#

Officials at Hillsborough County’s Valley Street Jail say former Democratic state representative and current inmate Stacie Marie Laughton is male.

What they won’t say is whether Laughton — who identifies as a female — is being housed in the male population or whether they are keeping the convicted stalker charged with the sexual exploitation of children in the women’s population.

Laughton, 39, is being held without bail after being arrested last month on charges of distributing child sex images in a case involving Lindsay Groves, a daycare employee and Laughton’s lover. 

According to court records, Groves took explicit photos of children in the daycare and texted them to Laughton. The couple then engaged in graphic conversations about child rape. In one text, Laughton seemingly admitted to raping a child. Groves is accused of inappropriately touching children in a civil lawsuit.

In multiple conversations with NHJournal, Valley Street Jail Superintendent Joseph Costanzo refused to disclose if Laughton is being housed with men or women.

“It’s a security practice,” Costanzo said. “We don’t disclose where any inmate is housed.”

From the Hillsborough County Valley Street jail records regarding the incarceration of former Dem Rep. Stacie-Marie Laughton in July, 2023.

In fact, the location of male and female inmates who don’t claim transgender status is a matter of public information. Costanzo appeared to be making a policy exception for the former representative.

Costanzo was hired by the three members of the Hillsborough County Commission. The fact county officials are trying to keep Laughton’s status secret is a sign the alleged sexual criminal is being kept in the women’s population. If that is the Hillsborough County policy, it is a matter of concern to state Rep. Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien (R-Derry).

“If you are a man who is predatory, what would keep you from saying you’re trans in order to be more predatory in a prison situation,” Prudhomme O’Brien said. “You have to be naive to think that doesn’t happen.”

According to published reports, abuse against female inmates by transgender inmates is happening in prison systems across the country. After Gov. Gavin Newsome (D-Calif.) liberalized the rules to allow more trans-identifying inmates to transfer to women’s prisons in California, female inmates said they had been raped and assaulted. In a class action lawsuit brought by several female inmates, the women said predatory men are taking advantage of the system in order to commit rape.

In one particularly disturbing case, a twice-convicted baby killer is now incarcerated in the same facility as the mother of his children, whom he killed.

Transgender inmates have also been accused of raping female inmates in New York and Illinois, and one transgender inmate in New Jersey recently got two female inmates pregnant.

According to the booking information for Laughton’s latest stay at the county jail, Laughton is listed as a biological male. 

Costanzo said information about Laughton’s incarceration is too sensitive to make public. However, he has yet to cite any specific county, state, or federal policy that requires information about Laughton’s housing to be kept from the public. Disclosing whether or not Laughton is being housed with men or women would not reveal specific cell assignments or work details.

As for housing transgender inmates at Valley Street Jail in general, Costanzo said the Hillsborough Department of Corrections adheres to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA.

“We follow the PREA guidelines and house all inmates accordingly. We make sure to comply with any standards within that guideline.”

PREA was enacted in 2003, but the United States Department of Justice issued the first set of PREA guidelines for jails and prisons in 2012. Under PREA, corrections facilities will place transgender inmates into housing corresponding to their gender identity after a round of screening.

Last year, the Biden administration enacted rules to make it easier for transgender inmates to transfer to the gender population corresponding to their stated identity. 

Prudhomme O’Brien understands New Hampshire prison and jail officials are in a tough spot when it comes to trying to keep all prisoners safe while following federal guidelines, like PREA.

“I know it’s really hard to eliminate prison rape because prison is full of rapists,” Prudhomme O’Brien said.

Stacie Laughton is a convicted sexual predator who stalked a woman and is now accused of heinous crimes against children. Is the former Democratic state representative now incarcerated with women? One GOP House member who served with Laughton is trying to find out.

The placement of transgender inmates, like former Democratic Rep. Stacie Laughton, in New Hampshire jails is up to individual jail administrators as well as the specific medical status of the inmate.

Laughton is currently being held without bail in Valley Street Jail in Manchester for alleged trafficking in child sex abuse images supplied by Laughton’s lover, Lindsay Groves. According to reports, Groves and Laughton are currently jailed at Valley Street pending their trials. 

