bonnie bruno

I oppose SB 459. I want to begin by acknowledging the people who have concerns about privacy, and safety in certain spaces, and fairness in sports – and to say that SB 459 is not the solution to these concerns. NH already has laws on the books that protect people from harm, regardless of whom is harmed or who perpetrates the harm, or where the harm occurs. Privacy is not meaningfully, or measurably assured by SB 459. And SB 459 does not provide guidance to address people’s concerns in athletics, which are better handled at the local level anyway, not by writing tate sanction discrimination into NH’s statewide antidiscrimination laws. What SB 459 does do however is to create a legal classification that allows for certain forms of discrimination to be treated as lawful under New Hampshire State law. But SB 459 doesn’t say, “go discriminate”, it says, in effect, this kind of discrimination will not count as unlawful discrimination in certain circumstances. IN OTHER WORDS, SB 459 changes NH’s anti-discrimination law to allow legally sanctioned discrimination against a group of people in certain circumstances. I’ll be frank - That’s the trick of SB 459. It’s like a legal sleight of hand in my opinion – the “this is not that bill that has come previously and has been vetoed three times already by two republican Governors.” When Gov Sununu vetoed HB 396 in 2024, the first of “NH bathroom bills,” he described the bill as attempting to solve problems that have not presented themselves in NH—and that HB 396 was antithetical to NH’s civic spirit. And Governor Ayotte, in vetoing HB 148 and SB 268, acknowledged there are concerns— but ultimately concluded that bills like SB 459 are overly broad, impractical to enforce, and risk creating an exclusionary environment in our state. I don’t agree with Gov Ayotte on most things (or Gov Sununu for that matter) but at least we agree that writing discrimination into state law and creating an exclusionary environment is not prudent governance to protect privacy rights, physical safety, or participation in athletics. Once a precedent like SB 459 is established, let’s be honest, it will not stay contained—it becomes the foundation for future expansion of state-sanctioned discrimination against a group of Granite Staters. This bill comes to the House from the Senate, and it is shaped by a clear legislative history. The House now has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to examine this bill in light of that history, and to find SB 459 inexpedient to legislate.