Said in CommitteeBeta

Exactly as spoken.

Judiciary Committee- House

April 8, 2025 ·10:00 AM ·Room 149 ·2:35:36
Video Transcript 1 document

Bills discussed (72)
Bill Title Sponsor Status
HB1967 Act 981 · 12 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1967 K. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUT…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL IMAGES OR RECORDINGS. K. Brown Notification that HB1967 is now Act 981
HB1916 Act 979 · 8 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1916 Bentley TO AMEND THE PROTECTING MINORS FROM MEDICAL MALPRAC…”
 TO AMEND THE PROTECTING MINORS FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACT OF 2023; AND TO INCLUDE GENDER-AFFIRMING … Bentley Notification that HB1916 is now Act 979
HB1663 · 7 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…Howard M. Beaty, Jr. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
 TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … K. Brown Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1754 · 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “Gonzalez, are you renting House Bill 1754 today. In the interim? Oh, you have?”
 TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY … Gonzales Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1033 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
 TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … McCullough Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1057 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES. HB1057 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREAR…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT … R. Scott Richardson Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1136 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
 TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … Achor Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1141 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1141 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO…”
 TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … R. Scott Richardson Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1178 Act 993 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN. HB1178 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A M…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW … R. Scott Richardson Notification that HB1178 is now Act 993
HB1306 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLAC…”
 CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … Furman WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR
HB1430 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
 TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. K. Moore Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1431 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
 TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … K. Moore Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1473 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. Pilkington Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1481 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE. HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
 TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … Long Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1535 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…L AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS. HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
 TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … Duffield Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1553 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
 TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. Ray Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1655 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE TH…”
 TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … Long Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1664 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
 TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … K. Brown Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1676 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … Womack Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1678 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DER OF PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF VIDEO VOYEURISM. HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
 TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … Long Recommended for study in the Interim by the …
HB1765 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTIMATE DIGITAL FORGERIES. HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE … Underwood Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1823 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AN…”
 TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO … Duffield Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1885 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW EN…”
 CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE … Barnett Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1947 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSI…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. Clowney Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1948 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE O…”
 TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO … Joey Carr Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1953 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…COMMUNITY CORRECTION CENTERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE…”
 TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE … Torres Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1959 Act 986 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1959 M. Brown TO ABOLISH THE WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS AND SIMPLIFY T…”
 TO ABOLISH THE USE OF A WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS AS THE MEANS OF REVIVING … M. Brown Notification that HB1959 is now Act 986
HB1975 Act 982 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1975 Gramlich TO CREATE THE CHILD CONTENT CREATION PROTECTION AC…”
 TO CREATE THE CHILD CONTENT CREATION PROTECTION ACT. Gramlich Notification that HB1975 is now Act 982
HB1979 Act 983 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. HB1979 Gazaway AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW WARRANTLESS S…”
 AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW WARRANTLESS SEARCHES BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER … Gazaway Notification that HB1979 is now Act 983
HB1980 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1980 Gazaway TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE…”
 TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE LOGISTICS ACT (TESLA); AND TO ADD ELECTRIC … Gazaway Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1984 Act 984 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Y NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH INMATE COMMUNICATIONS. Page 3 of 5 HB1984 Hudson TO CREATE A DESIGNATION FOR A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDE…”
 TO CREATE A DESIGNATION FOR A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER ON A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION … Hudson Notification that HB1984 is now Act 984
SB277 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
 TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … J. Bryant Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
SB302 Act 659 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD;…”
 TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. Gilmore Notification that SB302 is now Act 659
SB314 Act 661 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE … Irvin Notification that SB314 is now Act 661
SB321 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. J. Bryant Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
SB325 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING A DEFENDANT'S INABILITY TO PAY A COURT-ORDERED FINE. SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AM…”
 TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO … A. Clark Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment.
SB326 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY. SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND TH…”
 TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY … A. Clark Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment.
SB342 Act 749 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936. SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN AN…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. A. Clark Notification that SB342 is now Act 749
SB355 Act 1000 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…G THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL IMAGES OR RECORDINGS. SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
 TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. J. Bryant Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000
SB364 Act 750 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LANDOWNERS, PRIVATE LEASEHOLDER, AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS. Hester Notification that SB364 is now Act 750
SB375 Act 662 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A…”
 TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE … Stone Notification that SB375 is now Act 662
SB426 Act 654 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB426 Hester TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT;…”
 TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL … Hester Notification that SB426 is now Act 654
SB427 Act 663 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB427 J. Bryant TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHA…”
 TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHANCE THE PENALTIES FOR PROMOTING PROSTITUTION IN THE FIRST, … J. Bryant Notification that SB427 is now Act 663
SB428 Act 664 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CREATE THE OFFENSE OF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION AT A BUSINESS. SB428 J. Bryant CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF…”
 CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO PROVIDE A … J. Bryant Notification that SB428 is now Act 664
SB429 Act 665 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FOR A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING. SB429 J. Bryant TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VIC…”
 TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE THAT … J. Bryant Notification that SB429 is now Act 665
SB430 Act 666 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E A MANDATORY NO-CONTACT ORDER IN A HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE. SB430 J. Bryant AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWA…”
 AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWARDED TO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; … J. Bryant Notification that SB430 is now Act 666
SB435 Act 753 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT…”
 TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE … Irvin Notification that SB435 is now Act 753
SB442 Act 667 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T CERTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PRODUCTS THAT RESEMBLE A CHILD. SB442 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED TO … J. Bryant Notification that SB442 is now Act 667
SB446 Act 668 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY. SB446 Gilmore TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM…”
 TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE … Gilmore Notification that SB446 is now Act 668
SB449 Act 669 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB449 Dees TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNAT…”
 TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS, VAPOR PRODUCTS, E-LIQUID PRODUCTS, TOBACCO … Dees Notification that SB449 is now Act 669
SB457 Act 1001 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PARO…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS … G. Leding Notification that SB457 is now Act 1001
SB459 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE…”
 TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. G. Leding Died in House at Sine Die adjournment.
SB485 Act 670 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCER…”
 TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, … C. Tucker Notification that SB485 is now Act 670
SB487 Act 754 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS. Irvin Notification that SB487 is now Act 754
SB488 Act 755 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSID…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. Irvin Notification that SB488 is now Act 755
SB490 Act 972 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENIL…”
 TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER … Irvin Notification that SB490 is now Act 972
SB511 Act 757 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CO PRODUCTS, AND CIGARETTE PAPERS FROM A MINOR AT A SCHOOL. SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELL…”
 TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT. B. Johnson Notification that SB511 is now Act 757
SB512 Act 758 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT. SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVAT…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. B. Johnson Notification that SB512 is now Act 758
SB513 Act 759 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AN…”
 TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF … B. Johnson Notification that SB513 is now Act 759
SB514 Act 760 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESS…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES … B. Johnson Notification that SB514 is now Act 760
SB537 Act 763 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS. SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT…”
 TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT … Gilmore Notification that SB537 is now Act 763
SB539 Act 723 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ME CREDITS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW R…”
 TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION … Gilmore Notification that SB539 is now Act 723
SB555 Act 765 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO V…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF … J. Scott Notification that SB555 is now Act 765
SB575 Act 989 · 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB575 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLL…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLLECTED IN CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS; TO AMEND … C. Tucker Notification that SB575 is now Act 989
SB590 Act 769 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TATEMENT FEES; AND TO CREATE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TASK FORCE. SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN TH…”
 TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN … Gilmore Notification that SB590 is now Act 769
SB597 Act 770 · 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM…”
 TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. B. Johnson Notification that SB597 is now Act 770
HB1871 · 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS…”
 TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR … Gazaway Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB1926 Act 980 · 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1926 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATIO…”
 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR NONRENEWAL OF A PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE … Unger Notification that HB1926 is now Act 980
HB1978 · 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1978 Gazaway TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH D…”
 TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. Gazaway Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment.
HB7054 · 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “here for House Bill 1754. House Bill 7054, uh, representing”
 Pre-2017 bill
SB313 Act 733 · 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TRE…”
 CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY … Irvin Notification that SB313 is now Act 733
SB431 Act 987 · 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB431 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO EL…”
 TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR … J. Bryant Notification that SB431 is now Act 987

Official video page ↗

Transcript

Transcript available SliQ live captions ✓ Whisper ✓ Download .txt
Machine transcript

May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.

