#

A biologically male athlete is expected to win big at the NHIAA indoor track championship this weekend while competing against girls. And there is currently nothing anyone can do about it. 

Not that Granite State Democrats want to. They’re opposing legislation to protect female athletes from male competitors. And one House Democrat dismissed concerns about the track meet as unimportant because it involves an “obscure competition.”

Kearsarge Regional High School sophomore Maelle Jacques, who competes on the Kearsarge girl’s team, has already racked up numerous first place wins competing against female athletes at other Division II schools over the past two seasons.

This season, Jacques dominated in the high jump competition and is the only athlete in the state competing in the girl’s division to break five feet. Competition among high school boys in New Hampshire has seen more than a dozen athletes break the five-foot mark this season.

Kearsarge Superintendent Winfried Feneberg released a statement declaring Jacques has the right to compete in any sport and as a member of any gender.

“Each student-athlete has the right to compete in the activity of their choice,” Feneberg said. “We believe that limiting access to any activity violates our core mission and vision, which are grounded in supporting every student and student-athlete’s right to pursue their goals and interests,”

Outspoken supporter of women’s athletics and 12-time All-American swimmer Riley Gaines responded to the Maelle Jacques story by calling out the athlete’s parents.

“How could the parents of this boy allow their son to cheat deserving women out of opportunities? And why don’t the parents of the girls stand up and say ‘no’ for their daughters?” Gaines posted on social media. “This country is full of failing, gutless mothers and fathers.”

The championship scheduled for Saturday at Plymouth State University is being held under the aegis of the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association. While NHIAA Executive Director Jeffrey Collins did not respond to requests for comment, the organization is fully supportive of allowing athletes to choose their gender for the purposes of competition.

“The NHIAA is committed to providing transgender student-athletes with equal opportunities to participate in NHIAA athletic programs consistent with their gender identity,” the NHII eligibility policy states. “The NHIAA has concluded that it would be fundamentally unjust and contrary to applicable state and federal law to preclude a student from participation on a gender-specific sports team that is consistent with the public gender identity of that student for all other purposes.”

Parents could change this if they started getting involved at the local school board level, said Shannon McGinley, executive director of Cornerstone Action.

“If school boards feared their constituents more than they feared (law firm) Drummond Woodsum and leftist superintendents, in a matter of months, we could have half the school districts in the state organized into an alternative NHIAA,” McGinley said. “The solution is for parents to stop accepting cowardly excuses from school board members who ran as conservative.”

Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) is sponsoring SB 524 to address what he sees as the basic unfairness of male athletes forcing their way into sports for girls and women. Lang’s bill requires high school and college athletes to compete in the division that matches their biological sex at birth. 

“I’m a father of four kids, two of whom are girls, and I would not want my daughters bumped from a sports team because a biological male, who had a physiological advantage, chose to play on that sports team,” Lang said.

Biologically male athletes have inherent and obvious physical advantages against women and girls, he said. Medical science shows men have high bone density, more muscle mass, and even process oxygen differently than women, Lang said.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D-Dover) testified against SB 524 on Tuesday, arguing that “so-called ‘biological females’” did not need protection from males in their sports.

“We’re especially worried about cis women or cis girls, but this also prevents trans men from competing,” Horrigan said.

And Horrigan dismissed the case of Maelle Jacques because it involves an “obscure competition.”

“We don’t even know if she’s actually trans,” Horrigan said of Jacques, “but if she is, that’s certainly a very unfair thing [to keep her from competing]. A lot of these cases, they are pretty obscure competitions that normally sports fans wouldn’t be paying much attention to.”

Lang says his bill is not an attempt to create culture war headlines over people who suffer from gender dysphoria. He simply wants to protect women’s sports and preserve the mission of Title IX.

“This isn’t about gender; this is about biological sex,” Lang said.

New Hampshire Democrats are using abortion cases before the U. S. Supreme Court to renew their push for unrestricted abortion access in the Granite State.

“We are at a crisis moment for abortion rights: The threat to the constitutional right to an abortion has never been greater in our country. Six months from now, abortion could be illegal in half the country,” said Kayla Montgomery, vice president for public affairs at Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund.

The Supreme Court held oral arguments on Wednesday as it considers whether the state of Mississippi can ban abortion at 15 weeks. The court previously heard arguments on the Texas law banning abortion at six weeks, and a decision on that case is pending.