Valley Street’s superintendent, Joseph Costanzo, did not respond to a request for comment on Laughton’s placement. 

However, Rep. Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien (R-Derry) told NHJournal she had concerns about the safety of women who might be incarcerated with an alleged sexual predator like Laughton, saying she had reached out to the superintendent.

“The superintendent reiterated to me that he can’t tell me where they both are housed and that it’s a security concern,” O’Brien said. “He only shared that they are following federal guidelines of The Prison Rape Elimination Act regarding intersex, binary and trans inmates.

“I am not happy with this lack of information as I do think this is a safety concern for female inmates,” O’Brien added. “Or maybe I should say ‘guests’ as a corrections officer in the state prison told me that’s the new term.”

New Hampshire’s Department of Corrections does not automatically house transgender women in the female population or transgender men in the male population. Hillsborough County Jail is unaccredited and does not follow published guidelines for housing transgender inmates.

In New Hampshire, decisions on transgender inmate housing are generally made on a case-by-case basis. The placement of those individuals tends to correspond with biological sex unless the individual is far along in treatment for a medical sex change, though there are exemptions to allow transgender-identifying individuals to be housed with the gender of their preference despite a lack of medical transition progression.

A legislative effort to tighten up the exemptions for incarcerated people,  HB 1180, “Relative to State Recognition of Biological Sex,” failed last year. The bill would have allowed the Department of Corrections to keep transgender individuals housed with members of their biological sex. Laughton missed the House vote to table the bill in March of last year.

Laughton, born Barry Laughton, has been identifying as Stacie Laughton since at least 2012 when Laughton became the state’s first elected transgender lawmaker. It was not clear how far Laughton’s medical transition had progressed. Laughton appears to be balding with many masculine features, though the convicted felon wears makeup and clothing traditionally identified with women. 

Laughton was married for many years to Lisa Laughton, the alleged co-conspirator in the 2008 fraud case that resulted in the felony conviction that temporarily derailed Laughton’s political career. Laughton has also conducted a long-term sexual relationship with Groves. Both Groves and Lisa Laughton are biological women. 

Laughton and Groves were both arrested last month in the child sex abuse image case. Groves allegedly used her position at Massachusetts daycare facility, Creative Minds in Tyngsborough, to take explicit photos of young children. Groves would then text the images to Laughton.

Laughton and Groves shared approximately 10,000 text messages, at times engaging in graphic discussions about raping children. At one point, Laughton seemingly admitted to past child rape in one conversation, according to court records.

A civil lawsuit filed in Massachusetts alleges Groves herself molested children at the daycare, as well as taking the photos.

Groves and Laughton are facing federal charges connected to the case. Laughton is facing state charges as well. 

Former Nashua Democratic State Rep. Stacie Laughton talked about raping children and appears to admit having committed the crime in the past, according to the federal complaint filed this week.

“I was asking because I know we’ve had some back-and-forth, and I know we initially said we do nothing with kids ever again, and you said you were afraid that if we had kids if they would go back and tell the parents the same with the kids you work with,” Laughton texted to lover and co-defendant, Lindsay Groves.

Investigators combed through 10,000 text messages between the pair this year as part of the child sex abuse image case that’s put them both behind bars for now. 

Prosecutors with the United States Attorney’s Office in Boston announced Laughton, 39, is now indicted on a federal charge for the sexual exploitation of children and faces up to 30 years in prison on that one count.

Grove, 36, was working at a Tyngsborough daycare where she allegedly took explicit photos of the children in her care and texted them to Laughton. The two discussed the photos and discussed sexually assaulting children, according to prosecutors.

“(A) preliminary forensic review of Groves’ cellphone allegedly revealed over 10,000 text messages between Laughton and Groves that included discussion about, and transfer of, explicit photographs that Groves had taken of children while employed at Creative Minds daycare – including at least four sexually explicit images of children who appear to be approximately three to five years old, as well as explicit descriptions of sex with each other and others, including children,” prosecutors said in a statement.

