5NV1LeQrlddM3Cryl_LXzF
w/edit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Feel free to
comment on it and mark it
up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb
10, 2020 at 4:31 PM
Julianne Young
<juliannehyoung@gmail.c
om> 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/d
ocument/d/1FckQ5aKuniU
TqJ8psNrWRRIYTNzn84u
qLvQWRyj4FGI/edit
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb
10, 2020 at 8:12 AM
Julianne Young
<juliannehyoung@gmail.c
om> 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.c
om> 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.c
om> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> And one
more small change from
our attorney general in 39245A (1) (iv) and (v).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu,
Feb 6, 2020 at 9:56 AM
Julianne Young
<juliannehyoung@gmail.c
om> 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.c
om> 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.c
om> 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.c
om> 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.c
om> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>