About transcript accuracy
Source
Whisper
Model
ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
Processing date
October 7, 2026
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 0:00
Members and guests in our audience, let me give you what our game plan is. We're at the end of session. Not all the bills on our agenda will probably get heard because we're at the end of session. We will take up, first thing this morning, House bills that have not been heard in this committee. That's going to be the first thing that's going to come up that we'll be hearing, House bills that haven't been heard in the committee before. The second level of what we're going to hear will be House bills that have heard once but dropped to deferred, were amended, and have been off a deferred. Those House bills that we heard last week that House sponsors pulled, they automatically get dropped to the bottom of the agenda. They will come after Senate bills. We have 40 Senate bills right now on our agenda, plus whatever will come out of the Senate for Thursday. This committee knows we work fast and furious. It's our intention to give everybody a fair hearing. With that being said, if there's anybody watching us, five or six hundred emails to this committee will not get you moved up to a top of agenda. I run a fair committee. Anybody in this room will tell you. I give everybody a fair chance. I give people the opportunity to be heard. If your House bills, and there are some of you are at the bottom, you pulled your bills down, they're at the bottom. I'm not anticipating that those bills will be heard, and if they are heard, you do not have time to get them through the House and the Senate at this late date. So I want everybody to understand that. I want anybody watching to understand understand that in this committee, everyone gets a hearing. We do not strap people in their seats to make them sit here this time. As you know, you can see some empty seats. We do have a quorum. I've heard from my committee members they're off in other rooms running bills, and they'll be coming back in, and we all know that on here. But there are evidently some people who don't understand how the process works. And so if there are any questions from my committee, all these folks have been on my committee with the exception maybe one or two. My committee's good about being proactive, making sure we're on time. With that being said, we have until five minutes after 11:00 is when we're going to hear these House bills, and then we're moving to Senate bills. So, if you signed up, and we've got a number of people who have signed up on a particular bill, I'm going to tell you now, and I'm going to give my committee the option to object, we're going to limit testimony on bills to two minutes per person. Are there any objections? For those who signed up for or against, is there any objection from my committee at the chair's discretion that we're going to limit it to two minutes and once again anybody who's ever been in this committee or has ever watched knows that this committee rarely if ever limits but we don't have that option now because it's not fair to other house members who are waiting to get a first hearing in here that they don't get it so we're not going to do that. So if you signed up and I got it, I will let you know when that bill comes up that each of you will have two minutes. And I see no objections from my committee. Now that we've got all those little housekeeping matters, we do have something that we're glad to have here in our committee. We have the Legacy Academy from Locksburg, Arkansas. If y'all raise their committee, Let's give them a... They're the government class from Legacy Academy. Jude Gallagher, raise your hand. Well, all we can say is
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Rodney Eugene Unverified 4:18
we're so sorry with what you have to deal with, with Chad being your dad. We love your dad. Chad, thank you for letting me know that they're here. We hope that you have a great day at the Capitol. You're in great hands with your dad. He knows the ins and outs. And if you see any of us throughout the Capitol today, please stop and introduce yourself.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 4:43
We're glad to have you, always glad to have a group here. So thank you for coming to judiciary this morning. All right, folks, here we go. Carolyn Brown, Representative Carolyn Brown. Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1663. House Bill 1663, Representative Brown has two bills on our agenda this morning. She has House Bill 1663 and House Bill 1967, and Representative Brown, since I have you at the end of the table, I'm going to allow you to present both of those bills. Once you get finished with one, you can present the other one, and then you can go on your way. So, members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1663, Representative Brown,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 5:32
if you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Carolyn Brown, Representative District 67, which is basically a lot of North Pulaski. And I'm here to present House Bill 1663. This is an act to prohibit an award of alimony or terminate alimony for a person who has been found to have committed an act of domestic abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, and I won't read the whole title, but that's basically what this is about. This bill was brought to me by a constituent who had a family member, a cousin, who had worked hard, and she had developed her career and bought her house and fell in love and got married. and then the spouse did not work and was abusive. And when she ultimately filed for divorce, the spouse, who made less money than
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Catherine Mcclanahan Unverified 6:37
her, of course, because he didn't work, he filed for alimony. He was awarded her house and alimony. And oftentimes, in addition to that, when people are convicted of domestic abuse and then the ultimate divorce comes around, they apply for alimony. They, I don't know the legal word for it, that they ask for alimony in the divorce proceedings. And I would think that this would put a stop to that. So I'm available for questions. I'm not an attorney. I'm going to do the best I can. Thank you. Excuse me. Members, are
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 7:17
there any questions? Representing Collins, you're recognized for a question. OK, thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 7:25
So I'm sorry, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this. So someone who has committed domestic abuse has their punishment for domestic abuse. And they're adjudicated, they go through the system, and that is what that is. You're saying that they would not ever then get alimony and a divorce? Is that right? If they otherwise would qualify for alimony? Yes. Follow-up, please. You're recognized. Well, I mean, as you know, alimony is designed to be an equitable, you know, distribution and resolution of a divorce. And, you know, it can be the way that someone lives. How would someone who's otherwise qualified for alimony in a court would adjudicate them as being, you know, needing to receive alimony? How would they be expected to survive without, if they need that income to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 26 8:23
survive? that would not be my concern my concern would be the person
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Catherine Mcclanahan Unverified 8:28
who was abused the person who was mistreated and if somebody is going to abuse their spouse whether it's a man or a woman if you're going to physically abuse your spouse you in my opinion you do not deserve alimony you brought
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 8:44
about the need for the divorce thank you members any other
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 8:52
questions Representative Shepard you're recognized for the question
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 8:55
thank you Madam Chair so Representative Brown I think that I'm generally I think I understand the point and probably I'm generally sympathetic to that I guess the two things that concern me a little bit number one is as I read this bill if there is a conviction of some type of domestic abuse, any conviction at any point in time, then that would prohibit the award of alimony in the future. And then secondly, if there is a conviction subsequent to alimony being awarded, then that would be a factor to be considered. Am I reading that correctly, that it's not really discretionary, particularly if it occurs prior to the award? It is
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 9:43
an absolute bar to that. Yes, that's how I'm reading this
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Catherine Mcclanahan Unverified 9:48
also. But then if it occurs after the divorce, it is simply
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 9:53
a consideration. It's not an absolute. And then I guess my follow-up question is, and maybe this is just from the standpoint of having practiced law and dealing with domestic cases, do you have any concern that if someone is awarded or is ordered to pay alimony that they may attempt to try to bring on, try to get someone to act out, try to make a claim of domestic abuse such that they potentially could
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 10:31
have that award terminated? Representative Shepard, I had not considered that. But
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Catherine Mcclanahan Unverified 10:38
I know that some of the other states that have legislation regarding alimony in the situation where there is domestic abuse, some of their legislation is a little more nuanced than this. And if you all have serious concerns with this being so absolute, I'd be willing to pull this bill down and work on it with some attorneys and try to make it a little more nuanced because I know some of those situations are a little
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified 11:07
cloudy. I mean, I, for one, I mean, as I said, I think I'm sympathetic and probably can align with the point of this. I just, I worry about situations that could arise and it could be somehow kind of utilized in an offensive manner. And so I think if you pulled it down, I would imagine that between the attorneys and others here that we could probably work something out. I agree, and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 11:33
I do apologize to the committee. I've been so swamped with other legislation, I hadn't really had time to visit with a lot of attorneys about this. I'd like to pull this down and work on it.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 11:45
Not a problem, not a problem. And without any objection, we'll allow you to pull it down. And Representative Brown, you might either consider an interim study. You can contact the Bar Association. They have a legislative committee, and there will be some who are domestic relations attorneys on there, so that's always a good resource, too. Thank you. We'll allow you to pull it down. Members, let's turn to Representative Brown's next bill, since we have her here at the end of the table, House Bill 1967. And it has an amendment, so we're going to pass the amendment out. So House Bill 1967. Madam Chair,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Catherine Mcclanahan Unverified 12:26
I have a couple of people here to assist me with this presentation. I'd like to bring them to the table.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 45 12:40
Certainly. That'd be fine. There's a microphone. Here's one. Okay. Chad, can we have that chair?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 12:55
Representative Brown, the amendment has been passed out. If you'd like to present your amendment.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 13:12
Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is really in consideration of legislation you all recently passed out that
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Catherine Mcclanahan Unverified 13:20
Representative Meeks brought in. And so we worked with the Attorney General's office and removed anything that would conflict with his bill. And its scope now is very narrow and focused. And
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 13:33
then we needed to add a disclaimer that you will find at the end of the amendment stating that this section does not apply to the provider of a telecommunications service or an information service as
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Catherine Mcclanahan Unverified 13:54
those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. subsection 153 for content provided by another person.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 14:01
so members you've heard an explanation of the amendment what's the will of the committee we have a motion to adopt the amendment is there any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor of adoption of the amendment please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it the amendment has been adopted you are now recognized to present your bill as amended thank you um i'd like
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 14:21
to enter my guests to introduce themselves you state your name and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 54 14:29
who you're with my name is Katherine McClanahan. I'm a graduate student and also a founder of Arkansas
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 14:34
Voices. Of Arkansas what? Voices. Okay, thank you. Turn your
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 57 14:41
microphone on. Hello, my name is Danielle Green and I'm a victim advocate and I'm here to represent Arkansas Voices. My name is Skye
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 59 14:51
Tapp. I'm a licensed clinical social worker. I'm here as a victim and on behalf of all my clients. Representative Brown, you're recognized to present
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 15:00
your bill. We're glad to have you all here in our committee. I think you were here when I said comments need to be shortened greatly. So Representative Brown, you're recognized. And if you all could turn all your microphones off except for the person who's
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 15:17
speaking. Otherwise, we get a lot of feedback. Okay, Representative Brown, you're recognized. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present this bill, House Bill 1967, concerning the unlawful distribution of intimate images. As our laws currently stand under Arkansas Code 526-314, the crime of distributing sexual images without consent is limited in scope. It only applies when the offender is in a current or former dating relationship with the victim, but the reality is image-based abuse in today's digital world is far broader, more sophisticated, and far more harmful than our current statute accounts for. This amendment does three key things. First, it removes the requirement that the perpetrator be a current or former sexual partner or family member of the victim. This change reflects the reality that those violations often come from acquaintances, strangers, or those acting out of malice or financial incentive, not just intimate partners. Second, it expands the definition of intent to harm. Under this amendment, if the offender distributes an image with the purpose to cause physical, mental, economic, or reputational harm, or in exchange for something of value, it will be classified as a felony. This appropriately recognizes the serious and often devastating consequences of these acts. Third, it preserves the distinction between malicious conduct and other cases that, while still harmful, may lack the clear intent to harm. In those instances, the offense remains a misdemeanor, ensuring our laws maintain proportionality and fairness. This is a carefully balanced, survivor-informed update to our law that responds to the growing and deeply damaging crisis of non-consensual image sharing. It ensures that Arkansas does not fall behind in addressing this modern form of abuse while continuing to respect due process and appropriate sentencing. I respectfully ask for your support in moving this forward. Thank you. And I do want to say the Attorney General's office has reviewed House Bill 1967 and is in support of it. Thank you. Members, are there
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 17:34
