 And you're live. Welcome back to part three of the Vermont House Human Services Committee on Wednesday, February 9, and first on our agenda is to talk about I believe there is a. An amendment to age 628 that was discussed. Yesterday, the day before it was discussed earlier. And I imagine. Tucker will you be walking us through the amendment. And I believe the amendment is on our committee web page. And if everyone can just pull it up on their. Computer so that we can see. Tucker well. While you go through and report that. It would be draft 1.1 you may just have to refresh the page. Oh, there we go. So then if you scroll down should be under there. So we're refreshing. We're refreshing our documents and for anyone who is. Okay, and scary exciting for us we have two visitors and so I just want to, we're not used to having visitors. So I want to. review the fact that visitors are observers and. Thank you. Okay, Tucker, we're ready for you finally. You caught me just as I was swallowing a bit of water. Thank you everyone good afternoon Tucker Anderson office of legislative council, you should have in front of you draft 1.1 of the committee strike all for age 628. So there's quite a bit of text here there are really only three changes from the bill is introduced, and I used my handy dandy and convenient digital highlighter to highlight those changes for you. We will begin on page three. And that is section two in subsection a online 16. The first request to change was to make a should a shall. So that the second sentence and subsection a now reads that the state shall adopt a simple process by which an individual may amend the marker on a birth certificate to reflect the individuals gender identity. The second instance of amendment here is the clause that immediately follows, which states that the ability to amend a marker on a birth certificate to reflect the individuals gender identity will include a third non binary marker to make this clear that is not a limitation on the property of the department that follows to add pronouns to the list of gender markers, but it does require that when the department goes rulemaking that at minimum a third non binary marker will be included. And the final instance of amendment is a new subsection D, which you can find on page four starting online seven, and this subsection brings a public records act exemption to the records that are created through the process here. Subsection D states that accept is otherwise required by law records relating to the amendment of a birth certificate pursuant to this chapter shall be confidential and shall be exempt from public inspection and copying under the public records act. There is an existing exemption in this current statute. I'm joining many of these records, and I'll give you some details within the subsection D that will help you understand the confines of this public records act exemption. First, the words in the opening salvo there in subsection D records relating to the amendment of a birth certificate. It would cover not only the records that would have historically been exempt from copying under the public records act which would include for example, the execution that's issued by the court related to the amendment of a birth certificate. But it would also now cover the request that is submitted to the Department of Health, and any other records that are created or acquired in the process of requesting a change to a birth certificate. This year committee is not overly familiar with some of the very discrete components of public records act exemptions. The phrase shall be confidential is mandatory, which means that the public agencies that hold these records would not have the discretion to release any of these records, it would be mandated to keep them confidential from public inspection and copying. Those are the changes within the strike all amendment. Happy to answer any questions you might have. We have a bunch of questions we will start with representative would then we'll go with our representative a frozen quiz and present. Thank you Mr Anderson. I just want to confirm these all look like the same recommendations that we received from the health department. When we discuss when we last discussed this bill so just confirming that this is really just putting them into the statutory language within the bill. Is that correct. All of the initial recommendations that were contained in the bill is introduced are brought in here with the three highlighted changes that I discussed and yes this would be incorporated into title 18. We will be hearing from the Department of Health and David and Glinder. Yes, I just was wanting to. We have discussed these three things previously I was just wanting to make sure they were the same three things they appeared to be but didn't know if you snuck any little thing in there and on it didn't look like you did. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just curious like on this confidentiality issue. If I went to public records and said I wanted to change the. So I wanted to change the child's birth certificate to reflect that I were their parents, even though not biologically. Would that record be confidential by virtue of what you just said or is that exempt from confidentiality and what defines what is confidential and what it's not. But it's an excellent question. So your specific question, the adoption act actually has very specific requirements for confidentiality that are contained in title 15 a chapter six, I believe, the article six sorry 15 a uses articles. And the confidentiality provisions within those statutes would still apply. This is not going to affect those if you take a look at the language in subsection D it states that the records relating to the amendment of a birth certificate pursuant to this chapter. And what is interesting about this chapter is that it is only this section. So really we're just talking in this instance about amending a birth certificate to reflect a change in gender identity. Those are the records that would be exempt. Okay. You will