A missed opportunity for true leadership: Choosing repetition over courage while leaving privacy, fairness, and safety unprotected.
As the NH State Representative for The Independent Women’s Network, an athlete, a girls’ and women’s gymnastics coach, and an advocate for women’s and girls’ single-sex spaces, I expected more from our first female governor. This was your moment to lead New England—to become the first governor in the region to affirm the basic truth that biological sex matters in locker rooms, restrooms, sports, and prisons. Instead, you chose the path of least resistance by vetoing SB 552.
Your veto statement rings hollow: you claim you’ve been asking for a “thoughtful, narrow way” while protecting the privacy, safety, and rights of all Granite Staters. Yet SB 552 is that measured approach. It simply permits distinctions based on biological sex in limited, high-stakes settings where privacy and fairness are on the line. The science is clear, the concerns are widespread, and the public supports it. Repeatedly vetoing common-sense protections while offering no meaningful alternative isn’t thoughtful leadership—it’s kicking the can down the road and leaving girls exposed.
Just a day before your veto of SB552, the dangers of this approach became even clearer. Former Democratic State Rep. Stacie Laughton—celebrated as the first “transgender” legislator in New Hampshire—was sentenced to 33 years in federal prison for the sexual exploitation of children, including horrific abuse involving toddlers at a daycare.
At the recent Statehouse press conference, Rep. Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien powerfully testified about repeatedly seeing Laughton in the women’s restrooms here at the Capitol: “I recall no meaningful open debate in our society about allowing men into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, and prisons… I often saw former Representative Laughton… in the women’s bathrooms here. I knew something was very wrong with Representative Laughton, but stayed silent because there was nothing I could do. The law was not on my side. He was affirmed as a woman at every turn.” This was after prior troubling behavior, yet before his conviction for these monstrous crimes against young children.
The timing could not be more significant. I proudly signed the ICONS Amicus brief in United States v. Skrmetti alongside 135 female athletes, coaches, and parents. The brief emphasized that biological sex is binary, immutable, and material — rooted in chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, and physiology. It detailed how post-puberty male advantages (greater muscle mass, strength, bone density, skeletal structure, etc.) persist even after testosterone suppression, creating unfair and unsafe conditions for female athletes. It argued forcefully that sex-segregated sports, spaces, and opportunities are necessary to ensure fairness, safety, and equal opportunity for women and girls, and that forcing females to compete against or share intimate spaces with biological males undermines Title IX’s core purpose.
In that landmark 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s protections for minors, ruling that laws distinguishing based on biological sex and medical reality do not trigger heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court recognized states’ legitimate authority to draw reasonable, evidence-based distinctions—especially where minors, safety, fairness, and irreversible medical decisions are involved—without being forced to equate gender identity with biological sex. Legal analysts like Will Chamberlin have noted that Skrmetti cabins the reach of prior cases like Bostock and reinforces that biological sex remains a valid classification in contexts like sports, privacy, and child safeguarding. This ruling directly bolsters bills like SB 552 and HB 1442. You now have clear Supreme Court backing to sign them into law and protect Granite State women and girls.
To men who identify as women entering female-only spaces: Just because many women remain silent does not mean we are comfortable or that we accept your presence. Women are often too polite — or too afraid of confrontation, violence, or being labeled bigots — to speak up. We know you are male, and your presence in our private spaces negates the very purpose of those spaces: safety, privacy, and dignity while performing intimate bodily functions. Silence is not consent or affirmation; it is frequently born of fear and the knowledge that management or authorities may offer no support. These spaces belong to women. Your insistence on entering them, despite knowing the discomfort and risk it causes the vast majority of us, demonstrates a profound lack of empathy and staggering entitlement.
This is not a hypothetical. When we erase sex-based boundaries, predators exploit the confusion, and women and girls bear the risk. As Genspect and many detransitioners have documented, hasty affirmations and medical transitions often stem from social contagion, mental health issues, or pressure rather than genuine, persistent dysphoria — leaving a trail of regret, medical harm, and eroded trust in institutions that should have protected vulnerable youth. New Hampshire’s motto is “Live Free or Die.” Women and girls cannot live free when their most intimate spaces and hard-earned opportunities are compromised.
Governor Ayotte’s political calculations appear to be driving this veto. With a roughly 50% approval rating and Democrats struggling to field a credible challenger in what is supposed to be a strong year for them, she seems to have made peace with the LGBT lobby. Without their support, Democrats lack the muscle to seriously contest her. Both Ayotte and former Governor Sununu appear to have concluded that the easiest path to reelection is to throw the women and girls of New Hampshire under the bus.
Governor Ayotte, if you are dissatisfied with the specific wording of the legislation, why have you not worked directly with the sponsors and co-sponsors to suggest improvements or collaborate on revised language? It appears you are simply repeating the same excuses and blaming the Legislature for the wording rather than engaging in constructive dialogue. Is there any meaningful communication or collaboration occurring between the Governor’s office and the bill sponsors?
I respectfully ask for a clear explanation: Why did you veto SB 552 despite the overwhelming evidence, public support, survivor testimony, and now explicit Supreme Court guidance? What specific “narrow way” do you propose instead, and when will you deliver real protections for the privacy, safety, and fairness of New Hampshire’s women and girls?
Biological reality isn’t bigotry. It’s common sense. This is not protection for “all.” It is a failure to protect half. We are deeply disappointed, and we will not stop fighting for the privacy, dignity, and fairness our daughters deserve.
New Hampshire women and girls are watching—and we deserve better. I urge you to reconsider and sign SB 552 and HB 1442 into law.
Bronwyn Sims
NH State Leader, Independent Women’s Network
Girls’ and Women’s Gymnastics Coach, Athlete