any questions of Representative Brown? Seeing no questions other than the individuals at the end of the table, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Brown, you're recognized to close for your bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 17:47
Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought my... Well, we have no questions, so
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 17:52
you might want to go ahead and just close. Just close, okay.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Matt Brown Unverified 17:56
I will close for my bill. Thank you very much.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 17:59
Unless you want us to start asking questions, of which we're real good at. That's fine. Okay. Members, Representative Brown, it's closed for a bill. I have a motion to do pass as amended on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you. Appreciate y'all. Thank you. Representative Gonzalez, are you running House Bill 1754 today? We've put that in the interim study. Oh, you have? Okay. Sure. Sure. Okay, if you're members or anybody else, anybody in the audience who's here for House Bill 1754, House Bill 7054, Representative Gonzalez has informed me he's going to put this into interim study, so we're going to drop this to deferred, and Representative Gonzalez will get with the correct person in the House to get it set on deferred. So if you're here, you're free to go. Oh, you'd be surprised. All right. Representative Bentley, I see you in the back of the room. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1916. Representative Bentley, if you'll come in the table, identify yourself. You'll be recognized to present House Bill 1916.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 19:35
Representative Mary Bentley, District 54, Chairman, colleagues, thank you again for letting me come to your committee. We were here for another bill, and I was here for this bill. I realized I had a much simpler approach to the bill, so I'll bring a new bill, House 1916, today. House Bill 1916 is an amendment to Act 274 that Senator Stubblefield and I passed with your help in 2023. The purpose of Act 274 is to protect minors from medical malpractice. This act gives minors and their parents 15 years after the child turns 18 to file a civil lawsuit against a health care professional who performs a gender transition procedure or gender-affirming intervention. Gender-affirming care is the affirmation of a minor's self-diagnosis of gender confusion. For decades, healthcare professionals practiced what was called watch and wait when a child had gender confusion. They did not affirm the confusion, rather they acknowledged it and combined dissidence-oriented counseling until the minor got through puberty. This treatment resulted in a vast majority of child patients overcoming their gender confusion when they got through puberty. Gender-affirming care, on the other hand, results in 92 percent of the child patients remaining in gender confusion when they get through puberty. Since healthcare professionals began using gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, we have seen a 370 percent increase in transgender-identifying youth. Let me repeat that. Since we've started using gender-affirming care, we have seen a 370 percent increase in transgender-identifying youth. polls across the country show that 80% of Americans oppose gender ideology and gender-affirming care. My hopes for the passage of HB 1916 is that healthcare professionals return to doing what was best to enhance the child's well-being. In a recent 2019 study of over 10,000 transgender patients and 53,000 non-transgender patients, transgender patients were four times as likely to be diagnosed with substance disorder, four times as likely to be diagnosed with one or more mental disorders, five times more likely to have been diagnosed with a mood disorder or anxiety disorder, ten times more likely to have been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder, and thirteen times as likely to have been diagnosed with PTSD, and sixteen times more likely to have been diagnosed with personality disorder. Given these strong associations, it is necessary to consider whether gender confusion is casually related to development of other mental health conditions, including diagnosed disorders. The nature of this relationship is unclear. For example, gender confusion can or may cause or exasperate anxiety and depression symptoms. Mental health conditions may contribute to the development of gender confusion regardless. It's difficult for us to imagine any case where gender confusion enhances a child's well-being. Gender-affirming care, including medical interventions, carry a host of physical risks. For example, cross-sex hormones are associated with reduced bone density, stunted growth, blood clots, infertility, and cancer. Many of the physical changes caused by these permanent treatments caused by these treatments are permanent. 98% of children prescribed puberty blockers subsequently proceed to cross-sex hormones. Puberty blockers cause brain swelling, vision loss, and these drugs are also used to castrate sex offenders chemically. They have not undergone methodologically sound peer-reviewed evaluations for safety efficacy for pausing puberty. There is no evidentiary basis for asserting that neurophysicological harms they cause are reversible. Unfortunately, a large percentage of these minors who start with PD blockers and cross-sex hormones proceed with surgical interventions that scar their bodies forever. Transgender medical interventions should be understood for what they are, grotesque experiments that stunt and suppress children's natural development and surgically mutilate their healthy bodies in the service of unscientific fantasies. While the long-term effects of transgender medical interventions on children are unknown, no credible evidence supports their claim that they benefit child's mental health. Indeed, research on adults have shown that these interventions have not shown to improve mental health or to reduce suicidality. Systematic reviews on the effects of puberty blockers do not support claims of improved mental health or reduced suicidality. An alternate and far less risky approach has been termed first, do no harm. First, do no harm recognizes the dangers of transgender medical interventions and causes providers to pursue exploratory psychotherapy instead and to help gender-confused children navigate puberty rather than to fear it. The advantage of exploratory psychotherapy over so-called affirmation are very strong. Affirmation requires that therapists confirm a minor self-diagnosis of transgender and facilitate their access to hormones and surgeries. Exploratory therapy affirms the young gender dysphoric person's feelings as real and valid, but rather than confirming their self-diagnosis, they question, they probe, they look for developmental factors that may have contributed to the gender-related diagnosis. Like watchful waiting before it, First Due No Harm represents a responsible and humane alternative to transgender medical innovation. First Due No Harm is not rooted in fanciful post-mortem ideological claims. Indeed, it does not rely on any ideological claims. It rather carefully pursues the well-being of vulnerable children. The importance of adopting prudent evidence-based non-ideological approaches to caring for children suffering from gender confusion increasingly apparent. Whistleblowers have detailed efforts by gender clinic personnel to fast-check children into hormone therapies and surgeries, ignoring obvious mental health warnings in the process. Testimonies from detransitioners, those that have reverted to living according with their biological sex after previously transitioning, are likewise bringing the physical and emotional horrors of transgender medical interventions into public view. The personal story of Chloe Cole and many others has brought all of that into reality. Many other developed countries are halting their youth gender clinics, but in the United States, by contrast, juvenile sexual assignment surgery is a lucrative business, and the market is booming with more than 100 dedicated youth gender clinics in operation in 2023. This market has grown in part due to the coordination with senior government officials under the Biden administration and in coordination with Planned Parenthood. A formal reproductive health assistance for Planned Parenthood states that trans-identifying kids are cash cows. They're kept on the hook for the unforeseeable future in terms of follow-up appointments blood works and meetings Planned parent has increased its provisions of transgender medical interventions by 10 times and now provides hormones at more than 450 locations across the nation I'm asking for us to put the health and well-being of our children first and stop basing their care on gender ideology and gender affirming care Let's return Arkansas to a place where a child's well-being is put first and adults are not making the decisions whether they will ever be able to be parents. Recall the absent gender ideology inspired affirmation most gender confused kids naturally desist and thereby avoid proceeding to transgender medical interventions including surgical mutilations. A genuine concern for their well-being should incline us to want to understand and treat the source of Jesus child's distress. Ten years ago we never heard of treating mental illness by mutilating minors with double mastectomies or removing genital organs. We are are allowing adults to take away their ability to ever conceive a child. Gender-affirming care is the first step in that process. 1916 will simply allow minors and patients as civil cause of action to sue for damages from gender-affirming care up to 15 years after a child
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 26:56
turns 18. And with that, I'll be happy to take any questions. Representative Collins, you're recognized
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 27:02
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Representative Bentley, with this bill, I know that the first bill, there were a lot of concerns that we were creating this really broad, long-lasting cause of action against all kinds of people who were just speaking in an affirming way to someone. For example, if they gave them a haircut, this one obviously is slightly different, but it still looks to me like it's talking just about mental health professionals who are affirming someone's identified gender. So that means to me, and I wanted to see if you agree with this, if they were to address them by the way they want to be addressed, if that's gender affirming or, you know, support them in their decision to wear certain clothes or grow their hair a certain way, would they be opened up to a long statute of limitations for a lawsuit? Again, a lawsuit would have to show
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 27:56
that they were irreparable harm to the minor as resulted in their actions. So to me, again, we're asking them to not affirm the self-diagnosis of a minor. a minor. We don't allow a minor to get a tattoo. We don't allow a minor to get, you know, a lot of things. Because they're minors, they are still developing. So we expect adults to treat a child in a way where they are not affirming that child's self-diagnosis. They're allowing that child and encouraging that child to get the mental health they need to understand what the underlying conditions are. So again, the minor or the minor's parents would have to show irreparable harm. In that lawsuit, the judge is not just going to flippantly give somebody civil damages, right? It has to show irreparable harm to the child or to the minor. Follow-up, please. That's what you're recognized. Thank you.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 28:42
I'm not sure that really answered my question, but I also wanted to understand better relatedly intervention. So you define gender-affirming intervention, but you don't define intervention. And intervention doesn't really have a meaning in my mind that is limited. I think it could really be anything from a conversation to a smile. You know, and so help me understand. I wish it had been defined in here, but help me understand what you mean by intervention. How broad is this supposed to be?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 29:14
Again, it's a medical diagnosis. We're talking about health care professionals that are, I'm saying that they are affirming that child's self-diagnosis and then proceeding to them do hormone therapies and those type of things. So if a professional, again, it has nothing to do with what they're calling the person. We're trying to say, are they affirming that child's self-diagnosis, or are they telling that child, you're not born in the wrong body. You are not that gender. This is the gender that you are, and I'm going to help you. I understand your feelings, but let's understand why you're having those feelings. We're talking about deep mental health therapy. So I think you're trying to construe something that's not there. We're not just talking about something smiling at some point. We're talking this in a licensed medical professional that's seeking to help that child through their gender confusion. What are they doing with that child? Are they affirming their self-diagnosis or are they actually trying to get that child the help
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 30:04
they need? Are you saying that intervention is only an entire course of treatment designed to change someone's gender or change the way that they identify? Or are you saying it's just a single act in the course of an overall program of working with the child?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 30:18
I'm saying it's that treatment protocol of that mental health professional. What's their treatment protocol for that mental
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 30:27
health professional of that minor
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 30:33
that they're taking care of? Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Bentley, what about in situations in which the prevailing standard of care requires that the professional rely on gender-affirming intervention, whether that is acknowledging what the child has, as you said, self-diagnosed as part of their course of treatment, whether that course of treatment results in the child at some point in the future going forward with some sort of puberty blocker or something, or if that course of treatment is just to kind of help this child sort out some confusing issues. I mean, are those professionals going to be liable? Not those professionals that help that individual understand why they're feeling the feelings they're having. No. And I think that that's where I'm having some confusion. So basically what we're doing with this bill is telling these professionals, these medical professionals, how they're supposed to treat their patients regardless of whether or not what we have told them is within the standard of care in their practice. Is that
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 31:36
correct? I'm saying that gender ideology is flawed. It's unscientific, and it's time for us to reevaluate what we're doing with our kids and put our child's well-being first. We have seen, again, the testimony at the beginning, we've seen a 347% increase in transgender youth. Something is wrong. And things that we're doing in the past were better. We can take it. If we're in, again, I'm a nurse, so I look at things right. So if we have a treatment, if I have a treatment that's working 90% of the time, and I just drop it and do when it's 0% effective, I think we should re-look at that and re-examine it. And that's what I'm trying to do with this piece of legislation. We're just to step back and say, stop. What we're doing is not working. Let's re-look at that and make sure we're taking care of the well-being of the child. I can't see in any process where
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 32:23
gender confusion is in the best interest in the well-being of a child. Representative Bentley, and I appreciate that, and I really maybe misunderstood my question in the interest of time. What I'd like is an answer to my question. Are we telling medical professionals that the wisdom of the legislature should trump what they have learned in practice and in medical school and telling them to do something that goes against the standard of care to treat the person that presents in front of them, and that's a yes or no question. I would say yes or no question, please. I'm going to give you an answer to the question. It's not just a yes or