According to the complaint, Laughton and Grove discussed raping the children at the daycare facility. In one chilling exchange, they discussed how to get away with the horrific crime. Laughton maintained there was nothing wrong with sexually abusing children:

GROVES: You mentioned how I said I was afraid that the kids will run to the parents if we do it with them I wasn’t being serious

LAUGHTON: OK because like I get concerned about that cause I don’t wanna get caught if we do

GROVES: I was joking anyway and you took me serious

LAUGHTON: Oh I know but I just don’t wanna get in trouble. I mean I want to do what we want to do because we like it and we approve of it but others think this is wrong. Lots of parents don’t like people touching their kids and it is against the law …”

Laughton is currently being held without bail on state charges connected to the case. The former state representative will be arranged in the federal court in Boston at a later date. Groves is being held without bail on federal charges brought last month.

Laughton became New Hampshire’s first transgender elected official in 2012, but the most significant history the Nashua Democrat has made is as a criminal. 

Laughton was forced to resign from the House in 2012 after it was learned the newly-elected representative was still on probation on a felony theft charge. Laughton has also been charged with stalking and making bomb threats.

 After regaining the seat in 2020 and winning reelection in 2022, Laughton spent weeks in jail after being charged with stalking and harassing Groves, according to court records. 

Laughton and Groves have a disturbing history of their own. Laughton reportedly harassed Groves and her family off and on for years. After being arrested last year for harassing Groves, Laughton was accused of using a local radio show and social media accounts to stalk Groves and repeatedly called 911 to report Groves was suicidal, according to court records. At one point during this campaign of harassment, Laughton referred to Groves as “wife,” though there is no record that they were legally married.

As part of the harassment case, Laughton is alleged to have repeatedly tried to get Groves fired from her job at the daycare and called Groves a pedophile on social media and on her radio program, according to court records.

Federal prosecutors say members of the public with questions, concerns, or information regarding this case should call 617 748 3274. Case information, including links to charging documents and victim resources, can also be found here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/victim-and-witness-assistance-program/united-states-v-lindsay-groves 

Last June, New Hampshire Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley gave a shoutout to state Rep. Stacie-Marie Laughton as one of the “LGBTQIA+ Democrats who are the backbone of the Granite State.”

Today, former Rep. Laughton is under arrest on charges of trafficking child sex abuse images taken by a former lover at a Massachusetts daycare.

When Buckley gave his endorsement last year, Laughton had already been in and out of jail on multiple charges, including credit card fraud and calling in a false bomb threat. But the shocking new charges — Laughton’s partner allegedly took photos of young children at Creative Minds daycare in Tyngsboro — are more serious than the crime of stalking for which Laughton was most recently jailed.

Lindsay Groves, 38, of Hudson, N.H., allegedly used her position at the daycare to take explicit photos of children, sending them to Laughton, who in turn distributed those images to others, according to court documents.

The arrest warrant affidavits in both their cases were still under seal Friday afternoon in the Hillsborough Superior Court—South in Nashua, but the available records show a link between the two cases.

“Groves allegedly used natural bathroom breaks for the children (routine diaper/pull-up changes before ‘naptime’) to take multiple photos of the prepubescent children in a private bathroom and then sent the photos to the individual via text message,” federal prosecutors wrote in a statement on Groves’ arrest.

That same day, Laughton was arrested in Nashua after police were tipped off about the Democrat’s alleged distribution of child sex abuse images. The court descriptions of the child sex abuse images that Groves took with her cell phone and the images that Laughton distributed to others are identical.

Laughton, New Hampshire’s first transgender elected official, spent weeks in jail last year after being charged with stalking and harassing Grove, according to court records. 

Laughton and Groves have a disturbing relationship, and Laughton reportedly harassed Groves and her family off and on for years. When Laughton was arrested last year for harassing Groves, the state representative was accused of using a radio show and social media accounts to stalk Groves and repeatedly called 911 to report Groves was suicidal, according to court records. At one point during the campaign of harassment, Laughton used the word “wife” to describe Groves.

