From: Sent: To: Cc: Julianne Young 2/23/2020 6:01:27 AM "Michelle Cretella" <drmcretella@gmail.com> "Gary McCaleb" <mccgsm@gmail.com>, "waltsbook@yahoo.com" <waltsbook@yahoo.com>, "Mary McAlister" <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>, "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>, "David Pickup" <davidpickuplmft@gmail.com>, "Eunie Smith" <alaeagle@charter.net>, "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>, "William Malone" <malone.will@gmail.com>, "Scott, Greg" <Greg.Scott@heritage.org>, "sjvick@senate.idaho.gov" <sjvick@senate.idaho.gov> Subject: Re: Idaho Vital Statistics Integrity Act - short window for As I look a little closer, the testimony from Jamie O'Neill appears to address 3 bills moving through the house right now: the vital statistics act, a 'fairness in sports' act, and a bill that adds language to existing statute prohibiting female genital mutilation to prevent cross sex treatments for minors. This diminishes some of the credibility since the author doesn't appear to understand what is being put forward. However, if can provide some good professional counters (especially to the IOC consensus meeting) this would be good. F.V. v Barron relied, in part, on the claim that modern medical authorities understand sex and gender identity to be the same and that a biology based definition of sex is "archaic". Julianne Young On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 6:45 AM Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> wrote: The following (at the bottom with attachments) has been sent to all House and Senate members this weekend from Jamie O Neill (Not sure if this is the gay Irish author, but maybe). If you have a strong counter, now would be a good time to send it. I am attaching the email addresses (here) so that they can be easily copied and pasted. Thank you in advance for helping us carry this forward. Getting to the Senators now is especially important. I believe, and the opposition apparently suspects as well, that this is where the battle will be. Representative Chris Abernathy <CAbernathy@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Jim Addis <JAddis@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Paul Amador <PAmador@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Neil A. Anderson <NAnderson@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Robert Anderst <RAnderst@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Kevin Andrus <KAndrus@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Randy Armstrong <Armstrong@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Vito Barbieri <VBar@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Scott Bedke <sbedke@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Steve Berch <SBerch@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Megan Blanksma <MBlanksma@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Judy Boyle <jboyle@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Greg Chaney <GChaney@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Sue Chew <schew@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Chad Christensen <CChristensen@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Lance W. Clow <LClow@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Gary Collins <gcollins@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Brent Crane <bcrane@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Muffy Davis <MDavis@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Gayann DeMordaunt <GDeMordaunt@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Sage Dixon <SDixon@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Barbara Ehardt <BEhardt@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Jake Ellis <JEllis@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Rod Furniss <RFurniss@house.idaho.gov>; Representative John L. Gannon <JGannon@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Terry Gestrin <tgestrin@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Marc Gibbs <mgibbs@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Priscilla Giddings <PGiddings@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Bill Goesling <BGoesling@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Brooke Green <BGreen@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Steven C. Harris <SHarris@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Linda Wright Hartgen <LHartgen@house.idaho.gov>; Representative James Holtzclaw <JHoltzclaw@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Wendy Horman <WendyHorman@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Clark Kauffman <CKauffman@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Ryan Kerby <RKerby@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Mike Kingsley <MKingsley@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Megan Kiska <MKiska@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Laurie Lickley <LLickley@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Gary Marshall <GMarshall@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Rob Mason <RMason@house.idaho.gov>; Representative John McCrostie <JMcCrostie@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Ron Mendive <RMendive@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Jason Monks <JMonks@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Dorothy Moon <DMoon@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Mike Moyle <mmoyle@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Lauren Necochea <LNecochea@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Tammy Nichols <TNichols@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Joe A. Palmer <jpalmer@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Britt Raybould <BRaybould@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Jerald Raymond <JRaymond@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Timothy Dewitt Remington <TRemington@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Doug Ricks <DRicks@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Ilana Rubel <IRubel@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Heather Scott <HScott@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Paul Shepherd <pshepherd@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Elaine Smith <esmith@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Thyra Stevenson <TStevenson@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Scott Syme <SSyme@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Sally Toone <SToone@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Caroline Nilsson Troy <cntroy@house.idaho.gov>; Representative John Vander Woude <JVanderWoude@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Jarom Wagoner <JWagoner@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Melissa Wintrow <MWintrow@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Tony Wisniewski <TWisniewski@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Fred Wood <fwood@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Julianne Young <JYoung@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Rick D. Youngblood <RYoungblood@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Christy Zito <CZito@house.idaho.gov>; Representative Bryan Zollinger <BZollinger@house.idaho.gov>; Senator Jeff Agenbroad <JAgenbroad@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Kelly Anthon <KAnthon@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Steve Bair <sbair@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Regina Bayer <RBayer@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Bert Brackett <bbrackett@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Cherie Buckner-Webb <CBucknerWebb@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Grant Burgoyne <gburgoyne@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Van Burtenshaw <VBurtenshaw@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Don Cheatham <DCheatham@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Carl Crabtree <CCrabtree@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Lori Den Hartog <LDenHartog@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Scott Grow <SGrow@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Jim Guthrie <JGuthrie@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Mark Harris <MHarris@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Lee Heider <lheider@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Brent Hill <bhill@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Dan Johnson <djohnson@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Maryanne Jordan <MJordan@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Todd Lakey <TLakey@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Abby Lee <ALee@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Dave Lent <DLent@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Patti Anne Lodge <palodge@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Fred S. Martin <FMartin@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Dean Mortimer <dmortimer@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator David Nelson <DNelson@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Mark Nye <mnye@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Jim Patrick <jpatrick@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Jim Rice <jrice@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Mary Souza <MSouza@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Michelle Stennett <MStennett@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Steven Thayn <sthayn@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Steve Vick <sjvick@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Janie Ward-Engelking <JWardEngelking@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Chuck Winder <cwinder@senate.idaho.gov>; Senator Jim Woodward <JWoodward@senate.idaho.gov> Good Afternoon Representatives and Senators. Please find attached my opposition to House Bill No. 509. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), Standard of Care 7th Edition: https://wpath.org/publications/soc Also attached for your reference is the following documents: IOC Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism November 2015 NCAA Inclusion of Transgender Student-Athletes Kind regards, Jamie O'Neill On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 5:25 AM <drmcretella@gmail.com> wrote: You are absolutely right! That circular lie must be attacked and found to invalidate the original ruling or else we are done. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 22, 2020, at 11:40 PM, Julianne Young <juliannehyoung@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you so much for the feedback. One thing that keeps nagging at my mind along these lines is that the court relied on a gender identity definition of sex in order to find that the state violated the equal protection clause-- "We didn't treat the plaintiffs (biological males) like other women," etc. This ruling was not about whether the plaintiffs could change their sex identifier, it was about whether it was lawful for a state to identify citizens based on biology. In practice, the F.V. v Barron ruling ignored the existing state defined biology based definition and imposed a new definition of sex on the state without ever directly addressing an argument as to why this was justified. It was assumed via their circular arguments. If there are court cases or other info which could help me attack the ruling from this angle it could be helpful. Shouldn't a court be mandated to rule based on existing definitions in the law? As long as people hold the ruling to be legitimate our fight will be much harder. On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 4:50 PM Michelle Cretella <drmcretella@gmail.com> wrote: Almost right, Gary ... in Transtopia you are a man if and only if the State authenticates what you say you are (and take that one step further ... a man is NOT a father because he is a man who sired a child; he is only a father if the State says he is ... although this is also a consequence first of Obergefell). On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 5:20 PM Gary McCaleb <mccgsm@gmail.com> wrote: A point that keeps niggling at me is there is sort of a universal coercion from GEID theory. If I am forced to affirm a person as transgender, perforce I must identify myself not as a male, but as a cisgender man. I'm not male because I was created male in the womb, but because I now think I am a man. And it's not just semantics--adopting gender language means I have to abandon objective science and accept the subjective malleable continuum of unprovable "genders" in place of real science. You can't take one step into the alternate universe of trans without abandoning your own universe. g. On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:52 PM Walt Heyer <waltsbook@yahoo.com> wrote: Your spot on On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:48 PM, 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