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 32:53
no. This is a complicated issue, and we have to look and see. It is very complicated, and we have to look and see. It is our role to set policy. It's our role to step and say, you know what? Relook what you're doing because what you're doing is causing harm. If we saw that a physical treatment, like in the days when they were doing lobectomies, to remove somebody's part of their brain because they thought that was a good way to treat mental illness. Thank God somebody stepped up and said, a policymaker stepped up and said, that's wrong. We're going to stop that bad policy, and that's what I'm doing here today, for us to stop and to rethink and say, what we're doing to our children is wrong. Relook what you're doing and put the child's best interest ahead of time. And Chairman, real
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 33:30
quick, I'm going to grab a bottle of water. One last follow-up. Representative Bentley, what about in the case of intersex children? Being intersex is a medical diagnosis. It has nothing to do with gender ideology. There is no exception, no safe harbor for the treatment of intersex children. So what are medical professionals supposed to do in that case?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 33:48
Intersex children are not transgender children. Intersex children have a chromosome, and they are treated specifically rarely, and they are treated by a physician in a way to handle what their chromosomes are. They have either XX or their XY. So intersex is very rare what's happening. It's for those parents to decide what's best for that child to move forward. But they either have an XX or an XY, And this has absolutely nothing to do with treating intersex children. They're not transgender. They're not suffering with gender. Representative Moore, you're recognized for
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendra Moore Unverified 34:16
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Bentley, I appreciate you bringing this issue. I think this is a very serious issue, but I think this issue should be dealt with the right way. And I've just got some concern regarding the definition and perhaps how broad it is, Because the two things that you say define gender-affirming intervention, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy, if I'm not mistaken, those are already illegal, but that's included but not limited to. I'm afraid that trial lawyers may use this as a piggy bank on some of these health care providers. Could you speak to that? Well, if they're
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 34:50
not prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, then they have nothing to worry about. Right now, it's not illegal. Unfortunately, our law has been held up in court, right? so it's still up in Eighth Circuit Court, so it's held up in court right now. So it's not, but here's my thoughts here for us to look and to see, and in Europe and other places, they've totally quit for them to not look at and see if I have a, if I'm a physician, I'm given a medication, I know the side effects are much worse than what I'm trying to treat here. And I know that if we get these kids through puberty, that 90% of them, 80 to 90% of them are going to go back to the regular, the gender they were born with. Why would I not do that 90%? I'm saying these parents have a right, and these kids have a right to sue for damages. If this professional does not look, my goodness, I would never in my life as a nurse not do something that was 90% effective. I'm saying let's look at the evidence, let's look at the scientific evidence, and get away from ideology
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Kendra Moore Unverified 35:43
that's hurting our children. Follow up, Madam Chair. You recognize. And while I agree with you in spirit, it has been brought to my attention that some health care providers may be afraid Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but does this legislation, if passed, would it put those health care providers that simply refer that patient to another health care provider or mental health professional, and that mental health professional does this gender-affirming intervention, does that hold any liability for the original provider who made that referral? Absolutely not. Why
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 36:14
would I think if that pediatrician transferred that child to a cardiologist and some of that cardiologist did a bad surgery, are they held liable for that cardiologist screwing up in surgery? Absolutely not. Their liability does not transfer to a cardiologist, so why would it transfer to another health care professional? They're not held liable for another health care professional. That's totally inaccurate. And I'm very concerned that pediatricians would put their back pocket ahead of taking care of children. I'm really sickened by that thought. They care more about losing money than they care about the well-being of children.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 36:45
really bothers me. Representative Collins, you're recognized for a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 36:48
question. Thank you. So you just said to Representative Moore that if they're not prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy, they have nothing to worry about, but that is not at all what the bill says. That's including without limitation those two things, but those are just examples. That's how this bill is written. Those could have nothing to do with with the intervention, and the intervention is still suable. So I just, can you correct that statement that it's only if you prescribe puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy that you have something to worry about? Again, I was referring to the legislation that
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 37:21
had been passed, the SAFE Act is what I was referring to as a SAFE Act. So if I move back to here, I will say that, again, if they are not affirming the self-diagnosis of a minor and saying, yes, you were born in a wrong body, if they're not doing that, then they have nothing to be concerned about they need to probe and say why are you having that there's some of these kids that have had so many traumas in their life that they're making sure they're understanding what that trauma caused that child then no they're not going to be held liable but if they affirm and say yes you know what you're born the wrong body i tell you let's let's think about somebody was anorexic right so if a child came and they was suffering from anorexia and that person you know what you are obese let me see if we can get you on a weight loss program because you need to lose some weight. That's in essence what they're doing. So if we had an anorexic patient came in there, would you not want to hold that physician liable for saying, you know what, you are a little overweight, let's help you lose some more weight. Would you not want to hold that person liable for what they just did to that person suffering with
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 38:20
anorexia? Follow up, please. You're recognized for a follow up. Okay, so I want to ask you on a slightly different note. It seems to me like if the standards of the profession are saying to do one thing, and doing that thing will open them up to liability, then what's going to happen is that no one's going to take these clients on, and we are going to reduce access to health care for some of the people who need it most. And I mean, I think that we're going to see worse health outcomes because we're denying health care and chilling health care, and the whole, like, what we keep doing this session is trying to increase access to health care. And what we're doing with this bill is denying access to health care. Can you talk about that? Are you at all concerned that people just won't take a client who is a child going in a gender situation because they don't want to get sued? Absolutely not. Because you know what we have?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 39:14
We have decades, decades of scientific proof to show that if you will not affirm that child's care, if you will watch and wait, if you'll do no harm, if you'll say, yes, we understand the feelings you're having, but they're not real. And let me help you understand why you're having those feelings. If we'll go back to what we've done for decades to show that that absolutely works, then no, they're not going to be held liable. And I think that our kids will actually get the mental health treatment, and they will get the care that they need they've not been getting for the past few years. And I'm just disheartened at what we're seeing. I'm trying to avoid a crisis with our kids, because I care deeply about the trouble
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 39:48
that we're seeing in our youth. Representative
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 39:52
Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I actually had the same question as Representative Collins. So I guess I'll just kind of try to get a little bit more specificity. The definition in the bill, so whatever one's position on the use of, according to the bill, puberty blockers or cross-sex hormone therapy, that really isn't what's at issue in the bill because the definition that we're given here says an intervention to support a patient's identification with the gender opposite of his or her biological sex. And you just gave some examples, but under that definition, it appears to me that any provider who uses, say, a preferred pronoun would be held liable under this law. Is that true? Is that your intent? A health care
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 40:38
provider that is going to, yes, she's going to say, okay, you are. I'm sorry, you're born the wrong body, and we need to change and change all your different... I'm saying if you were affirming, in your course of action as a health care professional, if you are affirming that child's self-diagnosis, they somehow were born in the wrong body, then yes, if in the end that child is irreparable harm, at the end of the day, you can't sue just because you were called the wrong name. You're sued because a health care professional did not give you the health care that you needed to help you get over the mental illness that you're suffering from and get them to disease and get back to the right gender they were born in. Again, it's just, I'm trying to get back to where health care used to be, right? the well-being of the child. So you're not going to have to sue just because you call somebody different names. The whole course of action to be able to go through court and to get a, what do I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 41:32
want to say, the right judgment from the court that you're after. Follow-up or damages? You're recognized. So I'm a little confused because I feel like you said both yes and no in your answer. I guess my question is, if you are, say, a psychologist, because I've heard a lot from psychologists on this bill, and you have a patient who has requested that you refer to them with a pronoun that is the gender opposite of his or her biological sex, as this bill says. Is that enough? Should that be enough? Is it your intent that that be enough to create a cause of action? Not say you were born in the wrong body, not say any of the stuff you just said, but just refer to a patient by the pronoun that they prefer. Would that be enough to establish a cause of
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 42:13
action? But when you're doing that, you're affirming their, you know, I'm going to sit there and listen to every conversation. Are you affirming that person or are you not? Are you acknowledging that, yes, I acknowledge what you're going by and I acknowledge the feelings that you're having. Those are in-depth conversations with a psychologist, right, that I want them to go through, but I want them to, so they have to do some deep programming into why are they having those feelings. So I think we're getting trapped into what we're calling a person, what name we're calling a person. It's really not what this is about. We're talking about irreparable harm to a minor, a minor that we don't even say they have the right to be able to get a tattoo because they're not fully developed yet. So I'm not going to get into every deep conversation. Again, it's very clear, is that therapist affirming the self-diagnosis of a minor, or are they just acknowledging that they're gender-confused and helping them to resolve that and helping them to get to what is causing that?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 43:02
Why are you having those feelings? Okay, well, I don't think it is clear, and I think that the outreach that we received from a number of practitioners in different areas shows us that it's not clear. I just want to make sure we're not opening people up to liability for something as simple
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 43:19
as a word that comes out of their mouth. So, thanks. Representative McCullough, you're recognized for a question. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 112 43:25
you, Madam Chair. Representative Bentley, you brought up one of the reasons that we need this bill is that these numbers are going up for gender dysphoria dysphoria or whatever you defined it as, but would you agree that in the past people often suffered through their lives, whether it was sexual orientation, gender dysphoria, no matter what it was, they just depressed it, they stuffed it down, and that perhaps we don't know what those true numbers, we don't really have anything to compare that to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 43:52
because we don't know? I disagree with that. I think there's a whole troll of data to show that children that were suffering with gender confusion when they were giving accurate care, watch and wait, or do no harm, that those children at the end of puberty were turned back to fully believe in and in compliance with the gender that they were born in. So there's ample data. There's decades of data to show that those children resolved that issue when they got through puberty. We just stopped letting kids get through puberty. We started doing things to not let them go through puberty, to have them to fear puberty, to stop puberty. Puberty is what fixes it in the end. We have decades, decades of research to show that. Follow up please.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 112 44:32
So it's still and this is probably just maybe repeating what some other people have questioned about. I mean it just seems like their medical providers are going to be forced to ignore how the how the kids feel in a lot of ways and to give them good advice or to recommend that they go for mental health treatment or whatever but doesn't this in the end hurt the kids and the doctors who want to help the kids? I would say absolutely not. We
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 44:56
have decades again of research to show if we will help these kids get through puberty, in the end, they will align with the biology that they were created with, and you know what, they can choose to be parents where they want to be or not, and the bodies aren't really medically mutilated. We have to look and see reality, what's in front of us, what's happening to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 45:15
our kids. You good? You need a follow-up? Okay. Representative Hudson, you're recognized for
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 45:22
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I know that you've referenced, Representative Bentley, the decades of studies, but I'm more concerned about the peer-reviewed studies that show that there's a higher baseline risk of suicide among trans youth who do not have access to care. And what I think that we're doing here is creating a situation in which these youth do not have access to care, and that is going to cause higher rates of suicide. And there are several peer-reviewed studies that reflect, one, that if they do not have access to care, the eventuality of suicide increases, and two, that every time this type of legislation has brought, the suicidality of these trans youth increases and spikes considerably. So in balance, you know, do you agree with the idea that we are making it difficult for these kids to access care? I'm concerned about this.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 46:10