follow up. Well, this is a separate question. Okay, so thank you. And my question actually was around the wording of the records related to the amendment I just wondered if that meant that birth certificates in general would be confidential now but what I think what you're saying is that birth certificates that have been amended in this way would be confidential. Is that right. Right. The records that relate to the actual amendment process of the record, such as older records that might conflict with the current birth certificate, or the request itself. So remember that records under the Public Records Act means anything that's recorded on any surface digital otherwise. They include for example of email communication to the department to initiate the process would be confidential, but the actual final record would be a public record that's available. Okay. Thank you. Representative McFawn. Yeah, just have a get up and get my dog on one of my dogs. In section D. Except as otherwise required by law. What is required by law. That is an excellent question that may be better answered by David Englander. There are requirements that birth certificates under certain circumstances and official copies of birth certificates even are shared between state agencies for specific purposes in law. And maybe you can get more detail on what those purposes might be, and whether that would be inclusive of information about an amendment to a birth certificate. Thank you. Representative McFawn, if you would keep your question and Mr. Englander, if you could keep the answer to that when we finish questioning Tucker will get to you. Thank you. Because we have the top or representative McFawn your hand is still up. Is that a legacy. Okay. Representative Rosenquist. Thank you. I would verify if I heard it correctly. The markers relative to sex. Okay, or gender. There are three of those that are now acceptable on that certificate is that is that already in place or is that what this thing accomplishes and to to that same question would be. Other pronouns could be added at a later time at the present time I don't know that any pronouns are associated with with the current person to get a gender. So why would we be adding different pronouns that in the future. Two questions. The your first question sounds like a legal question, which I'll answer the second question sounds more of a policy issue that I probably should not wait into. I definitely should not wait into. So for the first part, think of the construction here as floor and ceiling. The floor minimum requirement that this is going to stand on the department will have to have three. The non binary marker is mandated here. Part of this process they're going to have to use that third marker. The ceiling, the maximum potential amount of other markers that might be used will be determined by rule. And as you correctly stated that delegated authority reads that the department may its discretionary adopt rules to add gender pronouns to the list of markers on a birth certificate. The mandatory requirement the department shall incorporate the third non binary marker ceiling discretion is that the department may adopt additional gender pronouns. Thank you. Good. I have one more. In our discussion earlier, it seemed like the main reason for the cell attestation for a gender change was because the non binary marker was one that people self attested to. And it felt like it was discriminatory if somebody wanting a sex change operation would have to do anything other than do self attestation. I'm going to make myself clear there or not. Okay. That's what I understood that the reason that we're allowing self attestation was because that's essential it happens with somebody that says they are non binary or non budget, etc. They're non binary. But to say that, if that self attestation because there's no other proof required. So a gender change operation. There are states I know that require that you bring bring in documentation that shows the operation that they have my understanding this bill says that it's not required. And the underlying reason is it would sound discriminatory and non binary person would just be able to say they are non binary. And that would change their agenda would have to prove it would. In other states would have to prove it in this case, we're saying they don't have to prove it. They are going to self attest to it also. So there are two components that I could respond to within your question. So for the first self attestation is listed as one of the methods that the department may adopt as a simple process for the individual to request a change. And that's one of what you were getting at, I think actually came from the department's testimony about how this issue came up, which was a potential inequity between self attestation for the purposes of using a non binary marker, versus the current statutory requirements for a change, for example, from male to female female to male, it would require court involved process along with documentation and attestation. If you need clarification on that I would suggest hearing the history from the department instead of my potentially fumbled explanation of how this came to be. It's a great memory because it was during David's testimony and this came up and I appreciate that. Thank you. I think you've answered it. Must David wanted to explain it a little bit earlier. That's fine. Thank you. And do we have at this point additional questions for legislative council. Okay. I would appreciate if the health department senior policy analyst. If David will. I'll get your title right sometime. Good afternoon. My name is David Englander. I'm the senior policy policy and legal advisor to the commissioner of health. For you for the record also for the record I've never heard Tucker Anderson stumble once so Madam chair where would where would you like me to, what would you like to hear from the department. Representative McFawn had a question and that legislative council thought would be better addressed by you. And then representative would had