HB 377 and HB 712 This bill blocks essential medical care for a small minority of youth who have gender dysphoria, a unique medical and psychological condition that may seem uncomfortable to persons who have little or no medical knowledge or experience. Gender dysphoria is an intensely sensitive and personal condition in individuals who are often ostracized and ridiculed. This bill inserts the public between the patient and the trained licensed professional. It is a direct violation of the doctor patient relationship. Physicians and parents are the most qualified to address the needs of these often-fragile individuals, who seek acknowledgement and acceptance of their identity. Supportive psychological and medical care is lifesaving for these individuals. It is not the purview of layman to legislate the medical care for gender dysphoria any more than they should legislate medical care for diabetes or heart disease. Singling out gender dysphoria is discriminatory, intimidating and harmful to the youth who want and need acceptance for who they are. I strongly oppose this bill. Cathryn Welch, MD
HB377
House · 2025 sessionRepublicanSigned into lawBanning gender treatments for minors
AIProhibits health care providers from performing procedures or prescribing medication, including puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, intended to alter a minor's gender, creates a private right of action for violations, and establishes children's environmental health day.
(New Title) relative to health care professionals administering hormone treatments and puberty blockers and relative to recognizing the second Thursday in October as children's environmental health day.
Status
Signed into law · August 11, 2025- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✓Senate
- ✓Governor
- ✓Law
Division of testimony
1,765 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 236 of 525 written submissionsHB377 would prohibit health care professionals from administering puberty blockers and hormone treatments to minors for the purpose of altering gender, with an exception for minors with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development, and would classify violations as a felony. Of the 236 submissions shown, the overwhelming majority (206) oppose the bill and 30 support it: opponents center their case on medical authority, family privacy, and the mental-health risks of denying care, while supporters emphasize the immaturity of minors, the irreversibility of treatment, and skepticism toward the medical consensus behind such care.
- Minors lack maturity to consent to irreversible careSupport11 of 236 reviewed
Supporters argue that children and adolescents do not have the cognitive or emotional maturity -- noting that brain development continues into the mid-20s -- to fully understand the consequences of pursuing hormone treatment or puberty blockers.
“Medical interventions such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have significant and often irreversible effects on a child’s development, including impacts on fertility, bone density, and long-term mental health.”
— Sayra DeVito, Danville · #492052 — read full submission →
“Minors are not capable of fully evaluating the full scope of consequences from taking hormonal supplementation and/or puberty blockers. Minors will likely not understand how the use of these drugs can permanently affect their long-term growth and proper maturation.”
— Robert Wherry, Hudson · #494599 — read full submission →
- Bill framed as common-sense protection of childrenSupport10 of 236 reviewed
Many supporters express their position in brief, general terms, describing the bill as a straightforward, common-sense measure to protect children without citing specific evidence or elaborating further.
“BILL HB377 establishes what should have otherwise been the undisputed norm and common sense. It is fundamentally supported by our culture and science. It has to pass and become law. It is sad that there is need to codify common sense, but under the circumstances, it needs to be done.”
— Sonia Campeanu, Derry · #490565 — read full submission →
“Progressive countries already are banning puberty blockers for children. They have life long effects for children.”
— Lydia Clegg, Manchester · #487145 — read full submission →
- Treatments cause irreversible harm and regretSupport7 of 236 reviewed
Supporters argue that puberty blockers and hormones cause permanent physical changes, including sterility and other lasting effects, and point to concerns about later regret or detransition.
“Some have been sterilized by cross-sex hormones, losing the ability to have biological children before they are old enough to truly understand the consequences. Their bodies have been permanently altered, leaving them with lifelong physical health complications.”
— S. Yule, Avon · #487881 — read full submission →
“Puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are known to have permanent effects such as sterility, in females, beard growth, and deepening of the voice”
— Donna Peterson, Loudon · #497863 — read full submission →
- Frames treatment as child abuse or mutilationSupport5 of 236 reviewed
Some supporters describe gender-affirming treatment for minors as a form of child abuse or mutilation, in some cases suggesting providers are motivated by profit rather than patient welfare.
“The child's brain is biologically and socially immature and unlikely to understand the long-term consequences of treatment . . . therefore adults (who know better) preying on these children are guilty of sex abuse and mutilation.”
— Susan LaPointe, Epping · #490662 — read full submission →
“Regret is what I’m seeing from the youngest trans participants. Chloe Cole being a good example. There should NEVER have been a Chloe Cole story. Her history is one of child abuse. Her breasts were cut off!”
