Judiciary Committee - Senate

Representative Gazaway. House bill twelve. Eighty five. You're recognized thank you Mr chair members. We have another series of technical corrections bills and one. We also have the answers senator flowers questions from last week about about violations so we'll get to that. when we get to that bill first on the agenda is house bill twelve eighty five which is the technical actions bill to to title fourteen. you all know the drill by now I'm happy to to go through these a number of the sections one through nine eleven fourteen through nineteen twenty one through twenty three twenty five and twenty seven through thirty one this concerns a similar issue as before because there's no criminal sentence other than a fine work changing at the violation. In sections ten and twenty. Because the code section set out impose a sentence that does not specify the class of misdemeanor then they're gonna be class A. misdemeanors section twelve deals with section fourteen fifty six two oh four of the code and subsection D. ten of that section is being amended so that the correct term. The defined terms used in the code section that corrects the defined terms residential building design elements not residential design elements and then sections thirteen twenty four and twenty six the code section set out of being amended to subdivide the code sections for clarity. The gentleman you've heard the explanation of the bill and questions from the committee. Anyone the audience wish to speak for against the bill. Tucker you like clothes for your bill yes I'm close with bill appreciate a good vote I move do pass are we have a motion to passive second sent flowers or any discussion. All those of favour say aye aye All opposed graduations Tucker you will pass thank you Mr chair. Next on the agenda is house bill twelve eighty six. This is the technical corrections bill for title fifteen of the code. I'm this amendment very sections one three and then five through nine amend various sections of the motion picture industry development act of two thousand nine to make sure the sections use the correct defined term that term being tax incentive section two correct Sir grammatical error and makes the provision consistent with someone which in the motion picture industry development in two thousand nine. Section for updates the name of a fund and the motion picture industry Development Act to its current name and then section ten repeals two code sections that have expired. Any questions from committee. Anyone the audience wish to speak for against the bill. You saying none of. Your clothes for your bill yes Sir I'm closer Preciado voting and move to pass are we have a motion to passive secretary senator flowers. Any discussion all in favor say aye All opposed the Bill pass and dark. Thank you Mr chair. The next bill on the agenda is house bill twelve eighty eight. Which is the technical corrections bill for title twenty. Sections one and six. Repeal a section and relocated to a more appropriate code section and then sections two three four and five of the bill amended for clarity and consistency of terms. Are you for the bill any questions from committee. Anyone in the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Your clothes for your bill senator Strom I'm close appreciate a good vote a move do pass are we have a motion to pass in the second sent flowers. Any discussion. All those of favour say aye All opposed graduation starting your bill passed. Thank you Mr the next bill on the agenda. This house bill twelve ninety three which is the technical corrections bill to title twenty five. All it does is repeal subchapter due to a sunset provision. Yes. Are you finished yes Sir Tucker okay any any questions from committee. Anyone the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Your clothes for your bill senator yes Sir I'm closed I'm I appreciate a good vote I make a motion to pass are we have motion to pass in the second sent flowers all those in favor say aye. All opposed. You will pass center. Thank you Mr chair there was one bill. That I pull down last week. in order to answer questions for senator flowers it was the bill. Senate corrections bill for title five which is house bill twelve seventy nine. I don't see it on the agenda but I think it's the last one. Okay. we have the answer for senator flowers and I'd like just go ahead and knock it out if it's okay with the chair of the committee. Mr Miller can. If it's okay with us to to to. Consider the bill now Mr Miller can. Right. So I I passed over last week because of a question from senator flowers. I thought I would stay on the agenda but I guess it did not. but I I don't see it. It may have been out at. So actually I so Mr Miller just mention that it's on the Senate counter we actually did not I don't think we'll pass that bill is passed over because of a question from senator flowers. Okay awesome well my my recollections that passed over it That was my record collection each of you pull it down to get some clarity on the penalties for violation to see if they were consistent. With in the code and I notice the bills that you run the day that. S. Trican language and putting in violation don't even have. Penalty range. A. And so I mean it's got to be somewhere someone we we have an answer that question with with chairs permission I'll ask Mr Miller. Just to answer senator flowers question on that point well we we did pass the bill out of committee with the recommendation do pass with with the idea that you were to get back with Senator flowers with the question she had. Okay. Yes sent flowers thank you. So I've understood. It was not thinking that maybe. Passover pool down whatever I don't remember vote on it. Let. I would assume that there would have been. An amendment. That would have. Dealt with that Fine that was listed in there because the fines appear to be of the same fine for Class B. misdemeanor at least it's not a Class say. So if Mr Miller would speak to that I mean. Please. Good morning everyone Matthew Miller with legislative research again not here to testify either for or against any bills but these are Commission bills that are staff assisted with so I'm here to help explain Arkansas Code five four two oh one addresses the fine range for a violation and it's got kind of a two fold aspect one is that if the violation doesn't have a dollar amount set out in the code it's between zero one hundred dollars. Or the other can be on that statute is if the statute sets out a specific fine range then that's the fine range. So we do have a lot of statutes that have specific fine ranges for violations and don't just to fall back to the zero to one hundred dollars I just a quick look through title five there's thirteen that have a specified hundred dollars or less three of them were two fifty or less four or five hundred or less five four thousand or less one was five thousand or less than two were actually ten thousand or less. And classified as violations of title five. Yes sent flowers. Thank you for that information I just don't understand how you could have such a. Large range going up to five thousand dollars that's even beyond the class A. misdemeanor. I I don't see how we can do this but I guess we can. but. I think that this needs to be looked at because you're talking about a violation. And with the range of the fines to go along with this bill that I saw it looked like more for a. Class a misdemeanor I don't remember what the top number was. But. You know what we call something a violation that's not even reported to the Arkansas crime information center up when you have a. A fine that would be a Class C. misdemeanor on be at least a Class say any Class say is going to be reported to the Arkansas crime information center so I don't understand this. I mean if if the offense is so well full. That. It says the large fine. But it didn't go on anybody's record. To be captured from Arkansas crime information center I don't I don't get that. Do you have any kind of I know you're not. The one that. I mean it's there in the code I don't have an explanation you know if it was going to become a misdemeanor that have to be a criminal and I jail S. time associated with that they would need to be amended to add that or I mean the fine amount down we're happy to do whatever we are going to we are going to