This whole bill is about making sure they get the care that will actually get the treatment they need so they will be, in the end of the day, at the end of their puberty, they'll be aligning with the sex they were born. They can choose to be parents if they choose it. We can't ignore what's happening to kids. That double mastectomies are being done on young girls and that gender organs are being cut off of young boys. We can't deny what's happening and we are just appalled by what's happening to our kids. I want our kids yes to get good treatment. I want them to get the treatment that we've shown for decades works. We can't deny that for decades it worked and now we're deciding we're not going to do that anymore. I want us to pause and look and see, you know what, I do want kids to get mental health. I desperately want them to do. I've worked on legislation to make sure we pass legislation to make sure there's more mental health available for our kids. And it's the last thing that I'm trying to do, the very last thing that I'm trying to do with this bill. I want kids, the well-being of children to be put first, and that's what I'm
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 47:05
trying to do with this bill. Representative Bentley, as I understand it, the bill that you brought today has nothing to do with double mastectomies or any sort of surgery on these children. And I would be interested if you could share with us where in Arkansas these surgeries are being done. Because as far as I know, there is not a single doctor in the state now or in history who was doing elective surgeries for double mastectomies and other under-gender-related surgeries on minors. So could you share with us where those
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 47:29
are? I personally know of 20-year-old girls that have double mastectomies done here because of this. So 20-year-olds, just barely over 18. Okay, so I'm sorry. I know personally of 20-year-old girls that have gotten double mastectomies here in Little Rock in the past six months. I'm also aware of teenage girls who get breast implants. are we banning those as well? It has nothing to do with that. You
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 47:51
know that. Members, any other questions? Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 47:55
Chair. Representative Bentley, I guess I'm just curious. I know that we have, I haven't seen the list of people to sign up, but I did want to get you the opportunity to answer this question before people speak. I think my guess is we will have a lot of people who are signed up to speak against this bill. I don't know that we will hear from anybody who is for this bill, but I guess my question is that this is such a big problem if people are having such huge regrets after the fact. Why aren't we hearing from them as these laws are being passed that they wish they had protection? I've heard many testimonies of people
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 48:28
that have, just like Chloe Cole, I've listened to many testimonies of true transitioners that wish they had never happened to them. It's our job to protect children, right? And so I have heard from mental health professionals here in the state personally sent me messages that tell me they can't be here today, but they're 100% in favor of this bill and we're excited to see what we're doing with this legislation that we're putting the well-being of children first.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 48:52
Members, any other questions? Seeing no questions, we do have 12 people who have signed up to speak all against this bill. I've already announced that we're going to limit it to two minutes a person. The chair would entertain limiting it to a total of 15 minutes if there is such a motion. I do have a motion on the table to limit total testimony to 15 minutes. Is there any discussion, Representative Clowney, you're recognized for discussion? How many
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 49:19
people did you say were signed up? 12. So, I mean, 24, nine more minutes to give people who have traveled from across the state the opportunity to speak on a bill seems certainly fair to me. I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 49:35
guess I would just oppose the 15-minute limit. Any other discussion?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Joy Springer Unverified 49:40
Representative Springer, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I would think that since you initially announced two minutes, 12 times 2 is
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 49:48
24. I know, but I'm also taking into account that we've got people coming to the table, away from the table, going over the two minutes. Look, y'all all know where we're under, but we'll stick with the two minutes for the time being. All right, first one up. Meredith Scroggins, Scroggins, if I mispronounce, I apologize. We will start the timer once you get to the end of the table and identify yourself. The timer will start.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 129 50:35
Meredith Scroggen. I'm a licensed clinical social worker. I've been in practice for 28 years. I provide individual therapy to adults, many of whom identify as transgender and gender diverse. It is my job and ethical duty as a social worker to meet clients where they are. Basically, I'm here to speak on behalf of clients who, I don't work with children, but the adults that I am seeing, had they been, had their identities, had anything about their wishes been respected or honored or even listened to, They more than likely would not have needed serious mental health treatment. Gender identity and gender expression do not cause mental health issues. Rather, it's the impact of negative reactions to a person's gender, the harassment, discrimination, social stigma that they face that creates the context for mental health issues. It is more than understandable that in light of all of this legislation and years of oppression before this, that one would develop symptoms of depression and anxiety when your friends, family, teachers, classmates, religion, and or society at large do not accept who you are. Mental health issues for transgender and gender-diverse youth also arise from the struggles they have with a body that does not match their psyche, their soul, their mind, or their spirit. Also, I think it's important to note a study that was done by the Trevor Project in 2024 where more than 18,000 LGBTQ plus young people ages 13 to 24 across the United States participated.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 52:49
Ma'am, if you'll finish your sentence for
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 129 52:52
two minutes. Okay, specifically, so this is relevant to Arkansas. This study, Arkansans, 45% of LGBTQ plus people seriously considered suicide in the past year, including 53% of transgender and gender diverse. In Arkansas, 15% of young people, LGBTQ plus people in Arkansas, attempted suicide in the past year, including 18% of transgender, gender diverse.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 53:21
In Arkansas, 68%. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, but your two minutes are up, and we've got a lot who want to speak. Next, we have, speaking against the bill, Kristen Soule. If you'll come to the end of the table, identify yourself.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 133 53:42
You're recognized to speak against the bill. Hi, I'm Kristen Soule. I'm at LCSW here, and I've been practicing gender-affirming care for many years, and I've been provider for 17 years. I've followed evidence-based mental health care and have helped establish our state's pediatric gender clinic in 2018. We follow conservative best practice guidelines, consulting with experts from Dallas Children's Hospital, as well as from obtaining training from Harvard experts. I would like to say since focusing almost entirely on working with the transgender community, none of the hundreds of clients I've had have died by suicide, and this is here in the state. But I know of four kids from Arkansas that have died by suicide that weren't getting gender-affirming care. One was trying to get into our clinic. I've seen the emotional toll on kids forced to wait for care, and I've seen the joy and health that come when they're supported. One of my former clients introduced me to his husband at the last prep parade at SOMA. I urge you to vote no on this bill, and then I'm open to any questions. Seeing no questions,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 55:09
thank you for being here. Next, we have Tia Estelle. Hello.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 9 55:28
Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Tia Estelle Unverified 55:32
My name is Tia Estelle, and I'm the policy coordinator for Intransitive. I'm here today because I very strongly oppose HB 1916. This bill is completely unnecessary, costly, and dangerous. There is absolutely no reason to broaden the scope of Act 274. Trans youth and trans people in general comprise such a small percentage of Arkansas's population, yet our access to health care is once again being threatened. Our youth's access to life-saving health care is once again being threatened. The term gender-affirming intervention is vague, confusing, and could be applied quite broadly. The current malpractice law requires some kind of medical transition to create liability. This bill would add liability and the threat of costly litigation for any act that affirms a trans minor's gender identity. Supporting a youth social transition and using the requested name and pronouns and letting them know that they aren't alone and that they are not a grotesque experiment, as was said earlier. My job is to serve trans Arkansans. We are, we, in my work, forgive me, in my work with trans people of all ages throughout our state, I have yet to meet any youth or parents who regret social transition or any kind of medical transition. Most of them don't have access to a full range of gender affirming services. Most of them have no way to get the life-saving medications, but they might be able to see a therapist, maybe. But if you take that away, it removes all access to care. So I'm asking you, please, please, please vote against HB 1916. Thank you. Thank you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 57:32
for your testimony. Next we have Braylon Smith. Braylon Smith. Hello, my
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Braylon Smith Unverified 58:01
name is Braylon Smith, and I am a transgender man. That means that I was assigned female at birth. I had a therapist of over 15 years try to tell me that I was not transgender when I tried to talk to her about gender issues. That elongated my distress and increased the time that I was suicidal by years, even though I only stayed with her for about six months after I first tried the conversation. I was, at that time, distracted. I was nauseous a lot of the time because of the incongruency in the way I was living my life and the way I felt. And then when I got a supportive therapist, it turned around very quickly. Even though, or I say not even though, but it turned around very quickly because she probed why. She didn't go in and say, no, you're not transgender. She said, okay, let's explore this because that is standard practice. That is what is happening. It's already been said a little bit, but the research and the numbers that I have are very different than the ones that were presented earlier. The suicide rate of unsupported transgender youth is over 40%. That goes down to match their peers when they are supported. De-transitioners make up less than 1% of the people who transition. And of those, 80% are transgender. They de-transitioned because they didn't have support around them. All the major medical organizations support, supporting transgender youth. We have standards in place. They are followed. They are conservative. They explore the why, and don't go in and say, yes, you are. They say, okay, let's explore this, and let's make you comfortable in the meantime. This isn't about beliefs. This is about lives, and this care saves lives. So please vote no on HB 1916.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 7 1:00:15
Thank you for your testimony today. Next, we have Charlotte Jones. Hello, Chairwoman Carol Dalby
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 143 1:00:49
and other members of the House
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:00:52
Judiciary Committee. I think your mic's off. Representative Pierce, make sure the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 46 1:00:57
mic's on, would you please? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Hello, Chairwoman Carol Dalby
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Charlotte Jones Unverified 1:01:02
and other members of the House Judiciary Committee. My name is Charlotte Jones. I'm a transgender woman who was born and raised in Arkansas. Because gender confusion is not a diagnosable medical condition, I was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and began taking cross-sex hormones at the age of 18. Puberty did not fix it for me. I do not believe I am the result of grotesque medical experimentation or sinister ideology. I'm a very ordinary Arkansan who is here out of concern for the vulnerable youth of Arkansas and to voice my opposition to HB 1916. I believe we're all here because we want to ensure all children receive the best mental and physical health care, Though it purports to protect all children who identify as transgender, HB 1916 does the opposite. The threat of litigation de facto forbids social workers and health care professionals from affirming a child's identity in even small ways, such as by using their preferred name or pronouns. Providers must make an impossible choice to entirely reject a transgender child's identity, an act which does demonstrable harm or risk arbitrary and costly litigation. Transition-related medical care and social support have repeatedly been shown to be beneficial and even life-saving. Access to transition-related care is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. What this care looks like is different according to the needs of each child, but it should be determined by parents and medical professionals, not by the fear of litigation. To truly protect vulnerable youth, lawmakers must permit parents, schools, pediatricians, and communities to meet children's needs in whichever way is best. Please vote no to HB 1916.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 26 1:03:02
Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you for your consideration. Next we have Tracy Sandifer. Tracy Sandifer.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 153 1:03:27
Hi, I'm Tracy Sandifer, and I'm a parent to four kids. And this, excuse me, sorry. It's difficult to sit and listen to the lies that were presented with the bill. And the fact that medical practice has changed and we now have a different standard of care than we did decades ago is a good thing because our medical professionals learn and they change with what's needed for the patients. And if we take this bill and we go backwards, it's not good for anybody. We're going opposite of the way we need to. We need to continue to perfect our care for these kids and not go back to old standards. That's all I need.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:04:25
Thank you. Thank you for being here today. Next, we have Michelle Clark.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 156 1:04:42