It’s possible the court could overturn either the 1992 Casey decision or the 1973 Roe decision, both of which restricted the right of voters to pass laws regulating abortion. Some court watchers believe they heard Chief Justice John Roberts suggest a way to leave the Mississippi law in place without overturning Roe.

A decision is expected in June.

Gov. Chris Sununu, a self-described pro-choice Republican who supports upholding Roe v. Wade, signed a 24-week abortion ban when he approved the state budget. The ban was forced into the budget bill by House conservatives who threatened to derail the legislation over the ban. He has since said he supports removing the requirement that all women seeking abortions be required to undergo an ultrasound first.

According to Cornerstone, a non-partisan, non-profit Christian advocacy organization, the description of the ultrasound as mandatory is inaccurate.

“Under the act, performing an abortion without an ultrasound will only be punished in one situation: where there is a “substantial risk” that the child is at least 24 weeks old. In any other circumstance, the provider can skip the ultrasound and face no penalties under the act,” the group says in a fact sheet on the new law.

Asked about the Mississippi case this week, Sununu told NHJournal he wasn’t paying attention to it and does not believe Roe will be overturned.

Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said if the Supreme Court ends Roe, abortion in New Hampshire is still legal for the first six months. Chaffee and Montgomery stood with state lawmakers on Wednesday promising legislative action to make sure abortion stays legal no matter what happens in Washington.

“Unfortunately, it is no longer an option for us to count on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect our reproductive rights,” said state Sen. Rebecca Whitley, D-Contoocook. “Now is the time to take proactive action to protect abortion access in New Hampshire.”

Democrats want abortion rights codified in state law, and they are pushing to undo the 24-week ban and return to the policy of unrestricted legal abortion at any point in a pregnancy.

All the members of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation came out in support of upholding Roe on Wednesday, as well as the federal effort to make sure abortion rights are protected from the Supreme Court. Rep. Chris Pappas said the Women’s Health Protection Act, supported by all members of the delegation, will codify Roe as federal law.

“We can no longer count on the Supreme Court to defend Roe and be the backstop as they have been – in this new era it’s up to us to fight back,” Pappas said.

Supporters of overturning Roe v. Wade have long argued that abortion should be regulated by the democratic process as Pappas suggests, not a court’s ruling.

Sen. Maggie Hassan called the Mississippi ban “extreme” and devastating for women.

“This is one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country and it would take us back to almost 50 years ago,” Hassan said.

Shannon McGinley, executive director of Cornerstone Action of New Hampshire, called out Democrats for equating New Hampshire’s 24-week ban with Mississippi’s law or the fetal heartbeat bill in Texas.

“The currently pending Supreme Court cases challenging abortion law in Mississippi and Texas are not going to have any legal effect on our law in New Hampshire,” McGinley said. “Our law prohibits abortion at six months, not 15 weeks (Mississippi) or six weeks (Texas). Those trying to link New Hampshire’s moderate law with these other states are ignoring the facts.”

Both major Supreme Court abortion decisions, Roe and Casey, allow for states to restrict abortion at some point in the pregnancy. Even those restrictions are considered loose compared to most developed countries, which set the limits at 12 to 15 weeks for elective abortions.

McGinley said Democrats are engaging in misinformation to push for complete, unrestricted access to abortion.

“Planned Parenthood’s position and messaging is predictable in its attempt to cynically sway public opinion,” she said. “With every elected branch of government in New Hampshire led by Republicans, not by Planned Parenthood, there is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to protect a law with absolutely no impediment to abortion access in those first six months, but that does balance that access with commonsense protections for the late-term pre-born.”

A bill banning discrimination against gender identity appears to be in trouble in the New Hampshire House. Before the House votes, House Speaker Shawn Jasper is recommending that representatives table the bill.

“The bill is just not ready to move forward,” he told the Concord Monitor. “My concern is with those who are transitioning … going into restrooms, showers, locker rooms, anyplace where it may make someone uncomfortable for a whole myriad of reasons.”

House Bill 478 would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. At least 18 other states, including other New England states like Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, have gender identity anti-discrimination laws on the books, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

New Hampshire already has a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity. A previous version of this bill was defeated in 2009, but former Gov. Maggie Hassan signed an executive order banning gender identity discrimination in state government.