take about a sure about a minute it'll take about a minute to pull that video up of last week I think I'm discover discover the issue Mr Cher I don't think it was a title five bill that we passed over it was another bill that we passed over an inmate in one of the ones that was on the agenda for today okay I think it was this twelve eighty five the first one that we pass they for title fourteen where there's punishment between three hundred and a thousand I think it was twelve eighty five that we passed over Mr chair that's. The. We did pass over twelve eighty five whatever whatever yeah so we've at least resolve that confusion. The arts and flowers you're recognized okay and so. This is the one that has the. The violation. And then punishment by a fine. Not less than three hundred to to no more than a thousand. Which I think probably that thousand dollar I think that to a least a Class B. so we. That's a question. I would need to check that so far as to be certain the only thing I would ask of Senator Tucker. Is that are you on call revision yes ma'am. I think code revision needs to look closer. At a. These classifications particularly the ones that have the. Violations with the range of finds that go all the way up I don't think is necessary least so that. Something can't be classified as a misdemeanor with no. A jail time. A the so that's what these bills are addressing if there's no jail time they're not classified as misdemeanors anymore they're classified only as violations. Well I've seen a lot of cases where. A person convicted of a misdemeanor get to know jail time but a heavy. fine so I'm still not getting this and I think that the club code revision should take a look at this and look at the statutes that are in the code. And try to make some sense out of it for the public because that I mean it is smacks of unfairness to me. Somebody's getting assessed a fine of five thousand dollars I think that would even might be considered a felony. I pulled up Senator and Class B. as a maximum fine carries a maximum fine of a thousand dollars and a Class C. misdemeanor carries a maximum fine of up twenty five hundred dollars right so let me we're talking about felony. Persson's here so I just think that the the code revision committee needs to take a look at this and maybe at the next session or something come back with the. Some recommendations for legislation. I think you have a I think you have so we have a a pop up making it a very good point my only concern about it is. Some of those may be substantive changes rather than technical changes and so it may be outside the scope of the code revision commission but I'd I absolutely understand what you're saying. Our let's get this all and that we did pass over twelve eighty five last week we passed it today yes when passed today twelve. Of. Twelve seventy nine is the one we passed last week yes Sir okay yeah we're good. Thank you Mr thank you members you're welcome. Thank. That Okay next on the agenda is a. Senator Clark. Senate bill three eleven. Mr I'm passing on both my bills DCFS is asked of me to a mental and agreeable so but we won't be able to do that until Wednesday. Okay. Centerplate. Senate bill two seventy. We do have an amendment for Senate bill two seventy correct that's correct thank you Mr. Thank president amendment first. Yeah you're recognized to present the amendment okay so The Amendment was very simple on page two line seven it's adding that just a minute. Okay. Is it adding the fact that they need to knowingly commit this. You know act. Just inserting the word knowingly. All right members get a question on the amendment. I have a motion passed an amendment. motion second. All those of favour say aye. All opposed. March you may proceed with the bill thank you Mr chairman of the committee trying to take a very reasonable approach to dealing with the problem that is a reason in recent years but basically you know we've probably all been in the situation where you had an emergency might have to use the wrong bathroom that's not what this is trying to to address. This When you have changing facilities and restrooms in places where people are expected going in there for the purpose of. Being in some state of undress them obviously you can have uncomfortable situations for anybody that that may be using that facility that's why for centuries we've designated a his and hers but what this bill seeks to do. Is if you have minors in the restroom or in a dressing room or something like that we try we're trying to. Prevent. Of. In a violation of their privacy I guess it would so to speak for exposing them to something they shouldn't be exposed to so it does not make it illegal to go in the wrong facility as assigned to your sex. But it does make it illegal to remain in there if there's to knowingly remaining it remain in there if there's a minor present so you know if we're going to respect somebody's. Desire to go in the wrong facility they need to respect the desire of other patrons to not be exposed to that and issues that. One is not otherwise occupied by a minor. I think the bill is pretty self explanatory except for one thing you'll see several places in the bill we're it's adding language to existing code that if the offense is a felony or class A. misdemeanor because this offense of criminal indecency with a minor has been a felony and all those sections of code. We're creating. of chance where the if you're guilty under this new section it would be a misdemeanor the first two times it would be a felony of the third time so therefore they had to add that language about whether or not it was a felony or misdemeanor that add that to those other sections or code. And I think it's probably best if I take questions at this point. I have five questions Senator Blake who knowingly I mean who makes a decision how long. That individual stays in the bathroom well of course the prosecutor makes the decision on whether or not they have a case whether or not they seek to prosecute but The way I would see it. Is somebody we would request that this person leave the. The changing room where the restroom or the facility and that person would refuse to leave so earlier version of the bill said enter in or remain and we change that to say enter in hand remains so you know if you if you go in and you realize that there's a minor president and you do an about face there's no violation of the bill of this section a code. But if you remain in there and a parent or or an employee or somebody another patron they say look you need to get out here to work under you you know you the only be hanging out in here then obviously there would be a threat of prosecution and of course the prosecutor would have to have the ability to prove that they knowingly what you in my mind is basically because somebody has informed them that they need to exit. And now we're just common courtesy you know even if I was in the men's room and somebody asked me to exit I do my best to let them have it until I until they were done then I come back but if. Or any other any other questions from committee members. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr. I'm a star with two easy questions okay I need a means. The first one is on section twenty three. On page seven. You look at line fourteen it looks to me like there's a Scribner's error error there. Sexual indecency with a child calmer section five dash fourteen dash one ten comma if and there's a section senate number and that's the. Seems like there's a line missing there is supposed to say if the offense is a felony or some so I didn't bring my laptop have you looked at this section code yet I have and. Let me see let me get the right to be here. So. Subsection for that it's amending it says sex crime includes without event limitation and then capital a the following offenses. Little irate little to sexual indecency with a child. You know some lower case Roman numeral two that that's what that is program in case. A lower case Roman numeral three sexual assault in the first degree lower case Roman numeral for sexual assault in the second degree and that's what's being. Yes I'm sorry it's it's subsection to sexual indecency with a child. And there's and if they're in the bill but there's nothing for it to apply to in the in the existing code section. Well obviously you're on the code revision