N.H. Governor Kelly Ayotte signs bills banning gender-affirming care for minors
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Violations of the new law will go before New Hampshire's board of medicine, which can take administrative disciplinary action.
Advertisement
The new law also allows someone who was harmed by receiving this care to bring a lawsuit against the person who provided the care and violated the law.
The new ban comes as legislative efforts targeting transgender people have grown in recent years. Last year, New Hampshire lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming genital surgeries for minors, even though providers have said such procedures are exceedingly rare in New Hampshire.
All of the other New England states have laws protecting access to gender-affirming care, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a Colorado-based think tank that promotes equality.
Advertisement
Some New Hampshire families with transgender children have been warily watching as the bill advanced and, in some cases, have been
Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire who championed the ban were encouraged by a
But some attorneys say there are still avenues for pursuing a possible legal challenge of New Hampshire's new law. That could include a challenge based on the New Hampshire constitution, arguing that the intent of the law was to harm transgender people, or a challenge on the basis of parental rights, according to Chris Erchull, a senior staff attorney at GLAD law.
Ayotte also signed a second bill banning gender-affirming surgeries for minors.
The bill explicitly prohibits 'transgender chest surgery' for minors as part of a gender transition.
Violating the law is classified as unprofessional conduct and would be subject to discipline by the board of medicine.
The law also allows minors to sue for damages if they received such a treatment in violation of the law. And the attorney general can bring a suit to enforce compliance with the law.
Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
21 minutes ago
- Atlantic
This Is the News From TikTok
When he learned one night this summer that the United States had bombed Iran, the content creator Aaron Parnas responded right away, showing what's bad and what's good about using TikTok for news. Shortly after 7:46 p.m. ET on June 21, he saw Donald Trump's Truth Social post announcing the air strikes. At 7:52, according to a time stamp, Parnas uploaded to TikTok a minute-long video in which he looked into the camera; read out the president's post, which identified the suspected nuclear sites that the U.S. had targeted; and added a note of skepticism about whether Iran would heed Trump's call for peace. As traditional media outlets revealed more details that night, Parnas summarized their findings in nine more reports, some of which he recorded from a car. Parnas wasn't adding elaborate detail or original reporting. What he had to offer was speed—plus a deep understanding of how to reach people on TikTok, which may not seem an obvious or trustworthy source of news: The platform is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance, which lawmakers in Washington, D.C., fear could be manipulated to promote Beijing's interests. TikTok's algorithm offers each user a personalized feed of short, grabby videos—an arrangement that seems unlikely to serve up holistic coverage of current events. Even so, according to a Pew Research Center poll from last fall, 17 percent of adults—and 39 percent of adults under 30—regularly get informed about current affairs on the app. Fewer than 1 percent of all TikTok accounts followed by Americans are traditional media outlets. Instead, users are relying not only on 'newsfluencer s' such as Parnas but also on skits reenacting the latest Supreme Court ruling, hype videos for political agendas, and other news-adjacent clips that are hard to describe to people who don't use TikTok. Last summer, after the first assassination attempt on Trump, one viral video fused clips of the bloody-eared Republican raising his fist with snippets of Joe Biden's well wishes. Simultaneously, Chappell Roan's ballad for the lovestruck, 'Casual,' played, hinting at a bromance. On my For You page in June, as U.S.-Iran tensions flared, I saw a string of videos known as 'edits'—minute-long music montages—on the general topic. One spliced together footage of zooming F-16s, Captain America intimidating his enemies in an elevator, and bald eagles staring ominously while AC/DC's 'Thunderstruck' blared. Skeptics might wonder: When people say they get their news from TikTok, what exactly are they learning? Frequent consumers of current-affairs content on TikTok insist that they can decipher what's going on in the world—that, even if they have to extrapolate facts from memes, the brevity and entertainment value compensate for a lack of factual detail. 