Hi there. Thank you. I'm Michelle Clark. I am a licensed professional counselor and a licensed marriage and family therapist here in Little Rock. I am a trauma-based therapist. A lot of my practice is focused on an interpersonal neurobiological approach, working with understanding how our nervous system and our brain is impacting our ability to change, our ability to basically heal, grow. And I appreciate wanting to put children first. I agree with that. I guess I feel that there are a lot of assumptions being made about what we've been trained to do. From a neuroscience perspective, we now understand that when our nervous system is in what they call a parasympathetic ventral state, we have access to our higher brain. When we feel safe and we feel accepted, that is when we can be in that state. As soon as there's any sense of rejection, we go into a place of fight or flight, that sympathetic nervous system. When we're there for so long and we don't feel accepted, we are in a state of fear, we shut down. And we get stuck in what they call a dorsal state, which is where we find depression. Carl Rogers, who was basically the grandfather of psychology, and he's very well respected, believed that unconditional positive regard and acceptance was what led people to self-actualization, where they can be fully who they are and make changes. It is my job to create a space of safety for all of my clients, Because if they do not feel safe, they cannot heal.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 57 1:06:57
And your time's up. I'm sorry. Yes. Please allow us to do our jobs
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Rodney Eugene Unverified 1:07:04
as we were trained to do. Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you. Next, we have, speaking against the bill, Anna
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Anna Strong Unverified 1:07:22
Strong. Good morning, committee, and thank you, Chair Dalby. My name is Anna Strong. I am with the Arkansas chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I am their executive director. We represent about 500 pediatricians here in the state of Arkansas. And like Representative Bentley, pediatricians are in the business of keeping kids safe and healthy, and this includes checkups and well-child visits and doctor's visits, but it also means caring for kids who are struggling with their mental health. There are already a lot of barriers in place for kids getting the mental health care they need due to provider shortages, rural disparities, et cetera, for therapists and specialists. And this bill adds liability and access concerns for pediatricians and others who want to care for kids to the list of barriers for mental health care. We want to keep kids first and not be focused on liability while we should be focused on a kid's health in the exam room. And I'll cover four brief reasons why the Arkansas chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics opposes House Bill 1916. First, the definition of gender-affirming intervention is incredibly broad given the including without limitation language. And it's additionally a circular definition. It defines the word intervention by using the word intervention. So it's very unclear what that might cover. The two examples of medical care that are referenced in that definition are already explicitly banned. And it's unclear what this language is trying to ban. Seems to open the door to all of the social transition language this committee question in Representative Bentley's previous bill that was pulled down. Secondly, pediatricians are concerned that documenting normal, everyday youth-centered care could put them at risk of lawsuits, and I don't have time to cover the examples I had of that, but I'm happy to share those if y'all would like. Thirdly, the safe harbor is confusing for gender-affirming interventions and hard to follow when a pediatrician's caring for a youth who has a mental health diagnosis, such as depression, suicidality, et cetera, and they have questions about their gender. And I can talk a little bit about that as well, about the safe harbor provisions and where there are issues with that. And then finally, unscrupulous lawyers and families hard on their luck could easily turn the way this is written now into a jackpot that hurts our pediatricians who are already on really honestly the financial brink right now. And so just to wrap this up, I appreciate Representative Bentley. We talked to her about her former bill and this one, just about our concerns with this. And we're not able to come to a shared conclusion. But our members are really focused on the kids and worried that this bill puts barriers in place to mental health care that kids need in this situation. And they're already struggling to care for the mental health of their patients, and this makes that job
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 100 1:09:56
harder. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:10:01
testimony today. Next, we have Reverend Marie O'Connell.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 161 1:10:13
Hi, my name is Marie Maynard-O'Connell, and I'm a Presbyterian pastor here in Little Rock, and I'm the founder and organizer of a community for queer families. And among our families, one of the chief reasons that we exist is parents trying to help their children be safe and not commit suicide. And previous speakers have spoken to how difficult it can be to treat these children when they are having so many big feelings. But right now I can tell you it is sometimes impossible to find someone for your child to see as a therapist. That's a very difficult proposition, and I fear that this bill is going to make that even harder. I'm also concerned that in the safe harbor aspects of this bill, it extends the length of time before a child can get some very life-saving treatment in being able to be called who they are. Our community has weathered five suicide attempts. I don't even think some of them know that. I know that. By extending the liability to mental health care providers, you are taking out probably the last provider standing for some of our kids. And in my community, I dread the day that I have to do a funeral. I'm reminded by some of the statistics that we heard previously about how intersex kids are rare, but they are the same prevalence in the world as redheads. There are maybe 1,800 transgender kids in Arkansas, and I know hundreds of them. We also heard that previous and past years effectiveness was 80%, but that's 20% who needed that care. And today, I'm here to advocate on behalf of the kids who need this care exactly as it's provided today. That is a very small number, but they desperately need it. And as a pastor, I'm reminded of the Good Shepherd who left the 99 to find the one. And so even though we are deeply concerned about all children's care, I'm concerned about those who need this care now so that they can live to be 18 and start making some of those decisions for themselves. Please vote no. It is overbroad and harmful.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 26 1:12:50
Thank you. Thank you, Reverend O'Connell. Next we have Nicole Carey.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 168 1:12:58
Is this one already on? Hi, I'm Nicole Carey with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. We're here today to ask you to vote no on this bill. And for many of the reasons that have already been stated, either by committee members or other people who have testified, This bill unnecessarily targets trans kids in our state to ensure that after we've already prohibited them accessing necessary medical services, which are some of the most restrictive laws in our country, now they also will not have access to mental health treatment and how the bill is written. This will have a detrimental effect on this population, as has already been stated, and they have such a high suicide rate compared to their peers. And in contrast to some of the comments made by the sponsor, these high suicide rates are because of bullying and harassment and the lack of access to basic care and support and the unrelenting attempts to legislate them basically out of existence. The definition of gender-affirming intervention is overly broad, as has been previously stated. We worry that in addition to the specific examples in the bill, the without limitation would also include things like using someone's preferred pronoun. Because the bill is so vague, it will create a culture of fear and uncertainty by requiring a mental health professional to guess at what behavior is considered a gender-affirming intervention. Laws should be clear, particularly when they prohibit actions. Individuals who need to comply with the law should be able to know with certainty what behavior they need to have and not guess what the law is prohibiting. This bill will allow widespread discrimination against trans kids by forcing mental health providers to choose between providing a safe place for their clients or potentially being enrolled in a legal battle in 15 plus years. A civil lawsuit can devastate a person's life because of the high cost of defending such a case. This bill will certainly result in fear-based decision-making instead of the medically relevant care that our kids need. This bill targets trans kids to the extent it will be hard for them to just live their lives. Trans children are entitled to the same things as cis children, including the opportunity to feel safe and secure. Because this bill intentionally targets trans children and will result in serious harm, we ask you to vote no for this bill. Please listen to the mental health experts and the people with lived experience who have already testified and vote no. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 26 1:15:51
you. Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Josh Garrett-Jones. I think
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Josh Garrett Unverified 1:16:06
your microphone's off. Hi, my name is
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 170 1:16:11
Josh Garrett. I'm a licensed professional counselor, and I primarily treat gender non-conforming teens. I also identify as transgender. I'm a product of the watch and wait treatment Representative Bentley is claiming is 90% effective. I did not receive support from my parents, family, church, teachers, or community. I tried to conform to traditional gender norms. I forced myself to participate in what society deems feminine activities and behavior. And I hated myself. I was depressed and often suicidal until I received gender-affirming care and began medically transitioning in my late 30s. And I'm one of the lucky ones. I personally know others that didn't make it as far. I'm concerned this bill is going to eliminate mental health care for gender non-conforming minors. Mental health professionals are going to be hesitant to provide care because providing wash and wait treatment is dangerous, and it goes against our code of ethics. I urge you to vote against this bill. Thank you.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:17:13
Thank you for your testimony. We have one more signed up to speak against. Kristen Stewart.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Kristen Stewart Unverified 1:17:23
Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to speak today. I'm here today to speak in opposition of this bill and just want to note that everyone here signed up today to speak is against it. This bill is cruel. It targets families who are already navigating some of the most difficult and personal decisions they'll ever have to make. It tells transgender kids that their lives are up for debate, that the care they receive can be second-guessed for decades, and that the people trying to help them, doctors, parents, therapists, can be punished for doing so. It's also a direct attack on parental rights. Parents in consultation with qualified medical professionals should be trusted to make health care decisions for their children. But this bill says the state knows better. That's not protection, that's control. Supporters of this bill may also say they believe in small government, but there is nothing small about inserting the government into the private lives of families. There's nothing conservative about stripping parents of their rights and threatening doctors with lawsuits for providing evidence-based, life-saving care. I know we only all had two minutes to speak, and I know someone else that was here didn't get to share their experience as a parent of a transgender son. Her son's experience as a now 20-year-old, he had panic attacks, anxiety, and depression that was greatly decreased because he has met with a gender-affirming therapist since he came out at 15. His chosen pronouns and name were respected. It meant everything to him and his family. When he turned 18, he could seek gender-affirming medical care. He started talking more because his voice changed. This bill isn't about protecting anyone. It's about cruelty, control, and fear, and it will hurt children in our state. I urge you to vote no. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today. That's
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:19:27
all the individuals that we have signed up to speak against the bill. Representative Bentley, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Chairman. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified 1:19:42
you again, Committee, for your time. I really appreciate it. I know that you all care about kids in our state, and I appreciate it. I will just quickly say this bill is not to limit care. It's to give the kids the care they need so they can reach adulthood and make decisions for themselves on whether they want to be parents or not. I'm really concerned about the track we're going. Eighty percent of this nation says we're going the wrong way. Let's turn it around here in Arkansas. And with that, I'd appreciate a good vote.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:20:03
Members, Representative Bentley, it's closed for the bill. What are the wishes of the committee? We have a motion due pass. Is there any discussion of the motion?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 1:20:15
Representative Collins, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know we heard a lot of talk about and from transgender people. I think whatever your view on transgender people and the issue, you could actually put that aside for this bill. I truly believe this bill really primarily deals with mental health care and access to mental health care. and what it's going to do is reduce access to mental health care for many, many teens who are experiencing gender issues. You know, I was struck because there was someone who spoke at the end of the table about a counselor I met with for years, and they were, you know, not helpful, and they were saying other things than, you know, what was going to be helpful on this gender issue. But I think even that counselor would hesitate to take on a client because they don't want to get sued. And they don't know when in those years of therapy, in years of meetings, that they're going to say something that would be considered a gender intervention. So I think whether you favor this type of thing or not, I actually think you're just not going to have people willing to take on a client, not willing to take on a kid, and they won't get any health care, whether it's helpful or not. And, you know, for that reason, primarily, I think this is really going to chill access, and I'm going to know on it.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 1:21:38
Thanks. Representative Hudson, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. We as a body have made an overarching policy decision to allow parents to have choice in how their children are raised. And we've talked about it in regard to religion and in education, And now we're talking about it in terms of health care. The reality is that mental health treatment is hard work, and that's under the best of circumstances. Kids deserve a safe space where they can talk to a safe person and not feel like their conversations have to be somehow abridged or limited because that person is afraid that they might get sued somewhere 30 years down the road. What we're telling medical professionals today is that we know better than them and that they cannot provide care within the accepted standard of care in their practice. And I know we talk a lot about how not everyone on this committee is a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure none of us here are doctors and none of us on this committee are therapists treating these children. And so I think in this case it would be wise to listen to those who came to the end of the table who do. The reality of the bill is that it is meant to chill access to this care. Therapists and medical professionals will be afraid to provide this type of care due to the threat of lawsuits in the future and increases in malpractice premiums. And so these children will lose one of the last safety valves that they have in order to protect them from suicidality, depression, and other negative outcomes. In 2024, and this was mentioned earlier, the Trevor Project discovered that the indications of suicide and depression increased to as much as 72% when state legislatures like ours passed this legislation. So we are responsible for children trying to kill themselves at a rate of 72% over the norm because of our participation in this type of legislation. I don't think any of us means for that to be the outcome, and I don't think any of us want that for these kids. Now, I know none of us on this committee are medical professionals, but I know a lot of us are parents. And I know that all of us would do anything we could to make sure that our kids didn't end up being part of these statistics. And that's all these parents are trying to do for their kids. So I encourage you to vote no. Members, any other discussion?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:24:30