— Betsy Harrington, Deering · #493983 — read full submission →
- Comparison to other age-restricted decisionsSupport4 of 236 reviewed
Supporters compare the bill to existing age restrictions on activities like drinking alcohol or getting tattoos and piercings, arguing it is inconsistent to let minors consent to hormonal treatment while barring these other choices.
“One has to be twenty-one to purchase alcohol in this country, yet, under current law, a minor can take hormones and puberty blockers that result in long term medical consequences for that individual.”
— Doug Wilson, Greenland · #493627 — read full submission →
“How on earth is it even a conversation that children, who are not legally allowed to get piercings or tattoos because of permanency and bodily harm, have the option to make such a rash and seriously harmful decision about their body at a time of peak developement and growth?”
— Stefanie Ragonese, Dover · #488211 — read full submission →
- Scientific evidence for this care is contestedSupport2 of 236 reviewed
Supporters cite international systematic reviews they say found insufficient high-quality evidence to support pediatric gender-affirming treatments, and question the objectivity of groups such as WPATH.
“Every country that has conducted a systematic review of pediatric gender medicine has concluded that there is no high quality, unbiased evidence to support these irreversible practices.”
— John Doe, St. Louis · #491160 — read full submission →
“Systematic reviews done in England, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and even here in the US have all reached the same conclusion, that this care carries more risk than reward.”
— Matthew McSorley, Litchfield · #494478 — read full submission →
- Medical decisions belong to patients, families, doctorsOppose120 of 236 reviewed
Opponents argue that decisions about hormone treatments and puberty blockers should be made privately among a minor, their family, and their medical providers, not dictated by state government or politicians.
“Choices of how and when to access what type of care should be in the hands of the child and their parents, and be between them and their doctors without interference from the state.”
— Owen Hale, Hancock · #497834 — read full submission →
“Medical procedures should be a decision made with the guidance, support, and professional knowledge of a medical provider based on the needs and feelings of the patients and those decisions should be kept as part of the provider patient relationship”
— Rebecca Brown, Goffstown · #497201 — read full submission →
- Restricting care raises depression and suicide riskOppose75 of 236 reviewed
Opponents argue that denying or restricting access to puberty blockers and hormone treatment increases rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide among transgender youth, while access to care is linked to improved mental health outcomes.
“According to The Trevor Project, states that passed anti-transgender laws aimed at minors saw suicide attempts by transgender and gender nonconforming youth increase as much as 72% in the following years.”
— Kacie Petrin Ellis, Brookline · #491248 — read full submission →
“A study in JAMA of 104 youth that identify as TNB demonstrated that access to gender affirming care reduced depression and suicidality significantly.(2)”
— Casey O'Brien, Lebanon · #488090 — read full submission →
- Major medical associations endorse this careOppose51 of 236 reviewed
Opponents cite endorsements from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and Endocrine Society, which recognize gender-affirming care as safe, evidence-based, and medically appropriate for minors.
“Leading medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Endocrine Society, recognize that gender-affirming care, including the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy, is essential for the health and well-being”
— Colleen Cowette, Goffstown · #487018 — read full submission →
“Medical professionals and institutions including the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and American Medical Association of Colleges all agree”
— Lissa Winrow, Goffstown · #485918 — read full submission →
- Care already involves extensive evaluationOppose45 of 236 reviewed
Opponents describe multi-step processes -- referrals, waiting periods, and repeated psychological evaluation -- that precede any hormone treatment, arguing the decision is never made casually or without oversight.
“I started hrt, hormone replacement therapy when I was 15. Hrt is not easy to access, no one is getting it on a whim. First the individual must get a referral to a clinic that specializes in trans health care. After they get that referral they are waiting at least 3 months for an appointment.”
— Elias Lucier, Deering · #492399 — read full submission →
“I can tell you as a parent of a transgender child that this is not something that is taken lightly or is an easy decision. There are false accusations being thrown around that kids are transitioning in schools and Dr's are doing this without parental permission and this is simply just not true.”
— kristal Delahanty, Goffstown · #486237 — read full submission →
- Bill reflects bias, not genuine child protectionOppose38 of 236 reviewed
Opponents characterize the bill as motivated by hostility toward transgender people or political gain rather than a sincere interest in child welfare, arguing its stated protective purpose is pretextual.
“This is not about safety. This is not about protecting children. This is about control. Parents, doctors, and young people themselves should be making these deeply personal medical decisions; not politicians. Interfering in that process is government overreach, plain and simple.”
— Christina Barry, Goffstown · #486913 — read full submission →
“I oppose this hateful bill. This is literally NOTHING but a hate-driven bill intended to harm and destroy the trans community by starting with the most vulnerable: the kids.”
