New Hampshire Becomes First State In New England To Ban Medically Transitioning Minors

New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte has signed two bills into law that restrict gender-transition-related medical procedures for minors, making the Granite State the first in New England to take the step.

“Medical decisions made at a young age can carry lifelong consequences, and these bills represent a balanced, bipartisan effort to protect children,” Ayotte said in a statement after signing the bills.

The legislation, passed by the Republican-led legislature in July, bars the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for individuals under 18, with a provision that allows minors currently undergoing such treatments to continue them after the law takes effect on January 1, 2026.

A second bill limits breast surgeries for minors to medically necessary cases, such as those involving cancer, injury, or congenital malformation. Gender-transition-related surgeries for minors will no longer be permitted under the new law.

Supporters of the bills argue that the measures are intended to protect children from making life-altering medical decisions they may later regret. New Hampshire State Sen. Kevin Avard (R-District 12) said personal testimony played a key role in shaping the legislation.

“They realized that they did long-term and irreparable damage to their bodies,” Avard said, referencing individuals who had detransitioned. “The testimony was overwhelming — they were confused.”

The legislation comes amid a growing national debate over gender-affirming care for minors. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block a similar law in Tennessee, effectively allowing states to regulate or restrict such medical practices. That decision has encouraged lawmakers in several states to pursue comparable legislation.

Opponents of the New Hampshire laws argue they undermine medical autonomy and parental rights. Chris Erchull, an attorney with GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), called the move “devastating” for families with transgender-identifying children.

“It’s legislation that sends a message that the legislature thinks it knows better than doctors and the families of transgender young people what kind of care they need and should have access to,” Erchull said.

Internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released last year, totaling hundreds of pages, have drawn renewed attention to the risks and controversies surrounding youth transition procedures.

In one leaked transcript, a Canadian WPATH-affiliated endocrinologist admitted that children undergoing gender treatments often lack the developmental capacity to understand long-term consequences. “Most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of a brain space to really, really, really talk about [fertility] in a serious way,” he said. Despite that, he acknowledged a priority to make children “happier in the moment.”

Critics argue this mindset reflects a departure from medical ethics, accusing WPATH of functioning as a political shield rather than a scientific body.

Proponents of restrictions often cite concerns about informed consent, long-term health outcomes, and the irreversible nature of some interventions. Opponents argue that such treatments can be medically necessary and potentially life-saving for some individuals experiencing gender dysphoria.

READ NEXT: Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Ban On Transgender Medical Care For Minors