The current bill passed the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee on a 15-2 vote, and includes sponsors from high-ranking Democrats and Republicans, including House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff and Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley.

Over the weekend, lawmakers’ email accounts were flooded with comments about the legislation. More than 800 emails since Friday appeared in representatives’ inboxes through the House-wide listserv, according to reports. The hard part is sifting through it all to determine who is writing and where its coming from.

Some of the emails were templates from people who didn’t give an address or full name, making it difficult to determine if they were state residents or not, and lawmakers said they were receiving more emails in opposition than in support of the bill, resulting in some representatives changing their support.

“The public is not ready,” wrote Rep. Jess Edwards, R-Auburn, in an email to all House members on Sunday. Edwards backed the bill in committee, but changed his mind after the influx in messages.

“The number of people who have written stating that this bill essentially offers their children up to sexual predators is outrunning by 5 to 1 the number of emails stating that it’s time to end the daily beatings of transgendered people,” he added. “The passionate are yelling past each other with worst case scenarios. I don’t think this is an environment in which the legislature should pick a side.”

Advocates of the bill turned out in overwhelming support for the bill when the committee heard public testimony on it in February, making it seem like it had the majority of public backing and would sail through the rest of the Republican-led Legislature. They say the protections are needed for transgender people, who testified they have been fired, harassed, or discriminated against because of their gender identity.

“I have experienced way too many instances of employment discrimination,” said Shana Aisenberg, a transgendered woman from Freedom who is a musician and music teacher, at the hearing. “Musicians with whom I play stopped calling me. Students cancelled lessons. A music camp where I taught for 10 years fired me because I changed my gender.”

However, opponents of the bill said it could lead to men entering women’s bathrooms to take advantage of them. The bill is not specifically about bathrooms, but it’s an example that’s been widely used throughout the country. Conservatives say it’s about protecting the rights of privacy and religious liberty for New Hampshire residents.

On the religious liberty front, Cornerstone Action is claiming that the bill would negatively impact churches and religious organizations. A lawsuit could potentially arise out of churches, faith-based charities, schools, and ministries who are protected by the state religious exemption, but it’s only applied to “persons of the same religioun or denomination.”

Law experts have argued that these faith-based organizations would have to check everyone at the door to determine if they are of the same religion or denomination in order to maintain separate gender bathrooms. Even if someone argues that they belong to the same religion, they could sue for discrimination against their rights, and the legal fees could be crippling for the faith-based groups. They point to an incident that happened in Massachusetts last year as an example.

Cornerstone Chairman Charlie McKinney wrote a letter to constituents asking them to sign on to a petition that would go to Jasper. The petition states the bill puts “the feelings of gender-confused individuals” over citizen privacy and safety.

“For centuries, we have had social mores, now dubbed ‘discriminatory,’ that are in truth loving, since they informally embraced a moral code that pointed to acceptance of how God created us,” he wrote in the letter. “Although most of the national press on this issue has focused on bathrooms, that’s not what is really at stake for us as Christians. At issue here, as with most other social issues, is the freedom to declare the Truth and conform our lives to the will and design of our Father and Creator.”

It’s possible that a majority of Jasper’s emails are coming from people who signed the petition, which includes a pre-written text. But Freedom New Hampshire, a group that supports the bill, also has a similar message on its website for people to sign, click, and send to their representatives.

“This legislation is about leveling the playing field. Everyone deserves to work hard, put a roof over their head and participate in public life without constant fear of discrimination,” the note states. “But because there are no explicit protections for transgender people under state law in housing, employment, or public accommodations, they must live in fear every day of being wrongly fired, evicted, or denied service—just because of who they are.”

Yet, the possible defeat, or delay, of this bill could have been expected, according to a recent survey on the bill. The Citizens Count, NH’s Live Free or Die Alliance — a nonpartisan organization looking to give citizen’s a voice in their local government — conducted a Facebook survey of New Hampshire residents on their support for the bill in January.

Approximately 56 percent of respondents said they opposed the bill and 44 percent said they supported it. Of course, the methodology is not an exact science, but the results and testimony provide insight from people who might not be able to attend a public hearing at the State House in the middle of a work day.

The national debate on transgender rights comes at a difficult time in the community’s fight. It started last year when North Carolina passed a bill requiring people to use public restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificates. Texas is poised to take up a similar bill during the current legislative session.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.