— Kate McCarty, Franklin · #494455 — read full submission →
- Treatments are reversible and used safely for decadesOppose32 of 236 reviewed
Opponents note that puberty blockers have been used safely for decades, including in cisgender children for conditions such as precocious puberty, and that their effects are reversible if treatment is stopped.
“I am a cisgender woman who was AS A CHILD on Lupron to prevent precocious puberty. I was part of the study that proved it is safe - in 1999! I was on it from 1993-2000 and have had no side effects.”
— Margaret Pangburn, Hollis · #490568 — read full submission →
“It is hypocritical to advocate for parental rights in some situations (e.g. items borrowed from the library) and against them in others.”
— Diane Hebert, Goffstown · #485370 — read full submission →
- Bill undermines parental rightsOppose30 of 236 reviewed
Opponents argue the bill strips parents of authority to make medical decisions for their children in consultation with doctors, and note this conflicts with lawmakers' support for parental rights in other contexts.
- Personal accounts describe benefits of careOppose30 of 236 reviewed
Parents of transgender children and transgender individuals themselves describe firsthand how access to this care improved wellbeing and mental health, or how being denied it in the past caused lasting harm.
“My child was able to express that he felt "different" as young as 6 years old. By 16, he was steadfast in his belief that he was simply born in a body that didn't match what he felt in his core.”
— Cindy Franciosa, Hampstead · #487642 — read full submission →
“I am a transgender adult on testosterone and I oppose this bill. Had this option been presented to me when I was younger (I am currently 46), I can't begin to express how different my life may have been.”
— Michelle Duguay, New Boston · #486813 — read full submission →
- Bill would also restrict care for other conditionsOppose20 of 236 reviewed
Opponents note these medications are also used to treat non-gender-related conditions such as precocious puberty, seizure disorders, and brain tumors, and argue the bill would collaterally deny needed care to those patients.
“Precocious puberty (puberty that begins before age 9) is one indication for the use of these medications. For children with epilepsy, there are seizure medications that can cause early puberty, and they may be treated with hormone blockers to offset the adverse effect”
— Sarah McCarthy, Manchester · #488478 — read full submission →
“Banning drugs that delay the onset of puberty, for example, deprives parents of some autistic kids of crucial time to work with their children, who will be much less accessible in severe cases after puberty.”
— Dr THERESA SMITH, Temple · #496912 — read full submission →
- Bill treats cisgender and transgender minors unequallyOppose14 of 236 reviewed
Opponents argue the bill is discriminatory because it would continue to allow these same medications for cisgender minors, such as for early puberty, while banning them specifically for transgender minors.
“This bill bans puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy for young trans people. This is a direct attack on transgender youth as these treatments would still be available for non transgender youth.”
— Julius Lorentz, Belmont · #492692 — read full submission →
“They are regularly prescribed to cisgender children experiencing very early puberty without incident. This bill explicitly targets the access of transgender children to medical care and therefore is blatantly discriminatory.”
— Benjamin Stinson, Concord · #493462 — read full submission →
- Bill criminalizes doctors for standard careOppose13 of 236 reviewed
Opponents object that the bill makes providing, counseling, or referring for this care a felony, arguing it threatens medical providers with prison time and fines for practicing according to accepted medical standards.
“The bill makes even counseling an individual a Class B felony, a serious criminal offense of up to 7 years in prison and up to $4,000 fine with 5-year probation and its definition of a person opens criminal charges to any person.”
— Lissa Winrow, Goffstown · #485918 — read full submission →
“I am alarmed that this bill attempts to make it a class B felony for doctors (and other medical practitioners) to practice medicine according to their best medical judgment, and according to the best practices of their field.”
— Matthew Richards, Manchester · #496020 — read full submission →
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
Parents have the right to chose what is medically necessary for their children. The government has no place in preventing that care.
,
Dear members of the Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee, I am asking you to vote OTP on this bill, as I believe it is important to protect the lives and safety of our minor children. Minor children do not have the intellectual and emotional maturity to be expected to understand the consequences of making permanent life-changing alterations to their body. Puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are known to have permanent effects such as sterility, in females, beard growth, and deepening of the voice (a woman I know who has de-transitioned told me that her doctor told her that even though she went off the testosterone, her voice will always remain deeper, and she will always have to shave her face). It disturbs me that parents of transgender children, whom they have supported in decisions to medically and surgically transition to the opposite sex, will declare that they trust their children's judgment to know who they are, and the fact that they have supported them through their treatments proves what loving, caring parents they are. Isn't it a parent's role to protect their children from making decisions that have potential negative long-term consequences (side effects of these drugs can include increased risk of cancer, thinning and weakening of bones, diabetes, and sterility). Children tend to be short-sighted and can frequently change their minds. They need mature parents who will use wisdom to evaluate the potential long-term consequences of such a serious life-altering decision as gender transitioning. A wise parent will not cater to whatever feels or seems good to the child in the moment, without taking into account potential long-term harmful consequences. Please vote OTP on this important bill! Thank you for your consideration!