a question, which wasn't quite her question was are these the three things that we talked about before. My question, drawing from that will be the Department of Health. I understood had no problem or supported the bill as introduced and so with these amendments is that position the same. As a representative McFawn's question, we were primarily thinking of a court order that these aren't that these aren't that that if the department received a court order we would have to produce the documents, but that they would not be available to members the public under an excellent documents request. My question goes further now. Could the adopted parents get access to the birth certificate. It would depend on the circumstances from for a minor chop for a minor child. The child was an adopted child whether they're a minor or the 20 21. So I think. So I think the answer would be let's see if a child had, if a child had changed their gender and that and the birth certificate and there's a new birth certificate. If the, if the, if the adopt, if the adoptive parents my using that term correctly adopt the adopting parents request that their birth certificate they would get the birth certificate that reflected the gender that reflected the gender change. So they would get the birth certificate. That's in place after the agenda, gender change. Correct. The child, I mean, I haven't thought too much about this to be frank. The child could that the individual could get access to their earlier document. But I'm just thinking through this I don't I think that if a if an adopting parent was seeking the birth certificate will be the birth certificate of record, and that would reflect the gender change. Right, you still, you have a crinkly forehead. All right, well, what about the mother and father. biological mother and father. Either one of them could they get the birth certificate. If they wanted. They. Well, they do it. Can they do it now. They do, can they do what if, if, if, can my, if, if my biological mother and father wanted to get my birth certificate, can they get it today. They, they could, they, they could get your birth certificate today. If they were, they would be a certified birth certificate if they were your, they were your biological mother and father, so long as their parental rights had not been terminated. Okay, so my parental rights are terminated. I can get the birth certificate. The mother and father can get the birth certificate reflecting the reflecting the gender. I mean we're talking about after somebody has changed their gender is that right. Yes, they would say they would still get the current birth certificate which would reflect the gender change. Okay, today, could the adopting mother and father get it. I think Tucker may disagree. I think that any person seeking a pre gender change on a birth certificate, other than the individual would not would only receive the document that was later in time. Okay, and let me let me just play this thing out right. Representative McFawn, representative McFawn, it looks like legislative council was going to say something. Why, let's say if council if you don't mind, why don't you keep your not be on mute so that we can have a conversation because it's sounding like the three of you and we'll be listening need to have a conversation. So, David is is mostly right here and representative McFawn I will say that the public records law and the intersection with vital records, and very particularly because you've brought it up adoption records is endlessly complicated and getting through it requires a game of thrones level of malevolent patients. Any, any person can request a copy of a birth certificate, they can get an unofficial copy. After a change has been made under current law to the markers on that certificate. The new certificate replaces it for all official purposes. Whether you're requesting an unofficial copy or an official copy, you're getting the amended the amended new version of the certificate, you're not getting any of the old versions. Where that gets a bit more complicated is that this system is somewhat new, and there are quite a few original records that are likely still kept in places and David correct me if I'm wrong, such as the town clerks offices throughout the city. And for a brief moment in time as the vital record system was being updated in statute there was a requirement that after an amendment was made the original birth certificate would be destroyed by the town clerk if they had an original registration that was in conflict with the state system. But that was removed a few years ago because there was an extreme level of discomfort at the local level and the state level with having official documents even if they've been replaced being destroyed by the state registrations agents the town clerks. Another really complicated aspect of this is the adoption registry and what information is available from original birth certificates under the adoption act, because much of that information is confidential to begin with. So for example information about the birth parents is rarely if ever released, sometimes even to the adopted child in the future. So you are navigating with your questions a very complicated road. The easiest answer is to say that in most circumstances, and I'll go as far as to say 98 to 99% of the time. If a request for a birth certificate is made, it will be the newest version of that birth certificate that is released to the requester. Now I'm going to tell you why I asked that question. One of the reasons is there's a life that took place before that birth certificate was changed. There's a lot of things that happened in that life, like maybe somebody had a will drawn up. And the name is changed on the birth certificate and the sex. I was just wondering how the individual then could claim that inheritance. That's one thing. There's police records is all kinds of stuff. I thought that I was okay on this. But now wonder. So Representative McFarland, I'm not sure what was there a question in there. No, I'm just, I just