'A lot of things are in simpler terms on TikTok,' Miles Maltbia, a 22-year-old cybersecurity analyst from Chicago, told me. 'That, and convenience, makes it the perfect place to get all my news from.' And as more and more users turn to TikTok for news, creators such as Parnas are finding ways to game the algorithm. Parnas, who is 26, is a lawyer by trade. He told me that he monitors every court case he deems significant with a legal tracker. He was immersed in politics at an early age. (His father, Lev Parnas, gained brief notoriety as an associate of Rudy Giuliani during Trump's first term. 'I love my dad,' Aaron Parnas has said. 'And I'm not my dad.') C-SPAN is on 'all day every day.' And he's enabled X and Truth Social notifications for posts from every member of Congress and major world leader. When he decides that his phone's alerts are newsworthy, he hits the record button. His rapid-reaction formula for news has made him a one-man media giant: He currently has 4.2 million followers on TikTok. He told me that his videos on the platform have reached more than 100 million American users in the past six months. His Substack newsletter also has the most subscriptions of any in the 'news' category, and he recently interviewed Senator Cory Booker, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, and this magazine's editor in chief. Still, Parnas's TikTok model relies heavily on reporting by other outlets. And Parnas's 24/7 information blitz may be jarring for those whose media-consumption habits are not already calibrated for TikTok. There's no 'Good evening' or 'Welcome.' But he's reaching an audience who other media don't: Many of his viewers, he thinks, are 'young people who don't watch the news and never have and never will.' He added, 'They just don't have the attention span to.' Ashley Acosta, a rising senior at the University of Pennsylvania, told me she liked the fact that Parnas is his own boss, outside the corporate media world. She contrasted him with outlets such as ABC, which recently fired the correspondent Terry Moran for an X post that called Trump a 'world-class hater.' Nick Parigi, a 24-year-old graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, also sees Parnas as a valuable news source. 'You're getting less propagandized,' he told me. 'It's not pushing an agenda.' Last year, Parnas explicitly supported Kamala Harris's presidential candidacy, but he prides himself on delivering basic information in a straightforward manner. 'I wish we would just go back to the fact-based, Walter Cronkite–style of reporting,' he told me. 'So that's what I do.' For Parnas to sound like the CBS News legend, you'd have to watch his TikToks at half speed. If Parnas is a genre-defining anchor, Jack Mac is the equivalent of a shock jock. A creator with 1.1 million followers, he uses the term 'jo urnalisming' to describe his work, which amounts to commenting on stories he finds interesting or amusing—such as a 'patriot' New York firefighter being suspended for letting young women ride in his firetruck. 'Do I think TikTok is the best source for news? No,' Olivia Stringfield, a 25-year-old from South Carolina who works in marketing, told me. But she's a fan of Mac because he offers 'a more glamorous way to get the news'—and a quick, convenient way. 'I don't have time to sit down and read the paper like my parents did,' Stringfield said. Robert Kozinets, a professor at the University of Southern California who has studied Gen Z's media consumption on TikTok, told me that users rarely seek out news. It finds them. 'The default position is: Algorithm, let the information flow over me,' he said. 'Load me up. I'll interrupt it when I see something interesting.' On a platform where little content is searched, creators dress up the news to make it algorithm friendly. The Washington Post is one established media brand that has leaned into the growing format of TikTok news skits. In one video about the Supreme Court, a Post staffer wearing a college-graduation robe wields a toolbox mallet as a gavel to channel Chief Justice John Roberts, and when she mimics him, her background turns into red curtains. 'South Carolina can cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood,' she says. Dave Jorgenson, who launched the Post 's TikTok channel in 2019, announced recently that he's leaving to set up his own online-video company —a testament to the demand for this new style of content. From the January 2025 issue: The 'mainstream media' has already lost The Post 's embrace of TikTok has been unusual for an outlet of the newspaper's stature. The prevalence of vibes-based content on the video platform raises obvious questions about truth and accuracy. Many users I spoke with trusted crowdsourced fact-checking to combat misinformation, via the comments section. I asked Maltbia, the analyst from Chicago, how he knows which comments to trust. 'I'll usually look at the ones that are the most liked,' he said. 