Debate intensifies over ban on puberty blockers and hormones for minors as Senate hears emotional testimony

CONCORD, N.H. — The Senate Health and Human Services Committee heard lengthy, at times emotional, testimony Tuesday on House Bill 377, a proposal to ban the prescription of puberty blockers and cross‑sex hormones for minors.

Sponsor Representative Lisa Mazur opened the hearing by describing the health‑policy rationale: she told senators puberty blockers such as Lupron were originally developed for other conditions and said their use in children “stop[s] puberty, stalling natural development of bones, the brain, and fertility.” Mazur and other proponents argued a lack of strong long‑term evidence and cited policy shifts in parts of Europe and other jurisdictions as reasons to restrict use in minors.

Supporters included detransitioners who described permanent harms they attribute to early medical interventions. One witness, Elle Palmer, said she began testosterone at 16 and later reversed course; she recounted health problems and doctors’ uncertainty about treating people who later detransition. Several speakers said the long‑term effects on bone density, fertility and neurodevelopment are not yet well known.

Opponents included Dartmouth Health and the ACLU of New Hampshire, which argued the bill would interfere with clinician judgment and parental decision‑making and raised constitutional concerns. Courtney Tanner of Dartmouth said the system for gender‑affirming care in New Hampshire involves multi‑disciplinary teams and that Dartmouth does not perform top surgeries on minors in state; she said a categorical ban raises difficult clinical and legal questions. The ACLU and other civil‑liberties witnesses urged the committee to await pending court rulings and to consider narrower regulatory guardrails rather than a full ban.

Lawmakers asked detailed questions about the evidence base, the logistics of a ban and how a law would treat existing patients on blockers or hormones. Several witnesses suggested a grandfathering or tapering period for current patients; others said long‑term discontinuation plans are medically complex. Committee members also discussed an ongoing Supreme Court matter related to gender‑affirming care; counsel and witnesses noted a major decision is expected in the coming months and that a state ban could invite litigation.

As with other gender‑care bills, testimony in Concord reflected a stark divide: detransitioners and parents of those harmed urged immediate restrictions; parents of thriving trans youth, clinicians and civil‑rights advocates urged caution and recommended continuing multidisciplinary care and study. Senators asked staff to collect additional medical literature and legal analyses and did not take a vote.