A strange twist in the harassment case alleged Laughton repeatedly tried to get Groves fired from her job at Creative Minds and spread rumors on social media and on the radio that Groves is a pedophile, according to court records.

Laughton’s criminal history is extensive, including being convicted in 2008 for credit card fraud for stealing from a person in Laconia and charged in 2015 for calling in a bomb threat at the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center hospital in Nashua. Those charges were later dropped as Laughton claimed to be suffering from a mental health crisis at the time.

Laughton first became a state representative from the Democratic stronghold of Nashua in 2012 but was forced to resign soon after when the 2008 credit card fraud arrest became public. Despite pressure from the Democratic Party, Laughton tried to run to fill the vacancy created by the Democrat’s own resignation. But that bid was cut short when it was deemed Laughton was legally ineligible for office since the candidate was still technically serving a suspended sentence for the felony credit card fraud case.

Laughton ran for the seat again in 2020 without any public pushback from the New Hampshire Democratic Party. But re-election in 2022 turned problematic when the stalking arrest left Laughton behind bars on Organization Day, unable to cast a vote for the Democratic Caucus. At that point, Buckley and other Democrats called for Laughton to resign. 

Laughton left the House and entered a plea agreement on the stalking charges. Asked by NHJournal if this was the end of politics for the Nashua Democrat, Laughton said another run for office after completing court-ordered therapy is possible.

New Hampshire beer drinkers are opting for a light beer that tastes great, is less filling, and isn’t combatant in the current culture wars.

That means less Bud Light.

Consistently the best-selling beer in America in recent years,  Bud Light’s sales have tanked since the company featured a promotion with transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney. Sales of Bud Light have dropped a staggering 21 percent nationally since the backlash to the Mulvaney promo started.

Anheuser-Busch, a $132 billion company, saw its market value plummet by some $5 billion after the April 1 campaign kickoff.

On Sunday, former President Donald Trump kicked the beer company while it’s down, posting a message on his Truth Social site about the brouhaha.

“It’s time to beat the Radical Left at their own game,” Trump wrote. “Money does talk — Anheuser-Busch now understands that.”

The controversy is hitting beer sales in New Hampshire, too. Keith Murphy, owner of Murphy’s Taproom restaurants in Bedford and Manchester, said Bud Light sales are down 20 percent in his establishments. The Mulvaney stunt is the main reason his customers are choosing a different brew these days.

“It was an unforced error,” Murphy said.

Even his customers who support the transgender movement are skipping the beer now associated with culture war politics and looking for something to simply drink with their meals.

“Some people vehemently disagree with Bud Light endorsing transgenderism; some people don’t care. Most people just wonder why Bud jumped into such a controversial issue when there was no reason to do it,” Murphy said.

Murphy is the Republican state Senator representing District 16.

Taproom patrons aren’t the only ones putting down the Bud Light. A social media video went viral purporting to show baseball fans at Fenway Park last week ignoring the Bud Light concession stands and instead waiting in long lines at nearby vendors. 

Not every local restaurant is seeing the same results, however.

“I drove to all our stores from Concord down to Salem, and I asked all the bartenders if Bud Light sales were down,” said Tom Boucher, CEO of Great NH Restaurants, Inc., which owns popular brands like T-Bones and the Copper Door. “They said, ‘Meh, not really.’ When I told them Bud Light was down more than 20 percent, they couldn’t believe it.”

The beer crisis started when Bud Light sent personalized cans of beer to Mulvaney to celebrate what the influencer called “365 Days of Girlhood.” The cans featured Mulvaney’s likeness, and the social media personality showed them off in an Instagram post.

As the promotion drew attention from national media outlets, particularly on the right, Bud Light’s customers responded by abandoning the brand. The company has lost $5 billion in market value. 

Within weeks, the Anheuser-Busch executives behind the promotion were forced to take a leave of absence. Emma Ferrara, a marketing strategist, told Fox News Anheuser-Busch hurt itself by engaging in the culture war and alienating its core customers.