'But if it still sounds a little shady to me, then I'll probably Google it.' Parnas defended the integrity of TikTok news. 'There's no more misinformation on TikTok than there is on Twitter, than there is on Fox News, than sometimes there is on CNN,' he told me. That claim is impossible to verify: TikTok's factual accuracy is under-researched. One assessment by the media watchdog NewsGuard found that 20 percent of TikTok's news search results contained misinformation—but no user I spoke with bothers with the app's search function. Whether TikTok will continue to gain popularity as a news outlet isn't yet clear. Citing fears of hostile foreign control over a major communications platform, Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation aimed at forcing TikTok's Chinese owners to sell. But Trump has now delayed implementation of the law three times since he took office. In the meantime, users of the platform keep stretching the definition of news. On TikTok, 'news is anything that's new,' Kozinets, the USC professor, told me. Entrepreneurial creators who care about current events will keep testing delivery formats to gain more eyeballs on the platform. And even if TikTok is sold or shuts down, similar apps are sure to fill any vacuum. The challenge of packaging news for distribution by a black-box algorithm seems here to stay.
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
5 reasons Democrats are in good shape
The Democratic Party's approval rating is at its lowest point in at least 35 years, according to a Wall Street Journal poll released last week. In that survey, 63 percent of voters expressed an unfavorable view of the Democrats, while just 33 percent voiced a positive one. By contrast, voters disapproved of Congressional Republicans by only 11 points. These dismal figures are broadly consistent with other recent polling: In RealClearPolitics's average of recent surveys, voters disapprove of the Democratic Party by a 59.3 to 36.3 margin. What's more, Democrats don't just have a lower favorability rating than Republicans, but also command less trust on the public's top issues. In the Journal's poll, voters disapproved of Trump's management of the economy, tariffs, inflation, foreign policy, and immigrant deportations. And yet, they said that they trusted Republicans to handle all of those matters better than Democrats would. Of the 10 issues raised in the survey, voters favored Democrats on only two — health care and vaccine policy. These grim data points have spurred some handwringing in blue America. But just how dire is the Democrats' predicament? Is the party temporarily tainted with the stink of last year's defeat — and poised to rally back into power, just as it did after losing in 2004 and 2016? Or is the better precedent for the party's current position 1981, when the party began a 12-year struggle to escape the shadow of a failed presidency? Only prophets can answer such questions with certainty. In my own view, though, two things are true: • The Democrats' putrid approval numbers paint a misleadingly bleak picture of their current standing. • The party is in much worse shape than it was eight years ago, and will likely struggle to secure full control of the federal government any time soon. Below, I'll detail five reasons for believing that first point, and two for accepting the second one. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. Why Democrats might not be in disarray 1. Disaffected, but loyal, Democrats are driving down their party's approval rating In the Journal's poll, the GOP's net-favorability rating is 19 points higher than the Democratic Party's. And yet, in that same survey, voters say that they would prefer a Democratic Congress to a Republican one by a 3-point margin. This seems odd. Voters disapprove of Democrats by a much larger margin than they disapprove of Republicans. Yet a plurality nonetheless say they would vote for the former party over the latter one. As polling analysts G. Elliott Morris and Mary Radcliffe observe, there is only one explanation for this: Unhappy — but loyal — Democratic voters are driving down their party's favorability rating. This interpretation is consistent with polling from YouGov and The Economist, which finds that only 74 percent of Democratic voters approve of congressional Democrats, while 22.6 percent disapprove. By contrast, 88.9 percent of Republican voters approve of their party's congressional causes, while just 8.3 percent disapprove. Partisans often disapprove of their own parties when they suffer defeat. Republicans had abysmal approval numbers in 2009, yet stomped to a historic midterm victory the following year. And that turnaround was not an aberration: According to Morris and Radcliffe, historically, there is no correlation between how well a party performs in favorability polls taken this far from Election Day and how well they ultimately do at the ballot box. It's unlikely that the Democrats' plummeting popularity is entirely attributable to the disaffection of its own base. The GOP's trust advantage on various issues suggests a broader problem. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party is (almost certainly) in better shape than its approval rating would suggest. 2. Trump is more unpopular than Biden was at this point in his presidency The president's approval rating is among the best predictors of an opposition party's midterm success. And Donald Trump has rapidly squandered the American public's goodwill. When Trump came into office, voters approved of him by an 11.6 margin, according to Nate Silver's polling average. Now, they disapprove of the president by 8.8 points. For context, at this point in Joe Biden's presidency, the public still approved of the Democrat by more than 7 points. And although Trump's approval is unlikely to collapse to the extraordinary degree that Biden's did, there's reason for thinking it will follow the same trajectory. Namely: 3. Americans will likely feel the full impact of Trump's tariffs next year Thus far, the economic impacts of Trump's tariffs have been fairly modest. Those duties have pushed up consumer prices and likely slowed economic growth. But they haven't triggered inflation akin to that which America witnessed in 2022, let alone a stagflationary crisis. This is partly because Trump walked back his most radical tariff proposals. Yet the president's trade restrictions remain extraordinarily expansive, outstripping what many deemed the worst-case scenario during campaign season. According to Yale's Budget Lab, America's average effective tariff rate sits at 20.2 percent, its highest level since 1911. And Trump's current tariffs are poised to cost US households an average of $2,700 in annual income. Americans are not yet paying the full price of Trump's trade policy. The US government has yet to begin collecting tariffs on many foreign countries. And American retailers loaded up on foreign goods earlier this year to get ahead of the president's trade duties. But as America ramps up its tariff collection regime — and companies draw down their inventories — consumer prices will rise. Preston Caldwell, chief US economist for Morningstar, recently told Vox that he expects inflation to peak in 2026, when voters will be heading to the polls. 4. Democrats dominated the most recent high-profile, swing-state election Since Trump's conquest of the GOP in 2016, Democrats have gained ground with highly politically engaged voters, and lost support among less-engaged ones. This trade didn't work out very well in the high-turnout environment of 2024. But the fact that Democratic voters are now disproportionately 'reliable' — which is to say, disproportionately likely to cast a ballot in every election — may help them in the 2026 midterms, when overall turnout is sure to be lower. And the results of this year's Supreme Court election in Wisconsin lend credence to this view. That contest was the one 2025 race that 1) pit a Democrat against a Republican, 2) took place in a swing state, and 3) galvanized national attention. And the Democrat won 10 points, outperforming her standing in the polls. 5. Democrats' best issue is gaining salience, while their worst issue is losing it Finally, the American electorate's top concerns have been shifting, in ways that are potentially beneficial for Democrats. For years, Republicans have enjoyed an advantage over Democrats on immigration. And the Journal's poll shows that voters still trust the GOP to better manage illegal immigration by a margin of 17 points. But Americans are also much less worried about that issue than they were a year ago. In Gallup's polling, the share of voters who say they worry 'a great deal' about illegal immigration has fallen from 48 percent in 2024 to 40 percent this April. A more recent Gallup survey showed that the percentage of Americans who want immigration reduced has fallen from 55 percent last year to 30 percent today. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who worry 'a great deal' about health care — perennially, one of the Democratic Party's strongest issues — rose from 51 percent to 59 percent in April. And that was before the GOP enacted sweeping cuts to Medicaid funding. 