Trump and N.H. lawmakers want to ban gender-affirming health care for kids. These families say they may have to move.
Transgender issues have become a dominating topic in recent years in national and local politics, with
Advertisement
At least two New Hampshire
families with transgender children told the Globe they
have already moved to states they believe will preserve access to
transgender
health care, while a handful of others
said they are preparing to uproot their lives.
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
Moving to another state,
however,
might not be a permanent solution. Tucked into the budget bill passed in May by GOP lawmakers in the US House were
Remesch said her family would consider leaving the US if such proposals prevail.
'Do we go to Europe or Canada or Mexico? Honestly, those are all on the list,' she said.
Other families have already left New Hampshire behind.
Last year, out of concern for their transgender daughter, Abi and Jacob Maxwell
Advertisement
'We knew what was coming,' Abi Maxwell said. 'It was taking years off our lives and we knew we had to get out.'
Maxwell said she thought California would be the most protected place in the United States, but didn't rule out moving again if necessary for her daughter's safety.
Since then, Republicans have increased their majority in New Hampshire's House and Senate and have worked to advance more restrictive bills concerning people who are transgender.
If it passes, New Hampshire would be the first state in New England to enact such a ban, joining 25 other states that have banned such care for youth, according to the
that provides research to promote equality.
New Hampshire is also the only state in New England without laws to protect access to gender-affirming care and the doctors who provide this care, according to the project.
Advertisement
Senate lawmakers amended the bill in May, allowing children who are already receiving gender-affirming care to continue their treatments after the bill, if it is signed into law, goes into effect in early 2026.
Rosie Emrich showed her support for the LGBTQ+ community with a sign at her house in Hooksett, N.H., on April 17.
Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe
Remesch said the proposal feels like a betrayal by the state where she grew up and where she returned to live near her family in 2019.
She said her child has not yet gone through puberty, but they want the option of starting puberty blockers when the time comes. Even if they don't choose to undergo treatment, a scenario Remesch said she would welcome, she said they would still leave the state if the bill becomes law.
'Being non-binary, you still need to be recognized and respected,' she said, explaining that doctors must care for both the patient's body and mind. 'If we can't do that in New Hampshire, if their doctors can't care for them appropriately as someone who is non-binary. … We'd still leave.'
Rosie Emrich and her family are also worried about the ban and have considered moving out of state to ensure their 8-year-old transgender child can continue accessing puberty blockers. She said the family has started preparing to sell their house in Hooksett and may move to Massachusetts.
One of Rosie Emrich's children played at their home. Their family is considering moving from New Hampshire to Massachusetts because of a series of bills that have been presented in the state's Legislature.
Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe
'I really don't want to leave New Hampshire. I just want New Hampshire to be a better place,' she said.
Critics of the New Hampshire bill have pointed out that it specifically targets gender-affirming medical interventions when used by transgender individuals, but permits them in other cases, such as for people with
Proponents of the ban said it is a matter of protecting children from treatments that they believe carry significant consequences.
Advertisement
A child played at home in Hooksett, N.H. The child's mother, Rosie Emrich, said her family is considering moving from New Hampshire. The bill Emrich is most worried about is House Bill 377, which aims to prohibit gender-affirming care for minors.
Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe
'Children as young as 8 or 9 are being prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and cannot fully comprehend the lifelong implications of altering their bodies with powerful medications,'
Mazur, the prime sponsor of HB 377, did not respond to requests for an interview.
The bill has drawn concern from some in the state's medical community. Cathy Stratton, CEO of the New Hampshire Medical Society, said gender-affirming hormone treatment has undergone tremendous scrutiny, clinical research, and peer review to become an approved medical treatment. She said medical care should be between a physician, a clinician, and their patient, and that this ban would undermine the physician's skill and expertise and compromise the care of some patients.
'When you legislate it, you really can't account for the complexity of what physicians are facing in the exam room and what patients are feeling,' she said.