“In my career, and from what I’ve seen, this has been by far one of the most polarizing instances within the social media sphere,” Ferrara said.

Ferrara said if the company was determined to make inroads with the LGBTQ community, it should have found someone more genuine than Mulvaney. Or, the company should have first tried to understand its existing customer base first.

“When you’re looking to connect with a new community, which I think is incredibly important, I think there is a right and wrong way to approach that. And it starts with understanding who your core audience is,” she told Fox. “It starts with also understanding who is your brand and what your values are and what’s your purpose.”

Boucher put the story much more simply.

“The marketing director learned a very valuable lesson. Know your customer.”

Call it the “Don’t Let the Door Hit You” Defense.

During oral arguments in a lawsuit over its policy of keeping parents in the dark about their children’s behavior, the Manchester School District’s attorney told the state Supreme Court that parents shouldn’t be able to challenge the district’s policy. Instead, they should pull their kids out of public school and go somewhere else.

“If the parents want to make a different choice, they can homeschool, or they can send their child to a private school; those are options available to them,” said attorney Meghan Glynn.

The district is being sued over its policy of keeping students’ behavior related to sex and gender secret from their parents.

Richard Lehmann, the attorney for the Manchester mother going by Jane Doe, who filed the lawsuit, said parents have the right to know if their children are being socially transitioned in schools with the aid of school staff.

Manchester School District lawyer Meghan Glynn told Supreme Court justices that parents who don’t like the district’s policies can send their kids to private school.

“The real issue is not a school reporting on what a student is doing in school, but for the school to report what the school itself is doing in school,” Lehmann said.

Lehmann rejected the argument that Doe’s lawsuit was an attempt to force the district to out LGBT students to their parents. He argued that it is about a government entity usurping parental powers and making decisions in place of a parent.

“This is the government substituting its own judgment over a parent’s judgment when it comes to gender identity,” Lehmann said. 

Jane Doe stated in her original complaint that she found out in the fall of 2021 that her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The school’s name was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity.

The mother spoke with school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. According to the lawsuit, the mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother received an email from the school principal stating that the mother’s instructions were being overridden due to the district’s policy. According to the lawsuit, the principal stated that the district’s policy requires school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated to not tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

Last September, Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer ruled in favor of the school district, declaring parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

Because Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi has recused herself from the case without giving a reason, the court may issue a 2-2 tie decision. If they do, Messer’s original ruling will stand.

On Friday, Glynn maintained the Manchester school staff, and officials did not lie to Doe about her child’s gender identity. They simply followed policy.

“If the issue, in this case, is truly that the district has a constitutional duty to report what the school is doing, the school has met that burden,” Glynn said.

Glynn said that parents have the right to have their voice heard when the district crafts policies, and they have the right to vote out school board representatives who pursue policies they do not support. A comment from Justice James Bassett seemingly rebuked this line of reasoning.

“Constitutional rights are not up for a vote,” Bassett said.  

In fact, parents’ rights are coming up for a vote in the New Hampshire House. Last week, the House Education Committee cast a 10-10 party-line vote on SB272, the Parents Bill of Rights. The full Hous is expected to vote on the legislation, which is supported by Gov. Chris Sununu, later this month.

Glynn cautioned the justices that if they decide in favor of Doe and parents’ rights in this case, more lawsuits will likely come.

“The next case up is going to be the case of a student,” she said.

Hanover school board chairman Ben Keeney confirms that his district is using the curriculum that involves teachers encouraging five-year-olds to draw their own naked bodies. But, he assured NHJournal, no parents are complaining.

“I’ve not heard from any parents about the situation directly,” Keeney said.

Care for Kids is taught at the Bernice Ray Elementary School through a partnership with WISE and has been part of Hanover’s curriculum for over a dozen years, Keeney said. Keeney said the goal of the program is to prevent abuse.

“It’s a sexual violence prevention tool,” he said.