I write today in opposition to HB712 and HB 377. The state should not involve itself in the relationships between patients, their families, and health care professionals. It is an incredible invasion of privacy for the patients, and interferes with the professional obligations of surgeons, doctors, and other health care workers to provide evidence-based care for their patients. When it comes to young people and children, their parents or caregivers and their health care providers should be involved with the patient in decision making to decide what is in the child's best interest - not legislators, neighbors, or activists with an agenda. As a woman who receives my health care in the state of New Hampshire, one of the most important things to me is that the relationship between me and my primary care provider is private, trustworthy, and personalized for my situation. The government should not be involved in health care decisions, whether on the basis of cost, personal preference, timing, or anything else. We need the freedom to make up our minds for ourselves and our families with advice that we trust. These bills ignore science. To start, "biologic female" and "biologic male" are not defined terms. The Journal "Nature" published an article in 2015 noting that "Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD" (DSD is the medical terminology for intersex conditions.) The article lists numerous conditions that would rule out defining a person as a "biologic" male or female based on chromosomes, hormones, genes, and physical characteristics. The Journal "Cell" published a similar article in 2024, again clarifying that from a scientific perspective there are not just two sexes. These bills make no provision for how intersex people will be treated. In addition, the care this bill aims to prevent - gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary young people - has been researched and when it is warranted has important benefits that protect young people who are at risk.The Health and Human Services Fact Sheet on Gender Affirming Care for young people notes "Medical and psychosocial gender affirming healthcare practices have been demonstrated to yield lower rates of adverse mental health outcomes, build self-esteem, and improve overall quality of life for transgender and gender diverse youth." Please do not advance these bills, for the sake of the privacy, dignity, logic, and health of New Hampshire residents. Sarah Morton Campton, NH references 1. Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a 2. Cell article: https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(24)00122-3 3. HHS fact sheet: https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/gender-affirming-care-young-people.pdf
Blanket legislation applied to personal medical issues is unsafe and inappropriate.
I am firmly opposed to this and all other Bills attempting to restrict the access of trans folks to the healthcare they need to live healthy and happy lives. There is simply no argument for blocking access to healthcare for kids who need it. Choices of how and when to access what type of care should be in the hands of the child and their parents, and be between them and their doctors without interference from the state. I urge the committee to oppose this bill
I oppose bill HB 377. My body, my choice. Stop telling people how to feel, who they can be and who to love.
I know from both statistics and personal experience that barring access to puberty blockers and hormones from trans youth significantly increases the risk of death, serious mental illness and substance abuse. These are lifesaving medications that also save individuals, families and the state money and a load of pain.
I trust my healthcare providers to practice medicine in the manner in which they were trained to do so. Members of the NH Legislature are not qualified to make medical decisions. Stay in your lanes. Llet medical professionals practice medicine.
We trust healthcare professionals to deliver our babies, help us recover from illness and injury, and we rely on their medical expertise. We need to let them do their job which is to practice medicine. Members of the NH Legislature are not qualified to make medical decisions. Stay in your lanes.
Legislators should not be making medical decisions. Whether a child receives hormone therapy or not should be up to a child, her/his family, and their physician. I am not sure why the Legislature of a State that prides itself on the motto, "Live Free or Die" continually tries to regulate such personal and intimate decisions.
Legislators have no business interfering with deeply personal medical decisions that are not theirs to make.
The government has no right to determine health choices for people. New Hampshire’s motto is Live Free or Die, its citizens have the right to live freely and do as they see fit, our youngest citizens included. The decision to offer health services to transgendered youth should be up to the parents and medical professionals with input from the youth. There is no room for public opinion. People aren’t out seeking transgender healthcare for fun. It’s a medical decision and should be left up to the patient, their guardians and their medical team.
I oppose this bill. This legislation sets a dangerous precedent of governmental overreach regarding health care decision-making, undermining parents’ rights in relation to their minor children. There are many medical conditions that could warrant the use of such medications in minor children; this bill would, without exception, bar children from receiving necessary medical treatment as recommended by their doctors. I urge lawmakers to oppose this bill. Thank you.