New Hampshire lawmakers have already curtailed access to gender-affirming genital surgeries, passing a
A box of signs that Rosie Emrich and her children made for Transgender Awareness Week sit in the corner of their home in Hooksett, N.H.
Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe
New Hampshire's Governor Kelly A. Ayotte, a Republican, told reporters in May she needs to review the bill before deciding whether to support it.
Some who have chosen gender-affirming care for themselves have called it life-saving. State Representative Alice Wade, 23, a Dover Democrat, said she started hormone replacement therapy at 17, after compiling research for years and persuading her father to agree.
Advertisement
When puberty exacerbated the feeling she didn't belong in her body, she said, she began thinking of suicide. She said hormone therapy was a way to feel whole again.
'It did save my life as a minor,' she said.
Wade said HB 377 is wrong-minded.
'It sends a message to kids – not only to trans kids, that they aren't valid and that they should be shamed out of existence – but to cisgender kids that it's OK to shame trans kids and to label them as freaks,' she said.
When it came to choosing gender-affirming care, the families interviewed described a slow, deliberate process in consultation with therapists and health providers before their children began medical treatment.
'It's not just that I looked up what side effects are behind the treatment, but I also looked at the benefit of the treatment and knew that it was what my daughter needed to actually live,' said Michelle Cilley Foisy.
At 16, her daughter told her she was uncomfortable presenting the way people had come to know her. Cilley Foisy said her daughter's mental health deteriorated, and she attempted suicide.
Afterwards, her daughter asked to start hormone replacement therapy, and Cilley Foisy spent a few months gathering letters of support from therapists and a doctor.
Her daughter began treatment just before her 17th birthday, and her mother said she saw immediate improvements: For the first time in years, her daughter was able to look at herself in the mirror and smile, she said, because her appearance reflected who she was inside.
Advertisement
After living in New Hampshire for nearly 45 years, Cilley Foisy and her family moved in February. She watched online from her new home in Waterbury, Vt., as the New Hampshire House voted to approve HB 377 in March.
'I was devastated by the vote,' she said.
She said she does not regret leaving.
'Definitely feel like our move was the right decision, 100 percent. It affirms that we left at the right time for the safety of my kid, but it's still heartbreaking.'
Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Senate weighs Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' as policy group backs CBO, projects $3 trillion debt increase
President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" is projected to increase the debt by $3 trillion, with interest, or $5 trillion if made permanent, according to estimates. An estimate of the House-passed bill by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects it would add more than $2.4 trillion to primary deficits before interest over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonprofit public policy organization. As of Wednesday, the national debt, which measures what the U.S. owes its creditors, was $36.2 trillion, and the national deficit, which occurs when the federal government's spending exceeds its revenues, was $1 trillion, according to the Treasury Department. The massive spending package being considered by a Republican-controlled Congress aims to address a number of issues, including tax policy, border security and immigration, defense, energy production, the debt limit, and adjustments to SNAP and Medicaid. "Based on CBO's estimate, the House-passed bill includes roughly $5.3 trillion of tax cuts and spending partially offset by $2.9 trillion of revenue increases and spending cuts," a CRFB statement said. "Most significantly, the policies put forward by the Ways & Means Committee would increase deficits by $3.8 trillion, on net, while the policies in the Energy & Commerce title would reduce deficits by $1.1 trillion. With interest, the bill would add nearly $3.0 trillion to the debt through 2034 – or $5.0 trillion if various temporary provisions are made permanent." "OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Bill Act) would add far too much to the debt as written and could lead to far more fiscal damage than reported if temporary provisions are extended as intended," the group said. It noted that the bill would boost near-term inflation, increase interest rates, add unnecessary complexity to the tax code as well as weaken market confidence and slow long-term economic growth. It urged the Senate to make the bill "more responsible." Despite the bill passing in the House, some lawmakers have voiced opposition to the legislation, most notably Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. "We have never raised the debt ceiling without actually meeting that target," Paul told reporters this week. "So you can say it doesn't directly add to the debt, but if you increase the ceiling $5 trillion, you'll meet that. And what it does is it puts it off the back burner. And then we won't discuss it for a year or two." Top Democrats recently said the bill would cause the deaths of an estimated 51,000 Americans due to changes to the federal healthcare system and the broader reconciliation legislation. Also against the bill is Elon Musk, Trump's former head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Republicans warn Senate not to touch SALT deal