1. Democrats are in much worse shape than they were in 2017. All this said, there's still reason to fear for the Democrats' future. For one thing, the party is much weaker than it was at this point in Trump's first term. Eight years ago, voters said they favored a Democratic Congress over a Republican one by roughly 8 points (compared to just 3 points today). Since 2018, the share of Americans who identify with the Democratic Party has also fallen sharply. Seven years ago, 50 percent of Americans said they supported (or leaned toward) the Democrats, while 42 percent said the same of Republicans, in Pew Research's polling. Today, 46 percent support the GOP while 45 percent back the Democrats. Opposition parties almost always gain House seats in midterm elections. And since the Republican House majority is small, Democrats are heavily favored to retake the chamber next year. But current polling suggests that the party's gains will be meager. And in 2028, for the first time in more than a decade, the Republican Party will not be led by Donald Trump. If the GOP retains its advantage on the economy — while shedding its exceptionally undisciplined and scandal-plagued standard-bearer — the party could become even more formidable. This is a very speculative concern, to be sure. But it's worth entertaining the possibility that Democrats' current position is more analogous to its predicament in 1981 — when Jimmy Carter's defeat was followed by 12 years of Republican presidential rule — than in 2017. The previous two times that Democrats lost control of the White House — in 2000 and 2016 — the party's outgoing president had been reasonably well-liked. Bill Clinton had earned a reputation for skillful economic management, thanks to the late 1990s economic expansion. Barack Obama was a singularly magnetic figure, and the US enjoyed relatively low unemployment and inflation in 2016. Both Clinton and Obama's successors won the popular vote in their respective elections, despite the fact that they each were conspicuously uncharismatic. Their losses could therefore be fairly easily dismissed as the consequence of easily reversible tactical errors. By contrast, presiding over post-COVID inflation rendered Biden historically unpopular while devastating the Democrats' credibility on economic management. 2. The party has long odds of winning the Senate anytime soon The Democrats' biggest political problem, however, lies in the Senate. The party's prospects for securing control of Congress's upper chamber — either next year, or in 2028 — look poor. Democrats need to gain four seats to win a Senate majority in 2026. Yet next year's map features no easy targets. The party's best pickup opportunity lies in Maine, a state that Kamala Harris won comfortably in 2024. But that state's incumbent Republican senator, Susan Collins, won reelection by 8.6 points in 2020, even as the national political environment leaned towards Democrats. Her defeat next year is far from assured. After defeating Collins, Democrats' next-best hope for growing their Senate caucus is winning the open seat in North Carolina, a state that backed Donald Trump all three times he was on the ballot, most recently by 3 points. If the party manages to beat Collins and win over the Tarheel State, they would still need to win races in Ohio and Iowa — or else, in places that are even more Republican — to eke out a bare majority in the Senate. Even winning control of the Senate by 2029 would require extraordinary electoral feats. The most plausible path here would involve Democrats beating Collins, winning a race in North Carolina, flipping a Wisconsin Senate seat in 2028, and taking back the presidency that same year (since the vice president breaks all ties in the Senate, Democrats would only need to flip three seats to boast a working majority in 2029, provided that they control the White House). And yet, this path only works if Democratic Senate incumbents also win reelection in every swing state race between now and 2029: Specifically, Democrats would need to win two races in Georgia, one in Pennsylvania, one in Michigan, and one in Arizona. This is conceivable. But it is not especially likely. The fundamental problem facing Democrats is that only 19 states voted for their party in each of the last three federal elections, while 25 US states backed Trump all three times. Put differently, the median US state is more right-wing than America as a whole. In practice, this means that — to win a Senate majority — Democrats don't merely need to beat Republicans nationally, but to do so by a hefty margin. For context, in 2018, Democrats won the House popular vote by 8.6 points and still lost Senate seats. In the US, midterms usually witness backlashes against the president's party. But Democrats need more than an ordinary midterm backlash to put themselves on pace to win the Senate by 2029. And without a Senate majority, Democrats that year would be unable to pass partisan legislation or appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, even if they did manage to win the presidency. Democrats might not need to become drastically more popular to win back the House. But to actually run the federal government, they likely need to make their party more broadly appealing than it was eight years ago. This makes their historically low approval rating more than a little alarming.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Has Trump made it harder to become a doctor or lawyer?