Seeing no further discussion, we have a motion on the table. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The ayes have it. You have passed
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 178 1:24:47
your bill. We have a roll call. Representative Shepard, yes. Representative Shepard, yes. Representative Eubanks, Representative Eubanks. Representative Tosh, yes. Representative Tosh, yes. Representative Gonzalez, yes. Representative Gonzalez, yes. Representative Gassaway, yes. Representative Gassaway, yes. Representative Crawford, yes. Representative Crawford, yes. Representative Clowney, no. Representative Clowney, no. Representative Collins, no. Representative Collins, no. Representative Evans? Representative Evans? Representative McCullough? Representative McCullough, no. Representative Springer? Representative Springer, no. Representative Beatty? Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Hudson? Representative Hudson, no. Representative Moore? Representative Moore? Representative Brown? Representative Brown, yes. Representative Unger? Representative Unger, yes. Representative Richardson? Yes. Representative Richardson, yes. Representative Pierce? Yes. Representative Pierce, yes. Representative Underwood? Yes. Representative Underwood, yes. The motion passes.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:26:12
Representative Furman, are you in the room? Not seeing Representative Furman, and we'll drop that bill to deferred. Representative Gramlitt, you were here.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 182 1:26:44
I can go ahead and run it then, and I can get it amended in the Senate. If you
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:27:00
would, I'll take your wisdom. Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1975, representing Gramlitt. We'll
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 26 1:27:05
be presenting House Bill 1975. Would you like to turn it off?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 32 1:27:08
I've got to run a bar bill, but I'll be back. That's okay. Thank you, ma'am.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:27:14
Members, while representing Gramblitt is going to end the table, on Tuesday of next week, the only things we will be taking up will be concurrent and Senate amendments. So just be aware of that. Concurrent and Senate amendments on Tuesday. Next Tuesday. You seem confused, Representative Beatty. At least you own up to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 112 1:27:44
it. Representative Gramlitt, if you'll introduce yourself, you're recognized to present your bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 26 1:27:50
Wait a minute. We have an amendment. You're doing 1975. You have an
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:28:00
amendment. Yeah, there's an additional one. We'll do that over in the Senate. Okay, you're just adding a Senate sponsor over there? Yes. Members, the amendment to 1975 is being distributed. Take a quick look at that. Thank you very much. Representative Gramlitt, you're recognized to present your amendment.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 185 1:28:25
So my amendment just clarifies a couple things. It deletes a line that was rather duplicative, and at its 14 to 13 years old, it was some language that some of the people who brought the bill to me suggested. Members, you've heard explanation of the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:28:41
amendment with the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to adopt, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The amendment has been adopted. You're now recognized to present your bill as amended.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 185 1:28:56
Thank you, Madam Chair. 1975 is the Child Content Creation Protection Act. This is actually a bill that came about through discussions with some of my other social media bills. And Google said-- Hang on just a moment. Oh, it's the 1. Let's go ahead and take up Amendment 2. Thank you. That
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:29:19
may save you having to come back next week. Members, the amendment number two being passed out is adding a Senate sponsor, adding Senator Dees as a Senate sponsor. If you'll quickly make that for the record. Adding Senator Dees
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 185 1:29:52
as a Senate sponsor, just like the chairwoman. Members, you've heard the explanation of
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:29:58
House Amendment number two to this bill was the closure of the committee. I have a motion to adopt by Representative Gonzalez. Any discussion of that motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of adopting Amendment No. 2, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Now, then, we're in proper procedural form, so let's start from the beginning, and if you'll present your bill as
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 185 1:30:22
amended. Thank you very much, committee. 1975 is, like I was saying, it's language that was actually brought to me through Google that aims to protect children and content creation. This is a language very similar to some stuff that came out of Utah recently. To take a couple of quotes, children cannot give informed consent to be filmed on social media. If we as adults cannot understand the emotional and psychological impacts of sharing our lives to millions of strangers online, how can we expect our children to understand them? All over the nation, parents film their children and post their content to social media. Many of us in this room do the exact same thing. Some parents and adults take it to the next level. Some parents have chosen to turn their children, and other adults have chosen to turn children into the equivalence of child actors and make money off those children's work. For adults who choose to monetize children's actions, they'll have to be ready to pay and provide a lot of information for doing so. This bill does a number of things. I'll read them out to you quickly. First off, it creates a system that lays out how a child who appears in content online will be compensated and how that compensation will be triggered. It clarifies that minors can produce their own content. Adult content creators who engage with minors for content creation will have to maintain a variety of records until the child turns 21 that are listed in the bill. If the content creator uses children and fails to maintain that data, it gives a path for the child to file a civil suit. Content creators must compensate a minor who engages in this work by placing the money that is calculated and outlined in the bill, earned into a trust that the child can access when they turn 18 or emancipated it also allows for a civil suit if the content creator the adult chooses not to do that social media companies will notify a content creator of a request to move content upon a minor adult as a minor and the obligation of a content creator to delete said content allows a pathway for civil suit upon refusal or inaction to to do so of a content creator so if you profited off a kid you refuse to delete their stuff or their stuff as when they are an adult that could be a civil suit it's unlawful to benefit financially from producing or distributing child sexual explicit content in a way that with the intent to sexually gratify or elicit a sexual response. To make clear, this is like using an image of a child, throwing it through artificial intelligence and churning out something that is horrible and degrading and obscene. That allows for a civil suit to be brought for the child depicted in that image. And finally, it requires a social media platform to develop and implement strategies to reduce or monetize the intentional sexualization of known minors that occur in the context of a known minors' engagement in the work of content creation. And we can dive into the bill and see some more of the specifics, but broad swaths, that's what it does. And with that, I'll take some questions.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:33:17
Members, are there any questions? Representing Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 1:33:22
you, Madam Chair, and thank you for this bill. I think, you know, this is probably a necessary thing. I do want to just know, so if you've got a parent and their child is doing this and they have to retain all these records, how are they going to know they need to do that? Is there
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 185 1:33:40
any kind of a notice? Sure, yeah. So 1503 Part A, it begins to kind of talk about, like, when we start to hit those triggers of when childs are engaging in that kind of work. So it talks about page 2, I apologize, and then we'll move into page 3. So it talks about a minor who is engaging in the content creation if he or she meets the following criteria during the previous 12-month period. So at first, at least 30% of a content creator's compensated content produced within one 30-day period includes the likeness, name, or a photograph of the minor. So if they're in the video for 30% of the time of the video, or if an image of the child and they're talking about the child for 30% of the time of the video, or an image where they're being compensated to be one. The second part is this section is measured by the percentage of time that the likeness, name, or photograph of the minor is visible or the subject of an oral narrative in the content, which I just kind of discussed. The number of views received per content segment on a social media platform met the social media platform's threshold for generation of compensation or the content creator received an actual compensation for the content equal to greater than 10 cents. I think TikTok is around three cents, and YouTube is a lower threshold, but again, you still have to meet that threshold of earning an income, and if you receive over $15,000 in actual compensation for the content in a previous 12-month period. So, this isn't, like, these are rather intentional trying to monetize children. It isn't as much as, you know, somehow your video went viral of you and your kid playing. It's more like the actual we're churning out content to make money. Follow-up, please. You recognize?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 1:35:26
Thank you. And I do understand that this is kind of some serious influencer type stuff. They're going after it. But I guess if a parent doesn't know that they're supposed to keep all these records until the child turns 21 and then the child sues them for not keeping those records, I mean, they can prevail, right? There's really no notice to the parent that they need to do this. Hopefully they've talked to a lawyer or they've talked to someone who knows this law who can tell them you've got to keep this stuff because if you don't, you could be sued. Yeah, and I think I disagree
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 196 1:36:04
in as much. There is some part in this bill that talks about social media companies having to provide notice of stuff, and I'm just struggling to find where it is at this moment. There's privacy removal requests where it talks about having to remove stuff. Let's see. I can't find it at this moment. I apologize. I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 185 1:36:28
would say this to your point, Representative Collins. We were getting late in session, but if you would help me create draft language to make that more clear, I'd be willing to do that as well. You know, it may
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 1:36:42
be that you do need to know about the law, and if you're in this sort of world of business, hopefully someone will notify you about the law, and it may be something that can be modified later, you know, in a future session. I don't think it's a fatal flaw, it's
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 196 1:37:01
just I was curious. Sure. And I agree. That may be a miss we have here. Like I said,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 185 1:37:07
it does talk about the social media. If you choose to remove content, there's some leeway on that. And I guess I would argue, if you're in the world of making money off your kids, you're in a business, and you should know the law of business. You know what I mean? I think that would be. But I think you're right. We could definitely do something more explicit in the future.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:37:28
Okay. Thanks. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gramlitt, you're recognized to close for your bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 185 1:37:41
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. I'm glad I got this bill in front of you all. Hopefully we can do some stuff to protect kids. This is also kind of a child labor thing. We want to protect our kids from being abused, and they should be compensated for the work that they've done. With that, I'd appreciate a good vote.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:37:57
Members, Representative Gramlitt, it's just closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to do pass as amended. Any discussion of that motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. Members, we're going to come right back to these House bills, but I've been informed on Senate Bill 446 that Representative Gassaway's witnesses are about to fly the coop. So, let's get, I think it's a fairly quick bill. Representative Gassaway, you have four minutes. Three, we have a motion to limit you to three minutes. And that's unanimous from the committee, by the way. If you'll identify yourself, members, go to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:39:23
Senate Bill 446. State Representative Jimmy Gazzaway, District 31. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. Senate Bill 446 concerns license plate readers. As many of you may know, we have a general prohibition on the use of license plate readers in the state of Arkansas, except for some very specific instances. State and local law enforcement can use license plate readers for purposes of crime prevention. Parking enforcement can use license plate readers, and then those who would have access to a secure area can currently use a license plate reader under Arkansas law. This would open it up ever so slightly to allow a private landowner, private leaseholder, or commercial business to use a license plate reader for a very limited purpose. One, for public safety, deterring crime, and monitoring access to private property owned or leased by the private landowner, private leaseholder, or commercial business, including ingress and egress to the private property or private road. Basically, this is really to help our retail establishments in asset protection and to deter theft and crime at those facilities. I will say there are very strict, I guess, limitations that are put in place here. One, they can't disclose the data to the government except in the instance where they receive a subpoena. They shall not sell, trade, or exchange the data that they capture for any commercial purpose. It can be shared, however, with a third-party processor for purposes of asset protection only. and they cannot use it again for any commercial purpose other than asset protection analytical services. They can keep the data for no more than 60 days. They have to compile statistical data related to the number of plates scanned, the number of confirmed matches, and they have to compile that data every six months, and they actually have to make reports to ALC. So, you know, there are very strict limitations on it. It's very restrictive, but it will help primarily our retail establishments in asset protection, deterring theft, and for public safety, which is the only purposes this bill allows them to use it for.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:41:47