WISE, a Lebanon-based non-profit to support victims of domestic and sexual abuse, has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

The Care for Kids program presented as an anti-abuse teaching tool, sparked an uproar when an Upper Valley parent, Chris Rivet, read from the graphic teaching aid during testimony at the State House. Rivet said he and his wife were never told about the content before it was offered. State law dictates parents be given notice before any sex education being offered in schools.

Care for Kids has teachers instruct children to draw themselves naked and encourages teachers to push children who are uncomfortable to draw penises, nipples, and other body parts.

Rivet, a parent and a teacher, said the program is totally inappropriate for the age group. He read from the curriculum on the floor of the New Hampshire House during a hearing on the GOP-backed Parents Bill of Rights.

The bill’s prime sponsor in the Senate, Republican Sharon Carson, said the bill is in response to parents who learned for the first time what their children were being taught in schools while overseeing classwork during the COVID school closures. Those parents were shocked, Carson said.

Another reason for the bill is found in the lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who was told by school employees they could not tell her the truth about her child’s gender identity.

“Parents shouldn’t have to file lawsuits to find out about their children,” Carson said.

The Care for Kids program, which comes from the organization Prevent Child Abuse VT, is taught throughout Vermont and in some Upper Valley communities in New Hampshire along the Connecticut River under a Healthy Relationships course.

Healthy Relationships is also taught in New Hampshire schools throughout the Monadnock region through the Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention in Keene without mention of the kindergarten naked drawing course. Representatives with MCVP Healthy Relationships program were unavailable for comment.

However, Keeney said the program is getting a review from the school board. That review is part of the regular curriculum review the board conducts and is not in response to any complaints.

“The curriculum as a whole is being looked at by the board as an ongoing, constant improvement project,” Keeney said.

Parents do not have the right to know their middle school children have access to graphic novels that depict children engaged in sex acts and include links to gay dating apps, nor are they allowed to know teachers are urging kindergartners to draw themselves naked.

That was the case New Hampshire Democrats made as they opposed GOP legislation expanding parents’ rights over their kids’ public school experience.

The battle over the Parents’ Bill of Rights took center stage Tuesday with a packed Representatives Hall for the House Education Committee hearing on SB 272. The Senate passed the bill along party lines last month.

A similar House bill sponsored by House Speaker Sherman Packard, HB 10, died in the closely split legislature this year. Packard said the Senate version needs to pass to give parents the final say over their children’s education.

“Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their own children. We support the parents’ right to know what is happening to their child in school. These are our children, not the state’s or the school district’s,” Packard said.

Emotions ran high during several hours of testimony, as Democrats and left-leaning media outlets have characterized the bill as targeting LGBT students.

The bill is designed to address situations like the one in the Manchester school system in which a mother requested information after hearing rumors her child was identifying as a different gender at school. The Manchester district’s policy is to keep that information secret from parents. The mother was forced to sue, and Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer upheld the district’s policy directing teachers and staff not to fully and accurately inform parents about their children’s behavior.

Democrats have responded by arguing parents are simply too dangerous to be given the same information about their children that teachers, students, and school staff have.

“What parents are we helping with a bill like this? Not parents who have good relationships with their kids,” Rep. Alicia Gregg (D-Nashua) said Tuesday.

Progressive Rep. Maria Perez (D-Milford) told the bill’s supporters they should be ashamed of themselves. Perez shared her personal tragedy of having grown up in an abusive home and argued that was proof the bill would hurt children.

“I can tell you parents are not always right,” Perez said.

Perez claimed the bill is part of a national movement to harm LGBTQ children and that parents’ rights supporters are enabling hate and white supremacy.

“This language has given white supremacy groups and the Proud Boys the right to come to our communities to be hateful and tries to scare us,” Perez said.

The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), pushed back on the claim the bill is designed to harm gay youth. The bill is a response to what parents learned during the COVID-19 school closures, she said, when many discovered their children were being exposed to sexually inappropriate material as part of public education.

“Many parents became the teachers for their children, and parents were beginning to see what was happening and started raising questions. Unfortunately, parents were shut out and ignored,” Carson said.