Committee and and you're probably the most qualified person here to know if that is the error or not it's something that we can get corrected if if it is will investigate that I do think it would be a substantive change because you have a bunch of other sections in here that say if the offense is a felony or there other times where it says if the offense is a felony or a multiple misdemeanor whatever the languages and so I think that's that's I'm not trying to attribute intent to use but I'm I'm assuming that's what. This was intended to be there and it's just not there and it would be a sudden change I don't I don't think the code revision commission confection. Okay we'll proceed with other questions and we'll look into that one yes this second one is on page two and this is really the primary need of the bill. Subsection B.. R. A. basically the exceptions to the crime. Yes. And then the first exception subsection one with a minor under seven years of age if the person is the minor's parent. There's no language about gender in here so there's nothing that would prevent an adult man from taking his five year old son. Into the women's room. And remaining in there and and not being a crime. Under under your bill here. That may be a good catch that would definitely not be the intent of the bill. Okay so now I'm gonna get this kind of some more bigger picture questions okay. I guess the two just at the top to kind of set the scope for the whole thing are are you aware of any instances of this happening in Arkansas where a child was threatened and if so what what were those instances. no as far as if you from a public record I mean I've I've had. Constituents who are attendance at restaurants gas stations things like that that say you know it has been a problem there been complaints from coming customers and and I've been found in the situation. Where they're trying to tell somebody don't do that. Okay and was there. This. Was there harm as a result of it or or just a concern. To the concerned over lack of authority. Okay my and then the sort of the next broad. Question is are you aware of any other states have passed similar legislation. No I'm not I mean I know that others it depends on how broad you use the term similar. I don't see this bill as a ban on somebody using the facilities marked for the opposite sex it doesn't do that at all it just says that you're going to respect other people's. Minors it and give them the privacy that physically without your presence. Well. You know it's it's going to be hard to ask questions without getting into some gory details but I don't know any way around it what what if you go into a restroom and you're in the process of. Making use of the facilities. And then a minor comes in and then you remain are you then guilty of a crime under this could be I would say that that's gonna come under prosecutorial discretion how long your remained in and whether or not you're making an attempt to leave you know if you're sitting in a stall. There's a lot of questions a lot of of situations where a lawyer would argue that they were in a separate room if they were in a stall. What okay if that's the case if that's the case I'm I'm really having a hard time understanding the purpose of the bill because any trip any person. That's transgender miss going to go ahead and. Use the word that we're talking about any transgender person who's using it a bathroom is going to be in a stall okay well we're not necessarily talking about trans gender because I mean. Believe it or not there are some per verse heterosexuals. Who would enjoy hanging out the wrong bathroom and they might even try to pretend that they're. A trans or something like that in order to get away with it. So if you're in the restroom and you're not and you're behaving yourself you're not cause a problem. Then this will be really hard for somebody to prosecute you over this bill. Because the you have to prove knowingly and remains now it definitely is a tool in the toolbox for the prosecutor or for the employee or for the other patrons to demand somebody change their behavior and don't hang out in the bathroom. So why not we have laws on the books that protect protect minors from sex crimes already which which absolutely should you know we're gonna have a hundred percent agreement on that. So why not at and your amending one that exists and I'm when I want to talk a little bit more about the section that's being amended but why not include language just to pass a law that says you can't intimidate a child in the bathroom for make make them feel uncomfortable or or some such thing. I guess you're welcome to file that bill I don't know how you would. Draft that languages I think it. If if you think this is hard to nail down on the knowingly and remains in if you're already in the stall and somebody else comes in that I think what you don that would be much harder to nail down what we had a bill come through here the other day from senator Johnson amending its of of the code section where if you're on a street corner and you're there for charitable purpose but you're there to coerce or intimidate I mean we only have language like that on the books my question is not really about what the language is easy to fine or not it's about turning the behavior that we're trying to preclude from happening. And this is just so broad I I appreciate the amendment you brought today that the mental state of knowingly but it's just so brought if you just enter and understand. You have the ward remain in their but that word is. Ambiguous in my judgment and it's not defined in the bill well I would think if you're making an effort to exit then you wouldn't be guilty of remaining. Right but they were going back to my question of whether you're sitting at a stall when someone comes in let me ask a different question yes this code section. That you're amending. It already has. Five types of sexual indecency with a child that are prohibited. Okay I'm not gonna read every word but I think it's important to look at the code section that you're amending. The first type is. If you're eighteen or older. And you solicit someone who's under fifteen to engage in sexual intercourse deviate sexual activity or sexual contact that's the first time. The second type is with the purpose so there's a mental state to arouse or gratify a sexual desire. The person purposely again another mental state exposes his or her sex organs to another person who is under fifteen years of age. These are bad axe that deserved to be punished criminally. Three with the purpose to arouse or gratify a sexual desire. The person purposely exposes his sex organs to a minor any minor and the person's employed by ABC or. Has a position of trust over the minor. The fourth is with the purpose to arouse or gratify a sexual desire being eighteen years of age or older you because or coerces a minor to expose his or her sex organs. And that's really the and you have a position of trust and then the fifth one is being eighteen years of older you accept you because any minor. under fourteen to expose their sex organs so those are all very bad acts that should be subject to significant criminal liability and what this bill would do if it passes is it puts on par with those acts going into a bathroom. Using the bathroom and leaving. Not I don't think this bill. This is. Covering going into the bathroom using the bathroom and leaving. It's choosing to use the wrong bathroom wall minors are present. And there's a state of undress which is the direct it the couple those prior offenses that you read on it has do with exposing private parts. And so obviously if you're in a changing facility or restroom or what's listed in this bill. It's reasonable to expect that you're going to enter a state of undress and let's say you go under wash your hands the other patrons are it is in a state of undress which are all similar to the to the sections are of code that you referenced If you're going to use the wrong facility thank you have a responsibility to make sure that the other people are out of the way not exposed I mean I've had emergency situations where I had to stop at a gas station the men's room was full and I had to use the ladies by make sure there's nobody in there usually post by wife as a guard outside or if it's a single occupancy bathroom you can lock the door but to