explained why I asked that question because I thought I was pretty clear on that. That If, if, if say I left an inheritance to Bobby Jones. But now all of a sudden, we have an individual named Mary Jones. That took place in the life before Mary Jones was created on that birth certificate. One thing that I would know if you representative McFarland is that these particular records relating to the amendment of a birth certificate and the issuance of a new certificate are already confidential currently under law. They can be released to the individual who requested the changes who petitioned the court, that person can get their own records or I think even in some cases get a confirmation from the state registrar about any changes. Let me just confirm that. Yes, may authorize the state registrar to confirm the issuance of a new birth certificate. So the, there's no regime change here in the confidentiality of the records. So as things are currently operating, they will continue to operate with respect to the confidentiality of amended birth certificates. Representative small. One thing I will just add is that the bill before us today is really only focusing on the gender market changes. So name changes on birth certificates will will not be changing the process there. And I, I think I can speak for the trans and non binary community and recognizing that when a name change happens there is a lot of processes that go into place where you have to credit cards through social security through birth certificates through wills, etc. So it's a it's a complicated process overall and I think the hope with this bill is to make one piece of that process easier. Yes, one thing that I forgot to mention representative McFawn from some of your examples, many of the things that you brought up could be acquired and likely will be acquired through a court process. And you brought up, for example, last wills and testaments and trusts. The probate court could request any documentation or records that have been preserved, for example by the state registrar related to an amendment if they had questions about the identity of someone in an older will, comparing it to identity documents that existed a later period in time. And as David so eloquent. So that would happen only if you went through probate court. Correct. Correct. And you would likely go to probate court if there was any question as to your qualification to receive something through the will. Thank you. Thank you. Representative question. Did you have your hand? I did, but I'll defer to James first. Okay. I just want to clarify what I believe what was being said to clarify for representative McFawn if this is the case. If somebody in the example of, you know, name change, identity change, whatever you would say, the person who did so still has access to the records. So they're going to be able to prove, hey, listen, this is me. It's not like they're cut out of the process and not being able to say, you know, they're like, well, this isn't Johnny. Mary, whatever. And they have, they have that document. They have access to it. So like they're not cut off and so the evidence is still there. Thank you very much, James. I appreciate that. Things happen in life. And a person could be incapacitated. And maybe can't for the moment. I know a friend of mine that can't speak right now. But has an inheritance. So he can't. Someone's going to help him get it. But, you know, it's, and then to somebody that's helping them, can they get these records. I just want somebody get in a position where they can't get with students. You know, bring out life insurance policies and somebody's name. Taylor just talked about we're not changing the name here. But a lot of times when the birth certificate is changed, the name is changed too. That's what I'm, I'm less worried about it now. We're not talking about was all set, but I'm less worried about not being a. Okay. I mean, I mean, I was just going to say I'm not, I'm struggling as to why this is an issue when this bill doesn't cover that. Yeah, because this bill does not cover name change. But I think the crux that represented prevar highlighted is that access from the individual is always granted. Right. Right. Okay. I'm sorry. In the news these days, there's a lot of talk about people on one gender that want to play sports with a different gender, because of the change in body strength or whatever. Okay. So my question was the that, let's say, I'm a pretty good basketball player, but I'd rather become a better basketball player playing in a female league. I mean, can I go and change my, myself at a station, just get my name, my name, my, my sex change through the process of leave out line here. Having no thought that I would ever want to really do a gender change, but that I just wanted to play basketball on a female team. So what would prevent me from doing that, given this law, because of the self habitation. Okay, or whatever. I am not immediately aware of a Vermont law that regulates gender based participation in particular sports. So I would prefer from my personal experience as a runner who runs in a lot of competitions that self attestation is the basis at least for United States track and field association meets, and for any of the long distance races that I've ever participated in. So self attestation is, is what's required, you wouldn't have to show a first, I mean, a first certificate or anything like that. I'm saying that I'm not aware of a law that governs participation in sports based on gender, but that's not my area of expertise so I may be woefully uneducated on the matter. I don't shed any light on that. I share in Tucker's observation. I'm sorry, I share Tucker's observation I'm unaware of anything. Okay, represent, represent and smell. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, I mean that was my question. Okay, pretty much a hypothetical question, but I just was curious, as you probably gathered the self that is one of my hang ups. And sort of my final question on that aspect. Yeah, I think what comes up most for me in this policy is that it is specifically impacting trans and non binary people and I think to your example it would be rather extreme for someone to go through the process of amending their birth certificate solely to participate in a sport and a gender that they are actually not aligned with I think we've heard this rhetoric come up across the nation but I don't. There's no specific examples that have come up except for preventing trans youth from playing sports with the gender that they identify and understand themselves as There is not a prohibition. There's just a lot of national discourse about preventing trans youth from participating in sports that identify or that align with their gender identity. But there's this, the rhetoric comes up of what if a guy wants to participate in and women sports and they go through this process and I would say, there are many examples like that. And often, I would even argue it doesn't exist now and it would be a rather extreme example of the word to come up. And I think that is example of this. I think of the University of Pennsylvania swimmer, who is breaking all the swimming records through his prior male, but now identified as a female swimmer with a female team. So, and whether they have the transitional surgery or whatever I don't know, but my point was that if it's just self attestation what prevents somebody from understanding what I'm saying. I do I do. And I would say we're even seeing it in the Olympics right now where someone who is assigned female at birth has known themselves to be a woman. Also was disqualified because her testosterone levels were higher than what we identify for someone who's assigned female at birth so they accused her of doping. When in all actuality she just naturally produces higher testosterone levels because our bodies are just as type versus we are. So I don't think there is a specific biological lever that we can say at this point you can participate in the sport or vice versa. And I would say that the birth certificate in particular would not prevent or offer that opportunity for someone to participate in the sport I think that falls into the agency of education if we're talking about use sports and falls into the other arenas for various other sporting events as I think Legislative Council has highlighted in their own participation in sports. Thank you, of course. I was just going to say that we don't we're careful in this building not to make legislation that has maybe just one or two odd. Odd things that could happen. It's really about the majority of the work the important work that this. I see the discriminatory aspect of this for transgender people versus people that just declare themselves non violent. I understand that and so that would make me vote for it based on just a discriminatory aspect. But I'm still concerned about the. When you call it out. Self had a station. Because of how it possibly could be computers. I would say that self had a station is the norm in American life. I'm sorry to say that last part again. The actual requirement that a birth certificate be produced is actually extremely unusual. I don't mean that the legal sense I mean that in the practical sense it's very unusual that we actually have to produce our birth certificate or the birth certificate of our, our spouse or offspring to actually achieve something. It's just, it's very unusual. The much more usual, and I say this in the legal in the legal sense the much more the norm is self attestation. Are there other questions right now. No question but one, one more piece that I will highlight is just looking at the work that was done around drivers licenses and how that is that it essentially would be a same similar process to self attestation for someone to declare their gender on their driver's license and we would have the same process for birth certificate and I would say driver's licenses of course are more often presented in work and being over, etc, a more common identification that we would use. And we have moved in a way to make that an easier amendment. We have made it an easier amendment if you want to change your gender marker on a license, we added that X gender marker and then even it's the same process if you want to go to an X gender marker or from M to F or F to M on the license as well. It's the same process for any of those changes. So attestation. My, my question to the committee is are we, are we ready to make to move forward on this. Okay. I would entertain a motion. I do that we find favorable draft number 1.1 of each 628. There's been a motion on the floor to accept or. Yes. Oh, first we have to do it two times. We have to vote on the bill. The strike all. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, good. That was my understanding. Okay. Representative small is there a second. Second. Second by representative McFawn. Is there any further discussion? And if the clerk. Is ready to call the roll. Senator McFawn. Before I vote, Madam chair, I want to thank the witnesses for the amount of information that they brought to us. And I'd like to thank. Taylor for the bringing the bill forward. Thank you. For the information that he's provided the committee as well. My vote is yes. I imagine that Taylor is very appreciative of that. She is very appreciative. Please continue to call the roll. Representative McFawn. Yes. Representative Wood. Yes. Representative small. Yes. Representative McFawn. Representative McFawn. Yes. Representative Garfuno. Yes. Representative Whitman. Yes. Representative payala. Yes. Representative grid war. Yes. Representative noise. Yes. Representative Bromstead. Yes. And representative Pew. Yes. 11 zero zero. Okay. We may, we probably will not put this on the calendar for. notice because we don't in general, as a process, don't like to split up a bill. So it would be a notice, I guess on Tuesday and be ready to vote on it Wednesday and Thursday. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much all of you and I'm going to wish you good luck. We are five minutes late for another topic.