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? 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? A Take a look, please. See? Right! rigamarole and talk to me now! You are a male or female so stop with the 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 EvidenceBased 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