make sure. That I respected other people's privacy in and If you're gonna make the choice. To use the bathroom that is not your sign your birth sex then you have a responsibility to try to mitigate the exposure when it comes to minors this does not even address adult to adult. It is remitted to the let me interject you just a second son Tucker the rest of that code section on page seven section twenty three Rome number two the rest of that code is the if the offense is a felony. That is the resident co that was left off. I'm I'm I'm guessing that that's what Senator Payton man but I think that's a question for for senator paid. What we need to. Grab my laptop came up there if you want me to research that but I would think Senator Stubblefield word for we just had that pull from the bureau so thank you you will. I'll wrap up here but at. How do you define you've you've referenced several times using the wrong restroom or making a choice and I'm just how do you define that. Well if you. Don't know your agenda I would assume you could go to a doctor be diagnosed but Most people from the time the road enough to communicate with their parents know what their agenda is not a stand in this day and age some people. Are led to believe that they were assigned the wrong gender but the X. and Y. chromosomes still exist if you need to diagnose it. Okay thank you one last question I appreciate your indulgence Mister chair in order to be prosecuted under this crime for the defendant have to expose their sex organs. No. But how do you determine whether they were in the quote wrong restaurant or not. Well so if I'm running sixty five in a fifty five. And there's nobody there to issue radar and catch me then I guess I got away with it and if they go in there behave their cell and don't expose their self. would be no prosecution but you don't have to expose yourself to be prosecutor on this bill. No there the expectation is that other members right of the sex at that facility is assigned to are exposing themselves and that's where you come into the. Saying about heather sexual perverts and not the trans because. If you allow. Meant to hang out in the women's bathroom. They don't have to expose their self to have. C. bad intent so this goes back to my question you're a heterosexual cisgender woman let's say you go into a men's room and you remain there knowing children are present. The prosecutor that council decides to prosecute you. But your defenses I'm a man I was in the proper restaurant. In order for the prosecutor to prosecute. Is that a defendant gonna have to drop their drawers. Now like I guess I could take a blood sample to find out of what their chromosomes are. Okay thank you Mr. Are any other questions from committee. Are we have service signed up to speak against and one for the bill first is Jessie Jessica Disney. Speak against the bill. Hi my name is Jessica Disney and I'm a transgender woman I'm once again appearing in front of this committee to ask that you please listen and understand what you're doing with legislation like this I could sit here and show you facts from peer reviewed studies like the UCLA school of law study that shows in states where they have included gender identity and various nondiscrimination laws allowing people to use these facilities in accordance to gender identity but there's no increase in number or frequency of these crimes but I'm not sure it would matter to some of you I can empathize with the fear that has been stirred up because of fear mongering rhetoric what you don't understand can certainly be terrifying I've had the same scared individuals follow me around screaming at me in public for just existing in that space. I've been followed into a restroom at the beginning of my transition by both men and women seem me demanding that I'm not continue walking forward or they would call the police on me or subject me to violence I've had death threats sent to me and posted on the door of my own home because I am simply trans gender. I have seen people call for transgender individuals. To be shot on national news stations here in our country of America. I walked the very holes of the State Capitol with members of our legislature the implied the world would be better off with people like me dead. I see here knowing that some of you on this committee certainly do not care. And consider paying mentioned earlier he wanted this to be a reasonable bill and I have to wonder the world that we live in for something like this to even be remotely enforceable do I need to wear my identification papers or special symbol for all to see when I enter the restroom to help people identify me and who I am should I someone called the police on me am I supposed to allow an officer of the law to sexually assault B. and fill me up so that I could be allowed to use the restroom anytime somebody would call them on the. On top of that this bill forces trans man with a full beard and appearing very masculine to use the women's restroom often not part of the conversation because well it doesn't spark as much fear as trans women do in the conversation but it is a concern as many of these men would instantly have questions raised against them if they were to use the women's restroom. That study I mentioned earlier from the U. C. L. A. UCLA school of law. It did in fact find that there was an increase in verbal sexual and physical assault against transgender individuals because from this not from sister under individuals. I urge you to reach out and seek to understand these things you are so afraid of we aren't the monsters that people make us out to be a and I strongly urge you to vote no to passing SB two seventy and thank you I will take questions. I appreciate. Art next we have Sir every. With the ACLU. Good morning Mr my name is Serra ever on the policy director at the ACLU of Arkansas I I a. Would hope that perhaps there's something we can do to reach a reasonable solution to the the the intent here this would be the most extreme bathroom ban in the country if passed there is no other state that has a criminal ban against transgender people using the restroom whether or not a minor's presence there is this this has nothing to do with criminal activity or intent to harm it is there's no harm required there's no criminal intent required here. simply criminalizes trans people for washing their hands in the bathroom when a minor is present The the bill sends the message that Arkansas thinks trans people are inherently dangerous. But really any our cans and who doesn't fit gender norms would be could be harmed by this bill not all women are Barbie dolls you know there are there are plenty of women who don't have all of the same feminine characteristics and there are women who because of for health reasons have had to have affected me is or or other issues that because people to mistake them for men and many of those women are already harassed while trying to use the women's restroom Andrew this bill someone could call the police because they don't believe that that woman is a woman and the at seems the only way to it to prove that she is a woman would be to expose herself Transmitting as was discussed would be required to use the women's restroom under this bill and trans women would be required to use the men's restroom putting themselves at serious risk of a harassment and violence. the bill is is over broad considering that the stated intent is to protect children from people who actually want to hurt them I think there are there are far there are ways we can get at that issue. Thank you. Any questions from committee. Say no thank you for your testimony of we have local courts from family council. Speak for the bill. Thank you Mr thank you committee loophole with family council glad to be here thankful for Senator patron in this bill we can work with him. since before was filed showed forms filed and he asked us to help them we agree we think this is a good bill we think it's a common sense bill we think this is a a bill that probably could have been in use our previous situations maybe just a few but none the less even if there aren't any this is a proactive bill as stated earlier this bill doesn't prevent the opposite sex from entering all opposite sex Restrooms however this bill does don't the main thing it does that prohibits adults from remaining in a restroom when a