New Hampshire hearing on HB 377 spotlights debate over puberty blockers, with advocates and opponents testifying

The House Health and Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee heard extended testimony on House Bill 377 on a bill that would restrict puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, with supporters urging limits and opponents saying the measure would deny medically necessary care.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Lisa Mazer (Hillsborough District 44), told the committee that “Children cannot fully comprehend the lifelong implications of altering their bodies with powerful medications.” She framed the proposal as a public‑policy effort to pause surgical or hormonal medical pathways for minors until they can give fully informed consent.

Why it matters: Supporters said the treatments carry long‑term risks and pointed to recent international reviews that have tightened or paused use of these interventions for young people. Opponents — including clinicians, parents, and advocacy groups — said the measures would interrupt care families and medical teams consider necessary and warned of higher suicide risk if access were curtailed.

What supporters said: Representative Mazer repeated testimony that puberty blockers and cross‑sex hormones can cause bone‑density loss and other harms and cited reports and European health reviews as reasons to restrict access. Several speakers who described themselves as parents of people who regretted transition urged the committee to “protect kids” by delaying irreversible care until adulthood.

What opponents said: Sam Hawkins of NAMI New Hampshire testified in opposition and said the organization “opposes any legislation that seeks to prohibit or limit access access to clinically appropriate care for transgender individuals.” Courtney Reed of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire urged the committee not to place the state between parents and clinicians, saying the bill would “directly harm transgender youth by barring access to critical medical care in a discriminatory fashion.”

Young people and parents offered personal accounts on both sides. Callie Brown, who said she transitioned as an adolescent, told the committee, “I needed this to live my life authentically.” Other speakers described years‑long diagnostic and treatment processes and said major medical associations endorse gender‑affirming care as a standard of practice.

Procedures and evidence: Witnesses debated the quality and interpretation of studies. Supporters pointed to systematic reviews and regulatory caution in some European jurisdictions; opponents emphasized statements and guidelines from professional U.S. medical associations and cited studies finding benefits to mental health when care is provided in a multidisciplinary setting.

Formal action: The committee heard public testimony but took no formal votes on the bill during the session.

What’s next: Committee members asked detailed technical and drafting questions during the hearing and received large volumes of written testimony from interested parties. The committee will decide whether to report the bill out for further consideration, amend it, or recommend it inexpedient to legislate.

Supporting context: The hearing followed committee practice limiting oral testimony to nominations and to three minutes for other witnesses; dozens of individuals and organizational representatives testified for and against HB 377.