Judiciary committee hears hours of public testimony on HB 148, a bill to allow classification by biological sex in some settings

The House Judiciary Committee spent more than three hours hearing public testimony on House Bill 148, a proposal that would allow classification by “biological sex” for three specific contexts: intimate spaces (bathrooms and locker rooms), houses of correction, and certain athletic competitions.

Representative Jim Kofalt, the prime sponsor, told the committee the bill "essentially addresses 3 situations" and that it would not itself "mandate the separation of sexes" but would allow local policymakers to make those decisions. "This bill," he said in his opening remarks, "allows discretion and latitude for local policymakers to clarify those things for their own purposes and set a policy that everyone can live with."

Supporters who testified said the bill simply restores the ability of school boards, employers and corrections officials to make safety and privacy decisions without the threat of litigation. Betsy Harrington, a parent who testified in favor, said a Kearsarge-area youth soccer contest had been disrupted when girls refused to play against a team with a biological male player.

Opponents — including dozens of parents, medical and mental-health professionals, civil-rights advocates, and transgender Granite Staters — urged the committee to oppose the measure. Executive Councilor Karen Leo Hill argued HB 148 would be "a major step backwards in New Hampshire," noting the Legislature in 2018 added gender identity to the state’s nondiscrimination protections. "Discrimination is unacceptable," she said.

Several speakers raised enforcement and privacy concerns: how would a school, business or correctional facility determine a person’s "biological sex" day to day without intrusive measures? Representative Alice Wade, who testified she is a transgender woman, asked rhetorically how a county would check someone’s original birth certificate at a restroom door and warned the bill could enable criminal penalties or bounties as have been proposed in other states.

Experts and advocacy groups also pointed to risks in correctional settings and in mental-health care. Attorneys and policy advocates said forcing placement of transgender inmates according to birth-assigned sex could increase risks of sexual violence and other harms. The ACLU of New Hampshire, represented at the hearing, warned the bill would permit discrimination and could conflict with federal law.

Committee members asked multiple witnesses about the bill’s undefined term "biological sex," and several testifiers — including medical and athletics experts — pointed out there is no single agreed legal or medical definition that resolves chromosomes, gonads, hormones and secondary sex characteristics.

No formal committee action or vote on HB 148 was recorded at the hearing; the committee recessed the HB 148 public hearing later in the morning and scheduled follow-up business. Several witnesses submitted written testimony and documentation for the record.

Why it matters: HB 148 would reshape when and how government and private institutions can separate people in intimate or institutional settings, potentially affecting schools, prisons, sports programs and public accommodations statewide. Supporters said the bill protects privacy and safety by restoring discretion to local authorities; opponents said it would legalize discrimination and heighten risks for transgender and gender-nonconforming New Hampshire residents.

Looking ahead: The committee took testimony from a large, cross‑section of the public and indicated it will consider additional written material and deliberation in later work sessions. The hearing record includes dozens of written statements and a lengthy public comment record.