minor is present I'm I could probably say more think it's pretty simple bill but family council supports this bill would like to see it Senate committee. Any questions from committee. Saying none thank you for. we have a rumble. I probably pronounce as wrong. It did. You're recognized. My name is remember I'm the executive director of intransitive it's a transgender organization here in Arkansas. and I speak against as B. seventy. We just a second. So. I wanted to share a couple of statistics around sexual violence against children from Arkansas. For those of you who may not know in Benton county two hundred nine hundred twenty nine children and in Washington County six hundred thirty two children were seen at the center. In twenty twenty one that's the latest reporting you can find on the website. Ninety five percent of them knew their assailant was so ninety five percent of the children you'll who was assaulting them. I work with sexual assault survivors for years I worked alongside advocates supporting survivors for years across the country. And it's always the same whether their children are adults it's always somebody close to them is usually fathers grandparents sorry grandfathers uncles pastors preachers and I Senator be dimension there are a lot of heterosexuals ward deviant. We have a lot of those here in Arkansas. Save the if the purpose of this is to protect children in farther. I hope that you take a step to that and this bill is not that. There are no cases of transgender people harming children in bathrooms. It has been asked Senator B. dimension he can't. In one single instance right but there are multiple cases of Baptist pastors using their powers to wrestle children. Considering that the majority of you all in this committee baptise. And you want to protect children. I would urge you to do some work around ending sexual violence against children at the hands of their fathers grandfathers uncles and pastors a good starting point is a two hundred five page document showing the sexual assault of over seven hundred people by members of the Southern Baptist Convention. The next place to look is the family Research Council would testify and is supporting this bill consider they have several members accused of sexual assault is starting with Josh Duggar from Arkansas. Though you might wanna leave Senator Hester of those conversations since he advocated to fire the police chief will release the documents that led to the arrest and conviction of Josh Duggar accused of sexually assaulting five girls. For those of you who may not remember not no just otherwise part of the family Research Council. He was accused of molesting five five girls. One of order is to be expected. That. Many Research Council would try to target just second withdraw. Point of order or I would ask that the Person does find speak to the bill had any also specifically called out a member by name that has nothing to do with this piece of legislation so point of order. Yes you would make note of that state is tied to the subject matter. Yes so you are the subject of the bill is to try to protect children Senate have asking you to. Try to protect children well I'd like to respond to the point of all order made by Senator Gilmore this is a citizen of Arkansas that committee to testify and the he he's given his position with his thoughts and opinions about it is rationale and I don't think it's inappropriate what he has discussed so far and whether he calls and a name out he's he's given free speech concerning his opinion on this bill. And there should not be a point of order that would restrict him from saying what he has to say senator from I responded asking restrict I am asking to speak to the bill and I think you speak into the bill I'm understanding what you're saying okay all right let's hold it down Mr trump this state or stay on the topic germane to this to the to the bill of sale. Thank you senator flowers so yeah this is this bill is problematic for all the reasons that were mentioned right including the fact that the family Research Council has been a part of it at the has been part of putting it together I consume they also had a member of theirs Tony Perkins who is willing to cover up sexual assault against a teenager so eyes Baptist spent as sorry as men Baptist faith. I hope that you all DO something about what's happening is specific to your office and focus on that in order to protect children rather than worrying about who's going to be in in in one bathroom I'm asking you to vote again at S. B. two seventy I don't want to be forced to be in the bathroom with your daughter or your sister or your mother or your grandmother thank you. How it. Hey everyone Allie Thomas and hear from disability rights Arkansas I do want to start out by saying that disability rights Arkansas understands that not forcing trans individuals to out themselves a safety matter specifically by prevention and that's something that we feel very strongly about and I also want to take just another moment to talk about Arkansas and not being in the business of governing common courtesy I think that's something that we really need to point out our Kansans and should be and in the business of having dignity of risk we should all be allowed to make our own choices up to a point especially if they're not harming anyone and since we have no statistics no data to show this is a problem in Arkansas I think that's something that we should really keep in mind right now I know that I've said before you quite a few times to talk about how this is an opinion piece we do not have a need for this bill right now in Arkansas and I love that I love that this is something that is not happening to our Kansans but we have a lot of things that are I know that I have set before you many times this year to talk to you and this section to talk about the things that are happening to our cans and and where we live we can keep our cans and save. Twenty children that are being right right now. Children that are being molested right now children that are being violently beaten to the point that they are having broken bones and the psychiatric residential for two and treatment facilities we need your help we do not have to have any more precious time on pieces like this this is not going to help anyone because it's not needed I hope that you will use your state's protection and advocacy agency to cultivate revealed bills that can help protect children today because they're crying out to you and they need you we do not have to have any more bills passed and time wasted over a Facebook post that we may come across we don't have to do that we can get to read back and I'll ask you to vote no so we can go ahead and do it thank you. Thank you Mr president we have a leased. Any quite. The lady. hi read. Highly. Good morning my name is Haley princess. And I'm a resident of the State of Arkansas I'm I have on resident of Arkansas on was born here in Arkansas and I would like to speak to you the committee Judiciary Committee about two S. P. two seventy and why a. It is an absolutely unnecessary and dangerous bill. As someone who is transgender this section the only personal level. Because we all have to use the restroom at some time or another and often times we're not. You know when use the restroom we may be out at work we may be traveling somewhere. And. And. And my age and to have to go often than younger people do. So. It's it's something that we have to take care of bodily functions and do so discreetly and what this bill does is criminalized the existence of transgender people in Arkansas. It also. It's also shows if this bill becomes law in Arkansas it would make Arkansas look like an absolute. State. D. as with the tourism in Arkansas. Says dependent upon tourism as one of its economic drivers and by bye bye. Such as S. P. to seventy become law in Arkansas we. Subject to terrorism it said. In Arkansas what aid from the state and is it all kids and I find it disgusting. Would would not would would would would would see the light of this with no we just realize this. That. G. signaling to some of you. Are doing damage. And I urge the members of this committee to. To consider the impact of this bill have owned or Kansans not just a small minority of our Kansas or transgender and urged the committee to vote. On this P. two seventy. Thank you and