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states are warning senators that they will not give the 'big, beautiful bill' a final stamp of approval if they change their proposal for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. The shot across the Capitol came shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters the upper chamber would likely tweak the SALT provision in the mammoth measure, one of several alterations. The House bill raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 — quadruple the $10,000 deduction cap in current law. A group of moderates in the House from New York, New Jersey and California has said they would not support the package unless it included substantial SALT relief. Those members are now warning that any changes to the provision could prevent the bill from passing the House once it is sent back from the Senate. 'If the Senate unwinds the House's $40K SALT deal, it's like digging up buried radioactive waste—reckless and sure to contaminate the whole One Big Beautiful Bill,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) wrote on X. 'Best to leave it alone.' He elaborated on his comments later, telling reporters he would encourage the Senate to keep their deal in place. 'The reason I've chosen that analogy is because the House took four months to get to where we could finally compromise, negotiate and settle on bill language as it relates to SALT and other interlocking and related provisions. So the Senate to disrupt that is to undo a lot of that painful work, to rip off some scabs, and to essentially restart the very painful process that we went through for four months,' he said. 'I would advise them to keep the bill intact. I respect the senators' prerogatives to exercise their constituents' priorities, but we worked really hard to get to the compromise bill that we got to, and it'd be a shame to have to restart.' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), another member of the group, was more concise: 'Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal.' 'If the Senate changes the negotiated number of $40,000 — it will derail final passage of the bill,' Lawler wrote on X. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was a key player in brokering a SALT deal in the House, said he spoke with members of the Caucus on Wednesday, shortly after Thune signaled changes to their provision, and plans to make their case to the Senate. 'I just talked to my SALT Caucus on the floor and I'm gonna go communicate to the Senate, again, it's a very delicate thing, we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House,' Johnson told reporters. 'And it took almost a year to get to that point so I don't think we can toss that off.' Asked if there is wiggle room around the $40,000 deduction cap, the Speaker was coy: 'I'm about to find out; we'll see.' The SALT deduction cap was always expected to be a battle in the Senate. While a number of vulnerable Republicans in the House care deeply about SALT, Senate Republicans don't even have members from New York, New Jersey or California. The issue came up for Senate Republicans at a conference-wide meeting on Wednesday, where some were itching to lower the cap but wary of gumming things up for Johnson. 'Our goal isn't to create a problem for the House, but we also know the Senate will put its mark on the bill,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). One Senate Republican indicated that some senators favor forcing the House SALT backers into supporting a lower ceiling. But they believe the easiest path is for the upper chamber to swallow its pride and defer to Johnson. 'It may be easier to say than do,' the Senate GOP member said. 'It would just screw the whole bill.' This senator said even lowering the ceiling from $40,000 to $30,000 could be risky since it might lead some of the House Republicans to vote against the bill. But the senator also suggested the SALT Republicans in the House could be bluffing. 'Is that enough to get you, because otherwise you say, 'I'm going to vote against the bill and for a $4 trillion tax increase as a Republican,'' the member continued. 'That's original sin there.' While Thune is signaling that the chamber will likely change the SALT provision, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) — a former House member and key liaison between the two chambers — is saying the opposite. 'It was a hard fight over there,' Mullin said, pointing to its roughly $300 billion cost. 'It's a big number, but it was something they had to do to try to get the bill passed. We don't want to do something that would cause it not to pass.' 'The body here is going to work its will,' he continued. 'I would be a little [skeptical] about doing too much with SALT.' House Republicans in the SALT Caucus are warning they aren't bluffing. 'I wouldn't bet against a couple of salty Republicans, including a couple of salty New Yorkers,' LaLota said. 'I wouldn't bet against us.' Pressed on if the Senate should take the SALT Caucus' comments as a signal that the House will not pass a bill with a lower deduction cap, LaLota responded: 'That would be reasonable for them to consider that.' Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), another member of the SALT Caucus, expressed confidence. 'The leadership is working and talking to the Senate on a regular basis and I'm very confident much of what we passed in the House will still be there,' Kim said. 'So I'm not gonna comment on how I'll be voting for it till I see the package that comes back to us.' 'We're already working to ensure that everything that we pass in the House is still kept in the Senate version,' she added. Asked if there was any wiggle room on their SALT deal, LaLota said: 'I'm eager to see what they actually come back with. I don't know why anybody would logically want to disrupt something that was the result of a lot of hard work, pain, heartache and ultimately compromise,' he added. When a reporter pointed out that his comments were not a firm no, he responded: 'I would love them to increase it. That would be a great idea if they came to us with $50,000, I would endorse it right away.'