Carson said many parents in the state have since learned their school districts have enacted policies that require teachers and staff to lie about a child’s gender identity, as happened in Manchester.

“Those are the types of policies that parents are upset about and that they want changed,” Carson said. “Parents love their children, they care about their children, and they want the best for their children. Schools can’t provide that.”

Former state Senate president and potential 2024 gubernatorial candidate Chuck Morse (R-Salem) testified on behalf of the bill.

“This may seem simple, but it is often overlooked in our education system. Parents should have access to information about their child’s curriculum, as well as any materials or resources that are being used in the classroom. This knowledge is essential to ensure that parents can make informed decisions about their child’s education and can provide the necessary support at home,” Morse said.

Rep. Peter Petrino (D-Milford) claimed the bill would put LGBTQ children in harm’s way, either from abusive parents or self-harm. He said that parents already have legal rights under New Hampshire law, and SB 272 is unnecessary.

And he added that parents should be satisfied with their current ability to file school board complaints, or lawsuits if necessary. Parents should not feel entitled to be told the truth by their children’s teachers.

“No one has the right to compel someone to do something against their will,” Petrino said.

The bill would also give parents the right to see all of the content being taught to their kids, another policy Democrats oppose. Some parents have expressed horror at learning their school library has books available for children that contain graphic sexual content, such as “Gender Queer” and “This Book is Gay.”

When he testified before the committee, Chris Rivet identified himself as a parent and public school teacher. He said he and his wife have been through the system of filing complaints after learning about the social-emotional curriculum offered for five-year-olds. He read from the curriculum, citing a section where teachers urge students to draw themselves naked, including genitalia.

“‘Now that we have talked about our bodies and our public and private parts, we are going to do an activity. We are going to trace our bodies, and then you can draw your body just as it looks when you come out of the bathtub or shower,’” Rivet read.

“Our school is asking our five-year-old children to draw themselves naked, that’s this curriculum. It then goes on, on the second page, to say, ‘If a child is hesitant about drawing, you can gently suggest adding more parts. Can you add your elbows? How about your fingernails? A penis? Another useful approach is to offer to draw for them. Where would you like me to put the nipples?’”

“Would you consider an adult asking a minor to draw themselves naked abuse?” Rivet asked.

Rivet and his wife complained about the curriculum to both local and state education officials, but nothing was done.

“There was no accountability,” Rivet said.

New Hampshire Democrats say they will keep fighting the Parents Bill of Rights after SB 272 passed the state Senate on a party-line vote. And at least one Senate Democrat says the state should pass a law requiring parents to “support and love their children” instead.

The bill, which passed the Senate Thursday on a 14-10 partisan vote, expands the rights of parents to be informed about the education of their children in areas ranging from the curriculum to their kids’ behavior on the school campus. While the bill would cover a wide range of areas, Democrats focused entirely on its impact on schools that currently refuse to disclose to parents their children’s actions regarding sex and gender.

The law does not mandate that schools proactively inform parents, but it does require them to answer parents’ questions when asked.

“No school should withhold information from parents about a child because the school thinks it knows that child’s interests better than the parents,” said Senate President Jed Bradley (R-Wolfeboro).

Democrats adamantly disagreed, arguing teachers — not parents — should be the “trusted advisors” to children questioning their sexuality or gender.

“It’s just devastating to think that the safety and ability to determine who you are is taken away from our students when our teachers are no longer our trusted advisors,” said Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D-Portsmouth).

“Unnecessarily outing students [to their parents] at the direction of our government through state law opens these children up to a litany of dangers, including hostility, rejection, isolation, and even violence from their parents or other family members,” Kwoka added.

And New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley claimed informing parents will result in “some kids being beaten to death.”

Polls show Granite State voters, including Democrats, overwhelmingly believe parents, not school employees, should have the final say regarding the education of their children.

Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) said the Democrats’ talking points are simply wrong. The bill merely consolidates the rights parents have under the law, requires school district employees to tell parents the truth about their child’s behavior regarding sex and gender when asked, and tightens up requirements for teachers to report suspected abuse or neglect.