thank you for the time in the committee any questions from committee. All right thank you for your testimony. Say no one anyone else see all these would speak for against the bill. It's a nice of search button which calls for your bill. Yes thank you Mr thank you members of the committee I don't see this bill as an extreme measure at all of. I have twelve grandkids of. Six of a more girls in six of a rule is in As far as I know none of them are confused but I would like the opportunity for them to be in a restroom or changing facility without being exposed or exposing themselves to the opposite sex not appreciate a good vote. Mark what tuition of the committee. We have a motion do pass as amended we have a motion to pass as amended by Senator Hester and a second by Senator Ricky. Discussion. Thank you Mr chair. I'll be brief but first of all there's no evidence whatsoever that this bill is needed it wasn't cited we would be the first state to pass a law like this so Arkansas if this bill passes will be taken on president step toward criminalizing being transgender in America. we also are consistently passing bills out of committees the session without giving them the screw the scrutiny that they deserve and this is just the latest example. If we were going to if we were concerned about harming children then we should draft a bill based on that if someone was trying to observe or harm or had an intent to actually harm a child everybody would be against that we could pass unanimously but that's not what the bill says not even close so it's it's not a common sense bill it's a very extreme measure that would be unprecedented in America and. This this legislatures is not scrutinising bills in the manner in which it should and this is just the latest example and I'll be vote now. Or any other discussion by committee. All those in favor of the motion. Signify by saying aye. All opposed no. That will roll call. Our call the roll. Senator Hester our Senator Hester is I. Senator Rice. Senator Rice aye. Senator Tucker no Senator Clarke Tucker is no. Senator Gilmore all right so the Gilmore aye aye. So to my key. Senator Hickey is I. Senator Clark. Senator Clark Is I. Senator flowers Senator flowers is no. The Bill pass to center Payton. Congratulations thank you Mr chair thank you Committee. Are you. Next item on the agenda is to Senate bill one ninety five the senator Hammer. Mr witcher's permission like to have some assistance to help president he will just to densify yourself for the record you're recognized to speak thank you Mr Kim Hammer state senator district sixteen. Good morning crystal Harper an assistant director with the DHS division Jordan and family services March you're recognized thanks to him thank you I'll just kind of build a small farm portlet Christian take care of the rest because she can explain it better keep it from getting confused because there has been confusion is being created out there over this bill with misinterpretation what it does but I can sit here at the in the table and tell you to my knowledge there's no opposition from anyone that might have interest in this and so it is a bill that should that is being presented to without a position distance knock compete with the bill that senator or representative Julie Mayberry rand earlier regarding safe haven in fact accomplishment should because it actually addresses an issue that was not addressed in her bill and Mr with that of what Christian give an explanation of of some of the finer details of the bill. Thank you and so as many of you know the safe haven that allows for a medical provider law enforcement agency or a fire department to take possession of a newborn child defined as thirty days or younger if the parent voluntarily leave the child with them and with no adverse legal consequences for the parent this bill with the engrossed amendment. But broad let her medical provider to include any medically staffed department of a hospital rather than just an emergency department so we want to create more options for struggling parents establish broader protection from both civil and criminal liability what a voluntary and safe surrender is made even if the identity of the parent is mistakenly disclosed and again we want to encourage safe voluntary surrenders of newborns your term in the and not care for the infant even if the letter of the law is not valid and then finally we want to clarify when parental rights no longer attached to safe haven infants currently the safe haven Act does not address parental rights several cases have revealed and recently because of ambiguous language and no clear procedure to ensure due process protections and so this bill would resolve that issue and we are happy to answer any questions you may have okay you virgin's acclamation the billing questions from committee. Is it is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. Saying none Senator flowers. I do have a question I'm not all that familiar is hopper with safe haven law as it existed and. I have to confess that the bill. Line by line to understand this. So. The rental rates can be Pitsch petition to be terminated after the parent. Leave the child within thirty days at these locations. So essentially and currently the law does not address printer right so that's what we wanted to do you and and so what this would allow for and it is specific procedure and to be able for to terminate parental rights on that safe haven infant which ultimately allows us to expedite permanency find an adoptive home for that child more quickly while still ensuring due process rights for the parents well day does the parent who Drops the Jalal. And the Department. Sounds as though we're dependent neglect. Section or something is filed and and then. There's a parent ever get an opportunity to get the child back. So if it's a safe haven surrender at that and since it is anonymously surrendered sentence we do not know who that parent is an but if you if you don't mind I'm gonna call him our attorneys there Ross and so she can get a better technical explanation of the various and the differences between an anonymous safe haven surrender and when the parents identity is known but they want to safely relinquish rights that and that which is another thing that this bill does so if you don't mind. Mister chairman okay. Yes you would give the other type want to defy yourself. For the record interesting. You're recognized stance of questions. Thank you. Many Mr Ross and I'm deputy chief counsel at DHS and and I believe the question was about whether a parent can get their child back and obviously if it is a tree said Payton and no one discloses five any of the parent or the child when DHS is called and there had been some concern previously about how do we ensure due process rights because that that that surrendering of itself does not terminate parental rights those rights to existing to like court addresses does and so and pursuant to this bill and it lays out procedures for us to give notice because all you know all. There's always gonna be another payment right so that their parents may not even know that that child has been surrendered but how do you give notice when you don't know who the people are you don't know who this child is and so it lays out what we do to. Published a warning order what information has to be provided and to ensure that due process is there and they do have time and to come back and and tell the court had made a mistake in and have their they have their opportunity to be heard if they decide to you and. There would be a time limit on that just within the other loss that you know once they have been provided notice and if they do not appear and do not request and. Their parental rights remain intact within thirty days from the date of notice and then their rights would be terminated and they would not be able to come back and change their mind. And. K. to recognize Senator flowers. Thirty Broad so. I'm trying to envision a scenario where a parent has dropped the child off at the safe haven location. Has it in the department's. understanding or I mean. Is the child born at a hospital generally or or what. I don't have the answer to that question and some are born at a hospital in relinquished to the hospital and that I'm I'm not sure where the infringer born at their and say for example surrendered and and