SB 812 would amend Hawaii’s vital statistics law to allow a person’s sex designation on a birth certificate to be changed to male, female, or “X,” the bill’s third, non-binary gender option. It removes the current requirement that an applicant submit an affidavit from a licensed physician or physician assistant documenting gender transition treatment, and replaces it with a new application process administered by the Department of Health. Under the bill, an adult may apply for their own birth certificate change, while a parent or legal guardian may apply for a minor; the application must include specified identifying information, and adults must sign under penalty of perjury and have the form notarized.
Impact
The bill would amend section 338-17.7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes governing when the Department of Health must issue a new birth certificate. It would add sex designation changes as a covered category, define “X” as a third non-binary gender option, and require the department to create and publish the necessary forms for all new-certificate applications. The measure also preserves existing procedures for paternity, adoption, and certain law-enforcement safety requests, while changing the evidentiary standard for gender-marker changes on birth certificates beginning January 1, 2026.
Sentiment
The available bill text suggests a generally supportive and administrative tone, with the measure framed as a continuation of Hawaii’s prior expansion of gender marker options on driver’s licenses and state ID cards. The findings cite the smooth implementation of the 2019 law and point to other jurisdictions that have extended similar options to birth certificates. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s stated purpose and structure.
Contention
The main policy change is the removal of the medical affidavit requirement for adults seeking a sex designation change, which may be viewed as reducing barriers to updating birth records. For minors, the bill still requires a licensed health care provider’s statement that the request is consistent with the minor’s identity, which could be a point of debate over whether the bill goes far enough or still imposes gatekeeping. Another possible area of contention is the inclusion of the “X” marker and the broader question of how state records should reflect gender identity versus sex assigned at birth, but no formal objections are included in the provided materials.