After President Donald Trump approved major lending changes, some students are rethinking whether JDs or MDs are still options for them. Dalea Tran has dreamed of law school for years, but she's never known how she might pay for it. Unlike many aspiring lawyers, she wouldn't be following in her parents' footsteps. An accountant and a hair stylist, they arrived in San Diego with their families as child refugees from Vietnam. Tran, a 19-year-old rising sophomore at the University of California, San Diego, knew if she decided to go to law school, she'd have to work her way through a maze of student loans and financial aid packages. For people like her, navigating that maze just became far more challenging. Major changes are coming to higher education in the United States after President Donald Trump signed his major domestic policy bill into law. Among them is an end to Grad PLUS loans, a program that helps people pay for medical school and law school. Since Congress created the loans, direct from the federal government, in 2006, they have covered the full cost of attending graduate and professional school for nearly 2 million students. Beginning July 1, 2026, that won't be an option anymore. Trump's tax and spending law will eliminate the Grad PLUS program for new borrowers (students who take out loans before that date will be grandfathered in for up to three years). The measure imposes new borrowing caps – $50,000 annually and $200,000 overall – on the amount of federal direct loans students can take out for degrees in law and medicine. And it limits their repayment options after they graduate. Read more: Trump just made it harder to close the Education Department All those technicalities mean that some students like Tran may have fewer options for law school or medical school – or could be steered down a different career path altogether. "There's no way I can graduate early enough to avoid the Grad PLUS change," she said. The reforms represent the culmination of years of conservative efforts to rein in student lending. However, there has been bipartisan consensus about the causes of the underlying problem Republicans are trying to solve. Left-leaning groups and policymakers have also been highly critical in recent years of the crippling debt that some graduate programs impose on students. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a doctor from Louisiana and chairman of the Senate education committee, said the new legislation will put a stop to a vicious cycle that has kept college costs too high. 'The increasing availability of federal loans has resulted in skyrocketing tuition prices, trapping students in a cycle of overwhelming debt that they can't pay back,' he said in a statement to USA TODAY. 'By capping inflationary graduate loan programs, we prevent students from overborrowing and put downward pressure on rising college costs.' Read more: Is grad school worth the investment? Our exclusive data shows some surprising answers. In 2024, the average annual law school tuition at a private university was nearly $60,000, according to American Bar Association data analyzed by the Law School Admission Council. For in-state residents attending public institutions, it was roughly $32,000. It's hard to know exactly how the loan limits will impact law schools, said Austen Parrish, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. It's likely, in his view, that higher-ranked, more expensive schools will enroll a greater number of wealthy students who won't be as reliant on loans. Other, less privileged students may have to trade prestige for cost, he said. "You're going to see students having to make difficult decisions," he said. Medical schools brace for shift Watching from north-central Montana as Congress passed Trump's spending bill, Julianna Lindquist was happy she started medical school when she did. The 23-year-old, originally from Connecticut, is in her second year at Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine in Montana. (Of the two types of medical schools, osteopathic programs are the less-common version; their coursework is similar to that of other medical schools, but instead emphasizes a more holistic approach to patient care.) This semester, Lindquist is taking out the full amount of Grad PLUS loans she's eligible for – roughly $24,000. "I would not be anywhere without student loans," she said. "There's financial aid, but it's not enough." About half of all medical students rely on the Grad PLUS program, borrowing more than $1 billion annually, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Graduates of osteopathic schools, the vast majority of which take on Grad PLUS loans, often go on to serve rural areas or become primary care providers. With federal support disappearing, it'll be up to the private lending market to make up the difference, said Jane Carreiro, dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine at the University of New England in Portland, Maine. "How are students going to navigate that?" she said. "That's a question that we're all asking." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