and the state paid in baby box at a fire department I don't know where the child was born and I don't think that we would offer that well in the event that the child was born at a hospital. What they're not be a birth record. That was created. And maybe. Unitive father named in what is the department's responsibility in terms of seeking beyond just filing a notice in the newspaper I'm not sure at what the notice of. would even say to hold how would that. person that you are given notice to that's unknown even be described I mean what what is the connection. Child dropped off at a certain location on a certain date how would the warning notice even. Look yes senator flowers that's in this bill and that's the one of the things that had previously been an issue so I'm in this bill on page three and it states that the notification shall contain the caption of the pleadings which means the county and we're that and the actions being filed in this instance it would be a male or a female child we wouldn't know the identity and the location where the child was delivered the date that the child was delivered and and notice that a dependency neglect proceeding had been has been filed in their rights to and to proceed to respond to that lawsuit and that's what this bill is pretending to resolve because previously. What you brought up was the concern how do we notify people properly. Question okay. So the sole go back to the situation if a child is born at a hospital. It is there not a birth certificate generated. Under this statute under state in. The identity of the birth parent or child is not to be disclosed to us so I'm I'm sure that there is a birth record if the child is born in the hospital and surrender to the hospital but we are not to know the identity and another thing that this bill does is if it is mistakenly known because anonymity to some of these birth mothers it is extremely important to them we still have to provide them an opportunity to be heard if they want that but anonymity is important it's one of the protections of the safe haven statute and so. The law not in this bill but in the current law it says and it does not change with this bill and that the hospital or or whoever is not to disclose the identity and. Two SO of the mother that's correct I'm concerned about the five. And the father's rights. I suppose this is a service member I suppose that I think look at what. What about the father's rights. This bill is what that's one of the things that this bill is addressing because previously there wasn't and of greater concern about what about the father's rights would not just about the mother but the father as well and and this provides. A more specific way. To notify. Any an appearance. So just would what you cited in terms of what goes into the notice the location the date the child was delivered I mean how does that help. A father. Senator flowers I want to give an answer and they can correct me if wrong. Sometimes when mothers present they don't may not know who the date is may not want anybody to know who the date is and part of what this is intended to do is to create that Avenue well maybe not ideal because if we knew who he was we could be more direct but at least this is building and correct me if I'm wrong a safeguard that is not currently there because based on what I've learned sometimes the mother presents and she doesn't know who the Daddy has or she doesn't want to name who the dad is. Okay well. And I've seen it in the in the latter case where the mother that no name to date because there is some resentment. and so and even though it could be a service member. A out of the state overseas. I don't think this is enough notice. That unknown father. And I don't think this is right. Senator flowers at a completely understand your concerns I mean we admittedly what is publishing the notice is limited because we're limited under the current law as to the confidentiality of the mother however this is more than we have now and we think it's a step in the right direction it's not only ensure that there is a method to safely surrender infants whose parent has determined that cannot care for them and then still and do better in terms of notice and due process rights for for all parents involved. And so the notice would only go into paper of general circulation in the county where the child was born. Not not not with actions files with with a dependency neglect actions filed yes means. So. So if a mother. A. Resides. In some county other than the safe haven location. No this is not published in that county. In a paper of general circulation I mean I'm. I don't necessarily see this as being unfair to the child's father. But if you all consider this I mean is this something that. That. Tell me about the other states have how are they dealing with this I know Colorado has tried to have more concern and focus on fathers rights. What are other states is doing. Because I've seen too many domestic situations where there's a lot of us by. In vengeance involved and some of it is without merit. Hello I'll let your question is raised to who's in support of this bill all right. Who is this for the bill as the Arkansas advocates for children families Arkansas children's hospital UAMS Commission of child abuse rape and domestic violence court improvement program Arkansas crime against children's division Arkansas ad litem program costs program children's safety centers child advocacy centers DH office chief counsel governor's office juvenile program judges and parent council program all these folks are not opposed this bill and support one former fashion another and that's is I mean it's pretty hefty group to vetted the bill with what is your but they they're dealing with the situation they're not. They don't have any kind of awareness of a father. And it's not because of all the necessarily doesn't want to be involved. And that's the problem I have and all those groups you name they don't always have the best interests they say they do under the law they're supposed to. But the father. Is a natural party to this too and and I consent this concerns me. I also have been wrong with for juvenile judges have been wrong before. I want to know in other states how do they. Respect. Fathers rights in terms of these children that a mother just drops off. Senator flowers I don't have that information with me we could certainly do look into that and get the research I will mention that we did have and we working in a minute an amendment to this bill the national seed haven and the box an organization initially expressed some concerns in the work through those and so that is a representative on the national level who works with multiple states who is in support of this amendment as engrossed and and again I I do understand your concerns the ultimately what we're trying to do with this bill is ensure that for an intense his parents determined they cannot care for them they can be safely surrendered and I I absolutely under his senior concerns about father's rights but ultimately we want to make sure that women know that they can safely surrender their intense. The last thing I just I guess this is going to pass because it has all the old endorsement but I think the department needs to look closer at how to involve these unknown fathers. This will cause a woman gives up the baby. I mean I think there should be some kind of connection to the dead end and what what is the author's position. Senate be in the best position. To care for their check. Yeah I hope you'll do some more study in on it. Because this is not to be taken lightly. Thank you for. But I understand this oppose the father is the same parental rights is for is claiming the trial thirty days from the date of the first publication so okay. Senator Clark give questions. Yes of because I've been very supportive of this and amber supportive Senator flowers has raised some of very important thoughts the follows bill I was to build host post president this morning are the result of a father of being sued for child support after his daughter turned eighteen a daughter he didn't know we had and would like to know he had of an obviously the mother didn't know. who the father was of. The and I'm not sure how to resolve that They take the wisdom of Solomon because on one hand a lot. What Senator Hammer trying to do and I like the whole thing here but then the the question of. The father is a huge question because he is the father so currently confused. The LSA or any other questions from committee. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. Mr can we respond to the question yes you might. Thank you I would just want to remind everyone that that the fathers rights are treated the same as the mother's rights under this bill and and then in addition the Department always checks the putative father registry in Arkansas and in a maybe it's a legal father or not if you to father we would know at the time that this child is surrendered that that's even and and greater level of protection for a man to be able to preserve his rights than even the biological mother would have an under this bill so. There are protections for. Others included a father's I understand that is to I think what senator flowers was saying sometimes the father is in a different situation like maybe is overseas are you you're recognized for. What are you saying that. The feud father's record can be made before the birth of a child. Are you saying that. No ma'am that's not what I'm saying I I'm not sure that process but we found is born. We will check that registry yeah but you just already said it is in the hospital and the hospital is wanted to the safe haven there is no birth record of generated that would show up. You need to follow the because the mother's name is not even gonna be on there is. I mean it with the mother doesn't have to disclose her name. Whose name is on the birth certificate if there is one generated at the time of the drop off at the safe haven. You understand what I'm saying and I'm confused with this. Man and use right now I think that's about all to be able to explain that. I think that is part of the whole intent what's behind this is that if a baby is presented delivered and the mother identifies that she wanted to be a safe haven baby without this. I don't know what there is to do but what this does is provide the ability to say within thirty days Hey this may be your baby dad you might want to check up on it and find out because if the mother declares that and that's that's a whole separate issue outside what this bill is doomed we're trying to make sure. As has been expressed that that that that opportunities presented that's not there now in my right or wrong absolutely I just wanted to reiterate that point is that while this bill may not be perfect and we understand the concerns about the notice in the limited information that's in it currently there is no notice provided a specific to safe haven and so this is us again a step in the right direction so we're we're adding more than is currently there. Senator Clark give questions. Will agree it is a step in the right direction and I applaud that. The. Let's say you're the father you know the mothers expecting do you think you might be the father but for whatever reason there's no communication. The. You know my sister's first baby was born like at six and a half months of. if when somebody might have expected it to be born and. Of would have been a much different time period. Of you have any answer to that. Yes Sir I mean it's at what is in the bill in terms of what when and how that number notice is published is there and so it would just be our within the time frames provided in the bill and and and the and these people having general circulation in the county where the action is filed suit so no and you know I did not know or sports. Sir Clark you know follow up would it would it heard a great deal. If the period was longer. Longer than thirty days yes because like I said if you're expecting nine months and you're not expecting the baby to be given away. Of which I think is. This is a safe expectation of the then the babies born early. You may not live in the same town. Thank community or even saying state. Of and so to when you might find out. If you had some knowledge in some expectation could be a could be considered for past thirty days it shouldn't be you know it should be passed on or twenty days I wouldn't think but it could certainly be passed thirty. And you know I hate to be a stick in the mud but. Of also don't want to see a father who's expected to be a father but and find out that he has no rights anymore as much as I want what we're doing with this program. So. Hello. Would it hurt. Mr chairman chair will do is get up against let me let me pull it down let me talk with them let me go back to the parties that are in unanimous agreement up to this point and present that idea and come back to the Committee so I'd like to pull them from elsewhere thank you. The. They're also the bills agreed to pull the bill down. Talking over. Of. House Bill thirteen ninety six percent Gilmore. Okay March you're recognized sent to your will. House bill thirteen thanks. You're recognized center Gilmore. Thank you Mr members committee of bring to the table with me David cook with the Alzheimer's association or. Right now And I thought I said he would get in the details of this Fite told Senator Hill who need to be somewhere else those present this for him per his request basically this is just adding some training for law enforcement officers dealing with the folks who might be experiencing a mental illness as it relates to dementia or Alzheimer's so with that address Mr cook. I'm David cook senior policy manager for the Alzheimer's association thank you members of the Senate give a mention this is a a bill that complements training that was passed out of this legislative body and twenty twenty one that create a sixteen hour block for law enforcement going through a leader to focus specifically on mental health issues and what we've done with this legislation is car about two hours at least two hours of that sixteen hour block to deals specifically with Alzheimer's here in Arkansas over sixty thousand families are currently impacted by Alzheimer's and dementia of those individuals who are living with Alzheimer's six in ten of them will be prone to wonder or experience episodes of low meant and in cases where individuals go missing from their homes a law enforcement critical respond or say to this and we want to make sure that our law enforcement personnel were quick to recognize the symptoms of dementia and Alzheimer's a law enforcement first responders interact frequently with the populations that we serve whether through through just a common traffic stop to dealing with behaviors associated with dementia some could be shoplifting indecent exposure behaviors associated with our disease and also especially in crisis situations of this training would equip officers with unique skills and search and rescue to to to wonder or to locate folks to wander off who may be associativity member behaviors with dementia and so we wanted to capture this set as if this bill makes it through law Arkansas will join eleven other states have passed similar legislation is to ensure our first responders are law enforcement officials are are prepared to interact with individual dementia the state police is already doing three hours of training but this captures the those that a leader we spoke with the leader in class managers association all or in support of this bill we also put one something that's not going to fight. But this will not go into effect till January first of twenty twenty for us so that we can work with the academy make sure the curriculums of where it needs to be thought take any questions thank you Mr Gilmore I appreciate this bill my dad died of Alzheimer's some little bit familiar with this any questions from committee. Senator Clark. Yes this sounds like a great thing but if you could tell me no may not know the answer to this when we add this training. Alita do we take away from other training or are we adding to the tumult of time just. I would assume that we're we're just adding to not taking away from considering that there is support for this legislation as with the individuals and entities mentioned thank. Any other questions from committee. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for against the bill. Saying I'm sure entertain a motion your motion Senator Ricky. A second from us to give more. Any discussion all in favor say aye opposed resolutions and giving committee thank you. Saying no more business on the agenda for John.