Dear [Your Elected Official],

<p>I urge to vote NO on HB1271 when it hits the House floor.</p> <p>This bill seems to require local elected officials to revote on existing ordinances and policies. In essence, there is an economic sanction against the local government entities if they do not comply. But, strictly speaking, there can be no guarantee that local elected officials will comply and vote according to the wishes of the sponsor. Shouldn't the bill be rewritten simply to say that local ordinances and policies that conflict with the bill are unenforceable? What the bill calls on local elected officials to do is on shaky legal ground. This bill is yet another attempt to micromanage the work of local governments around the state. It makes government less accountable to the people. The sponsor has shown no harm in local government policies.</p> <p>The bill's potential conflicts with the federal law and programs are troubling. What does a local government do if it is implementing a multi-year federal or regional grant that views gender identity discrimination as sex discrimination? It seems the bill could also conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that everyone must admit is the law of the land.</p> <p>Science increasingly views sex and gender in human beings as not a strict binary of male and female.  Why is a bill premised on the idea of there are only male and female in human beings necessary or even credible in the face of contemporary scientific understanding?</p> <p>Thank you for considering my views. </p> <p> </p>