We have two stories this morning, “ripped” from the virtual pages of our New Hampshire headlines. The first follows the travails of two teen boys who identify as girls who want to play school sports. But the evil legislature and that Sununu person signed a law separating students in sports in grades 5-12 by their actual sex. This challenge was predicted or anticipated, complete with conspiracy theories (our contribution to that can be found here), and while the AG and Governor say no, we never meant for this to happen and that they want to defend the law, it did. A judge has their request.
The families of Parker Tirrell, 15, and Iris Turmelle, 14, filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to overturn the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” that Republican Gov. Chris Sununu signed into law last month. While Turmelle doesn’t plan to play sports until December, Tirrell sought an emergency order allowing her to start soccer practice Monday evening.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Landya McCafferty granted the request with just hours to spare, finding that Tirrell had demonstrated likely success on the merits of the case. The two sides now have 14 days to schedule a hearing on the plaintiffs’ broader motion for a preliminary order blocking the state from enforcing the law while the case proceeds.
The question remains how well they will defend it to prevent the order from blocking it statewide. The lawsuit claims the teens are being denied education opportunities due to the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which is an odd point. You can get a sports education anywhere. SCOTUS recently “decided not to reverse a Circuit Court of Appeals decision not to overturn a district court preliminary injunction” on a Tile IX case with immediate bearing. Contrary to my original interpretation, this procedural move won’t likely carry much weight. A more salient point might be that the existence of most public schools in the Granite State already denies students educational opportunities by wasting taxdollars not to teach them to read or do math. The other problem?
The judge questioned how the law, as applied to Tirrell, would protect girls from unfair competition given that the state isn’t contesting evidence that she has no physiological advantage after taking puberty-blocking medication to prevent bodily changes such as muscle development.
Medical research (evidence) shows that they already have a physical advantage.
Even before puberty, when the differences effectuated by the influence of sex hormones sets in, from a purely genetic perspective, biological males are significantly advantaged.
Case in point, one study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine extensively researched peer-reviewed studies on the health-related fitness data of 85,000 Australian children aged 9-17. It found that when “compared with 9-year-old females, 9-year-old males were faster over short sprints (9.8%) and 1 mile (16.6%), could jump 9.5% further from a standing start (a test of explosive power), could complete 33% more push-ups in 30 seconds and had 13.8% stronger grip.”
Another study of Greek children, published in the European Journal of Sports Science compared 6-year-old females and 6-year-old. Researchers found that the “boys completed 16.6% more shuttle runs in a given time and could jump 9.7% further from a standing position. In terms of aerobic capacity, 6- to 7-year-old boys showed a higher absolute and relative (to body mass) VO2max than 6- to 7-year-old females”.
Multiple studies confirm this, but the NH AG office is not (allegedly) making such points to defend the law. Puberty blockers are dangerous to kids. They can cause cancer, heart problems, and death. Playing on sports teams is the least of their worries, but there is evidence blockers do not create parity, and it would be excellent for the AG office to consider this in their defense.
The NH AG isn’t doing it all wrong. They have filed a brief in the case of two New Hampshire residents arrested for carrying firearms in the Bay State without a Massachusetts carry permit.
In an amicus brief filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, New Hampshire’s attorney general is arguing that the potential for punishment when crossing state lines violates the Second Amendment by imposing “overly burdensome regulations.”
“Massachusetts applies their law very, very strictly to nonresidents,” said Assistant Attorney General Brandon Chase. “They’re one of the only states, it might be the only state, that allows no reciprocal carry. Meaning, if you have a firearms license from any jurisdiction, Massachusetts doesn’t honor it.”
We’ve got a bit more detail on the case here, but long story short, two guys driving in MA with handguns got the big book of no guns thrown at them and face felony charges. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear the case on September 9, and the NH AG’s office passed them a little note saying how unfair they think it is. I’m just guessing, but I bet they toss the charges. The case has gotten national attention. More than a few insiders have likely reached out to suggest that should they rule against the defendants, the case could go to the US Supreme Court, where they’ll lose. “They” meaning the people who oppose reciprocity in all 50 states for anyone with a license to carry.
We will try to monitor this to see how it proceeds.