Dear Members of the Committee, I am writing to strongly oppose HB 377. Please remember our state has traditionally been a. supporter of parental rights. This bill undermines parental rights. Additionally, transgender teens, like all teens, have the best chance to thrive when they can get the health care they need and when they are supported in their schools, their communities, and their families. The government should not be getting in the middle of decisions made by patients, their parents, and their health providers. Please defend NH's parental rights by finding HB 377 ITL. Thank you, KImberly Shaw
Pushing this gender confusion on our children is child abuse. Letting them make life/ body changes before they are cognitively developed is insane. They are unable to buy cigarettes and alcohol unless they are 21 but they can decide they are a different gender at 10. (Or younger ) Makes sense. Pure insanity.
This bill will harm trans people and denies the scientific reality that these forms of medical treatment not only improve the quality of life of trans individuals but may in some cases save their lives. Denying access to medications or medical procedures does nothing to protect trans youth in our state, and is nothing more than a cynical attempt to erase the reality of transgender people, who have recently become the target of discriminatory legislation that seeks to reduce or eliminate their visibility in society, and to bully, harass, and intimidate them in both public and private spaces, while denying them access to facilities and services that are the right of all. I strongly oppose this bill.
Testimony Against NH House Bill 377 Dear Members of the New Hampshire House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee, I am writing to you today to express my vehement opposition to House Bill 377, a piece of legislation that seeks to ban gender-affirming treatments for minors. This bill represents a dangerous overreach by lawmakers who, despite their lack of medical expertise, presume to dictate the medical care that should be provided to our children. The hubris of this legislative body in attempting to regulate complex medical decisions is both alarming and disheartening. It is a stark reminder of the dangers of allowing political agendas to interfere with the nuanced and deeply personal realm of medical care. The decision to pursue gender-affirming treatments is not one that is made lightly. It involves careful consideration by medical professionals, mental health experts, and, most importantly, the families and individuals directly affected. House Bill 377 is a clear example of legislators overstepping their bounds, driven by a misguided belief that they possess the knowledge and authority to make medical decisions for others. This bill disregards the expertise of medical professionals who have dedicated their lives to understanding and treating gender dysphoria. It dismisses the lived experiences of transgender individuals and their families, who know better than anyone the profound impact that access to gender-affirming care can have on a young person's mental and physical well-being. The arrogance of this legislative body in assuming they know better than doctors and families is not only misguided but dangerous. By criminalizing the provision of gender-affirming care, House Bill 377 would force medical professionals to choose between adhering to their ethical obligations and facing legal repercussions. It would strip families of their right to make informed decisions about their children's health and well-being, replacing it with a one-size-fits-all mandate that fails to account for the unique needs of each individual. In conclusion, I urge you to reject House Bill 377. Allow medical professionals to do their jobs, and let families make the decisions that are best for their children. This legislative body should not be allowed to dictate and politicize the medical care of our most vulnerable citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration. Melanie Renfrew-Hebert, Goffstown NH
These decisions are best made between child, parent and physician. Parents should be free to make healthcare decisions that are best for their child.
The government should not be getting in the middle of decisions made by patients, their parents, and their health providers.
It is a parent's job to make medical decisions for their child, not the government. This bill infringes on parental rights. Politicians are not medical experts. Butt out of families personal lives.
Gender affirming care is health care. Adults and youth of all ages deserve to get the treatment they need to make themselves feel comfortable in their own bodies. Healthcare professionals are doing their best to help their patients in any way possible and should not be punished for it. Get politics out of the exam rooms.
Testimony opposing HB377 March 3, 2025 Members of the House Health Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee, My name is Megan Reel, and I live in Campton, NH. I am writing to express my opposition to HB 377, which would prohibit access to puberty blockers and hormones for young transgender people. If passed, this bill would prevent doctors from providing medically necessary care for youth that need it. Decisions related to medical care should be based on medical evidence, and made between patients, their families, and their healthcare providers. In this instance, national healthcare organizations, including the American Medical Association, have supported the forms of gender-affirming care referenced in the bill, and I do not believe that the government should interfere with physicians' ability to provide care based on guidelines and ethics established by professional medical organizations and current research. If our concern is for the safety of children, then I believe we should instead do everything we can to ensure that transgender youth have access to the best possible evidence-based care. I'm also concerned by the amount of focus that has been given to targeting transgender individuals in general. There are so many issues that we might focus on in our state, and yet we are using resources to persecute a group that makes up a very small percentage of the population, threatening their health and safety. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to read this testimony, and urge you to oppose HB 377. Sincerely, Megan Reel
I oppose this bill