“It says that schools and school employees cannot lie to parents,” Lang said.

That was a step too far for Sen. Debra Altschiller (D-Stratham), who said the legislation is 180 degrees off in its approach. In questions for the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), Altschiller said that rather than empowering parents, “Should we not enumerate [in the law] that it is a parent’s responsibility to love them and support them  for who they are?”

Asked to repeat the question, Altschiller said that just as parents are required by law to feed and clothe their kids, “Should we not require parents to support and love and bring up their children to have these close relationships?”

“I think it would be difficult to put that into legislation,” Carson replied.

Sen. Suzanne Prentiss (D-Lebanon) claimed there was no actual need for a bill to give parents the right to be told the truth about their children.

“What is the real need, how did we get here?” she asked.

Carson reminded the Senate the bill was inspired in part by a lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who was told by school employees they could not tell her the truth about her child’s behavior regarding gender.

“Parents shouldn’t have to file lawsuits to find out about their children,” Carson said.

Sen. Dan Innis (R-Bradford) an openly gay man, said the bill does right by parents and children. It will help teachers guide children and families in sometimes emotionally difficult situations.

“This bill is not anti-anything,” Innis said. “This bill is pro-child, pro-parent, pro-family, and, in many ways, pro-teacher,” Innis said.

The House will now take up its own version of the bill next week, and another hotly contested debate is expected.

New Hampshire moms and dads lose the right to parent their children once that child enters a public school, according to the New Hampshire ACLU.

The state’s largest civil liberties organization is standing with the Manchester public schools and against a local mom suing the district over a policy that directs staff to lie to parents about the sexual and gender behavior of their own children while at school.

“Schools and parents are natural partners in advancing the education and well-being of their students. At the same time, schools must control the learning environment for the benefit of all students,” the ACLU’s brief stated.

The mother, known as Jane Doe in her lawsuit, is appealing her case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court after Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer ruled parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

Republicans have responded by filing a Parents Bill of Rights in the legislature, a measure that polls show has overwhelming support among Granite State voters.

Jane Doe’s attorney, Richard Lehmann, said Wednesday the ACLU is backing a policy that flies in the face of the constitutional rights of parents.

“Manchester has taken the position that parental rights should not pass the schoolhouse door,” Lehmann said.

Jane Doe stated in her original complaint that she found out in the fall of 2021 her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The school’s name was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity. 

The mother spoke with the school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. The mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school, according to the lawsuit.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother soon received an email from the school principal stating that, due to district policy, the mother’s instructions were being overridden. The principal stated the policy required school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses, according to the lawsuit. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated not to tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

While the ACLU traditionally supports individual citizens in the face of government action, in this case, it is siding with education officials at the government-run school. Their brief claimed school staff often knows things about children their parents do not, and that staffers should not be required to tell parents anything unless the student agrees.

“To force a disclosure by the school that in all likelihood would otherwise come directly from the student voluntarily once the young person is ready, or when parents raise questions about their own observations with the young person, would be the very insertion into family relationships to which the plaintiff-appellant objects,” the ACLU wrote.

That schools-over-parents stance is also held by the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Chairman Ray Buckley claims if parents are informed about the behavior of their children “some kids will be beaten to death.” (There are no known incidents in New Hampshire of a child being beaten to death by a parent over their sexual or gender behavior.)

Lehmann agrees with the ACLU that schools do need a certain amount of autonomy, but said the ACLU and the Manchester School District are ignoring the fact that parents are the primary educators for their children, a role enshrined in the New Hampshire Constitution.

“(The schools) have to control the learning environment while adhering to all the other constitutional norms that permeate our society, including parental rights,” Lehmann said.

Lehmann said a law affirming the rights of parents could clarify the matter. New Hampshire Republicans tried and failed to pass a parental bill of rights during the last legislative session. The proposal died after Gov. Chris Sununu signaled he would veto the bill over concerns raised by New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella about the privacy and safety of students.

A new Parents Bill of Rights, sponsored by House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) and Senate Majority Leader Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) is currently before the legislature.