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate panel targets Biden-era green programs
The Big Story The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee released text for its portion of the Trump agenda policy bill that Republicans are trying to get across the finish line, becoming the first Senate panel to do so. © Greg Nash The EPW text appears similar to provisions passed by the House. It's not one of the committees that deals with thorny issues like Medicaid or energy tax credits that are more likely to undergo changes in the upper chamber. Like the House version of the bill, the text released by Senate Republicans on Wednesday repeals numerous green programs passed by the Democrats in 2022. This includes a $20 billion program that seeks to provide financing for climate-friendly projects and a $3 billion program that provides grants for underserved communities that want to fight air pollution and climate change. It also repeals other grant programs related to air pollution monitoring and reducing air pollution at schools — as well as a program that seeks to charge oil and gas companies for their excess methane emissions. Like the House version, the Senate bill also includes a provision criticized by Democrats as 'pay-for-play' that allows companies to pay for expedited reviews of energy or other infrastructure projects. And it seeks to repeal a Biden-era regulation that's expected to push the auto market toward selling more electric vehicles. The ultimate text could still change as the parliamentarian has to decide which programs can actually be passed through reconciliation – a process by which the Senate can pass legislation with a simple majority instead of the 60 votes it usually needs to advance bills. Read more at Welcome to The Hill's Energy & Environment newsletter, I'm Rachel Frazin — keeping you up to speed on the policies impacting everything from oil and gas to new supply chains. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect the energy and environment sectors now and in the future: Duffy threatens to pull California's high speed rail funding The Trump administration notified California officials Wednesday that federal funding for the state's massive high-speed rail project is at risk of being pulled after a four-month review concluded the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has 'no viable path' to complete the project on time or on budget. Padilla puts blanket hold on Trump EPA nominees Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is expanding his efforts to hold up President Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nominees in response to the Senate's move to revoke his state's electric vehicle mandate. Canadian wildfire smoke reaches northeast US Canadian wildfire smoke is reaching the northeastern part of the United States, with multiple National Weather Service (NWS) offices saying they are experiencing issues with the smoke. In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: South Florida meteorologist warns viewers NWS staff shortages will impact his hurricane forecasts A South Florida meteorologist warned viewers that National Weather Service (NWS) shortages will impact his forecasts. What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets touching on energy issues, the environment and other topics: Trump's Permitting Boss Aims to Deliver on AI Data Center Plans (Bloomberg Law) White House proposes shutting down chemical safety agency (The Washington Post) On Tap Upcoming news themes and events we're watching: What Others are Reading Two key stories on The Hill right now: Trump calls for scrapping debt limit President Trump doubled down Wednesday on calls to scrap the nation's debt ceiling, pressing for bipartisan action to abolish it and finding common ground with Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). Read more Haley on Trump call with Putin: 'A backhanded slap to all of our allies' Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley (R) sharply criticized President Trump on Wednesday for suggesting Russia could play a mediating role in nuclear negotiations with Iran. Read more Opinion in The Hill Op-ed related to energy & environment submitted to The Hill: You're all caught up. See you tomorrow!