So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Members, any questions? Representative Tasha,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 1:41:57
recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Representative, I think you've covered it. I just want to make sure where this information is captured, I guess, in these videos, Did you say that that information is available during a criminal investigation? It is available through law enforcement, or is that only through a search warrant, or do they have to turn that over in the course of an investigation without a search warrant?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:42:21
So what the bill provides is a governmental entity may only compel the release of the captured plate data from a user, such as the private landowner, leaseholder, commercial business, under and inside some statutes, through a valid subpoena. So if law enforcement wants it and they can send over a subpoena, they can get access to that data, but only with a subpoena. Okay. My
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified 1:42:47
main question, I understand. I just want to make sure that that information will be available to law enforcement because that's critical during an investigation. It would be very helpful to assist them in that. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:43:02
signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gasway, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for the bill. Make a motion
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:43:09
to do pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:43:13
on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, members, let's move quickly to, I believe, Representative Clowney has some folks here on House Bill 1947. House Bill 1947. Thank you, Madam Chair. With your permission, could
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:43:44
I have somebody join me at the table, please? Certainly.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:43:53
Representative Clowney, you have a number of people who have signed up to speak for the bill. Let's take the person that you have with you at the table, and so those who have signed up to speak for it, we may have to limit their time because we are running out of time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:44:24
You're recognized to present your bill. Colleagues, House Bill 1947 is an attempt to just make Arkansas law a little bit more fair. So under current law, a person who possesses drug paraphernalia with a purpose to inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce it is charged with a Class D felony on their second occurrence. The current reach of that law feels excessive because, for instance, The Arkansas DWI statute allows for three occurrences before the misdemeanor charge becomes a felony. So all this bill does is it lines up the language around drug paraphernalia to match that of DWI. It doesn't make a lot of sense that drug paraphernalia is something that could be possessed short to use a drug, say a pipe or a syringe, but has no drug residue on it, no evidence of ever being used for that purpose. that somebody could be punished for that more harshly than literally driving a car while intoxicated. That's the problem that we're trying to solve. This is especially relevant today. We all know, obviously, we just came out of our millionth joint budget meeting. We know that we are struggling for space in our state's prisons and in our county jails. This is one attempt to kind of get at that as well. So if you'll look at the language of the bill, I know it looks like a whole lot, But really, like I said, all that it does is it lines up the drug paraphernalia statute to match driving while intoxicated. And I also want to note that Representative Gassaway did run a bill a session or two ago to help address this problem. And it was a really great first step. But we think that we still need some help for Arkansas citizens who are struggling. And I would like, I think, at this point to turn it over to my
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Sarah Moore Unverified 1:46:16
witness and have her explain the need a little bit more. Hi, Chair Dobby and members of the House Judiciary Committee. Thank you for your time today. I know it's busy this session. This is a bill that we've been talking about. My name is Sarah Moore. I'm the Executive Director of the Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition. We're a grassroots group of individuals that really came together being concerned about, you know, how we are addressing public health and safety in our state. And so this bill is, as Representative Clowney talked about, Today, individuals oftentimes that are known in our communities to be an act of recovery or an act of supervision are going to end up with a search or a stop, especially in our small communities across Arkansas. And so drug paraphernalia has a definition, has a very large reach. And so because of that, individuals who face this charge as a felony instead of a misdemeanor, it's a high bond amount. And so even in those jurisdictions where they're only there for two or three days, it has devastating consequences for individuals who are rebuilding their lives. They may have applied for 50 different jobs, just gotten started, and they're not showing up to work means they lose that job. They lose that paycheck, and then that housing that they just got stabilized in is gone. And so it really harms and is detrimental to our public health and safety. Also, something that I wanted to bring up is that former Sheriff Tim Helder, whenever I was speaking with him in regards to some of our statutes, one of the things that he really imparted on me was that law enforcement's job is if there is a criminal statute out there, they are supposed to enforce. And so we understand they're not out there trying to constantly get folks on this particular charge. But the truth of the matter is that they do encounter individuals, and this charge does occur. We also live in a state that's incredibly poor, and so many individuals are, you know, having to catch rides with individuals. They may not know them that well, and we have individuals who, you know, an item, again, with no residue, a baggie, a straw, a pen that fell apart in somebody's purse, ends up charging, getting them charged with a felony and kind of derailing their life simply because they were trying to get a ride with someone. So I will acknowledge, you know, prosecutors also use discretion, and oftentimes they're maybe not fully prosecuting these charges, but it's just that front end, it causes the de-escalation. The other thing is that we did proactively take this in front of the prosecutors, and one of the modifications we had made is in the language of the bill, we had actually proposed to put both the personal side and the delivery manufacturer as matching DWI law. They expressed some concerns around delivery and manufacture, and so we remained that at the second occurrences of felony. But this is really targeting that personal possible use, so really thinking about when someone's in active recovery, they're going to have, you know, multiple times they're continuing, you know, to struggle as well. And so we know that in the literature around harm reduction and the evidence around that is that, you know, those individuals too that get tripped up with charges like this, they oftentimes struggle too in their recovery journey. I really appreciate your time today and your consideration. This is really, you know, as we've gone through session, you've looked at over 2,000 bills. So many of those have either, you know, been additional criminal charges. They've been enhancements. And so we're really just saying that we want to be smart on crime. We want to create some balance in the system. And so asking you for your consideration that we just start to balance the scales of justice. Members, are
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:49:51
there any questions? Seeing no questions, we have a number of... Oh, I'm sorry, Representative Gonzalez, was that a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Justin Gonzales Unverified 1:49:58
question? Yeah. Okay, I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. So you talk a lot about the drug paraphernalia not having any residue or anything like that on it, but in current law, it says if the controlled substance is methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, or cocaine, and you're leaving that in there, appreciate that, but how would How would you be convicted of that paraphernalia if there was no residue and there wasn't any of these other things present in the location? How many times are people convicted of that, of just having the paraphernalia and there's nothing else involved? There's none of these other substances anywhere around or near
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Sarah Moore Unverified 1:50:39
or whatever? I appreciate the question. I'll probably have to let the prosecutors talk to what happens in their particular instances. What my main concern is in our organization is that this is, again, even if prosecutors use their discretion and they dismiss the charge, the concern is that on the front end, a lot of times for individuals, these are felonies. So they trap them in local county jails and really destabilize their lives. So even if these are dismissed later down the road, the concern is that at that very initial interaction, even when they're charged. Now, there are convictions that we see that are occurring. I think I sent some numbers. There were 880 charges that happened in this last year. And then in conjunction, that were just drug paraphernalia alone. Whenever you look at, there were probably about 7,800 cases that had drug paraphernalia and some level of possession. But I do not know what the numbers are
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:51:40
on convictions. Yeah, so Representative Gonzalez, just to follow up. So in 2024, for instance, there were 7,870 cases that had a drug paraphernalia charge, period. 889 of those were only a paraphernalia charge. Members, any other questions?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:51:54
Representative Gassaway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:51:58
and thank you, Representative Clowney, for bringing this bill. And Ms. Moore, always good to see you. I do have a little bit of concern, though, because I thought that when I heard the presentation of the bill that you left fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine, which are the most deadly and destructive drugs that we're dealing with in Arkansas right now, that you left possession of paraphernalia with regard to those bills as a felony, but that's not the case. Even paraphernalia related to those types of drugs under your bill is a misdemeanor, unclassified misdemeanor?
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Sarah Moore Unverified 1:52:38
That's right, yes. For the personal use side, not for trafficking, delivery, or manufacture. Okay. And then it looks
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:52:47
like there's all of this, I mean, even second, third, and fourth offense is all still misdemeanors, even if it's fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine? Fourth offense is a felony. Okay. So, like I said, it just
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 1:53:02
lines up with DWI, where the first three are misdemeanors, fourth is a felony. I see. Yeah.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 1:53:08
But even if it's fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine? Correct. To be clear. Okay. All right. Thank you very
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:53:14
much. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have a number of people who have signed up to speak for and against the bill. We have Chris Walton and Dan Hsu to speak against the bill. Gentlemen, I imposed a two-minute, the previous, we're going to impose without objection from the committee, two minutes on your testimony. Sorry, but it's that time of session. I know y'all understand. So if y'all identify yourself, you're recognized to give your testimony. I'm Daniel Hsu.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Daniel Shue Unverified 1:53:49
I'm the elected prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County 12th Judicial District. I am president of the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Chris Walton, Saline County Prosecutor. And the APAA is opposed to this bill, and those reasons have already been exposed to you. Whenever there's drug paraphernalia, it is tested. It's sent to the crime lab. You have to have residue, at least. If there's residue, you can sustain that charge. Now, if there's a usable amount of the other drug, you can also be charged with that account. Comparing this to DWI is absolutely, it's pineapples to whatever. They're not the same. Alcohol is not illegal. The drugs we're talking about are illegal to possess. And, you know, Senator, Representative Gassaway worked with me in 2021, and we did a Reformation Act, and that was initiated by the prosecuting attorneys. You did four things. made it where possession of drug paraphernalia with another associated felony only counts as one felony conviction for habitual criminal purposes. Number two, the person had to be convicted in the state of Arkansas. So if they had some drug paraphernalia conviction from California or Oregon or whatever, that doesn't count. It has to be in Arkansas you're committing this offense. Third, it is only a felony after the first offense would have to have had counsel just like any other case where you enhance. So you would have had to have had a previous conviction unless it's one of those four drugs that we've already talked about. And then the defendant cannot be charged with multiple counts. Used to, I've heard of other jurisdictions, not my jurisdiction, where if you had three baggage, you could be charged with three baggage as long as they had residue or a measurable amount of drug in them. Finally, keeping these all misdemeanors, you're just enabling these poor addicts, in my opinion. You are enabling them to keep getting, going to district court where there is no treatment. They need to be in drug court and circuit court and shed their addiction and turn their lives around. And that's really, you know, two minutes worth of opposition. I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:56:08
understand, but I'll take questions. Yeah, any questions? Thank you, Mr. Shue. Thank you all
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Rodney Eugene Unverified 1:56:22
for coming. Next, we have to speak for the bill, Stacey Boland.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 106 1:56:27
Boland? Boland? Is it? Oh, here we go. If you'll
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:56:43
state your name and you're recognized to present your testimony. My name is Stacey
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 218 1:56:48
Boland. I live in Washington County and I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 219 1:56:52
have for most of my life. The impact that this bill could have on my community is tremendous. It's very significant. It's not giving them more chances and more chances to be addicts. It's making a mistake and it's a small one at that and it can really have a course-altering effect on your life. They're going to keep getting out and coming back home to where they live like they have to. It's kind of a condition of release. You're not setting people up for success by running them through the criminal justice system at all.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 1:57:40
That's all I have. Okay, thank you, and thank you for your testimony this morning. Mr. Walton, we just had Mr. Hsu. If you're also signed up to speak against, would you like to come to the table to speak against the bill? Mr. Hsu adequately. Okay. All right, thank you. Next, we have to speak for the bill.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 224 1:58:10
Rodney Christian? If you'll state your name, you'll be recognized. My name is Rodney Eugene Christian. I currently reside in Washington County. I'm here to speak for the bill. I'm kind of nervous, but here it goes. It's feeling very, very important to Washington County. I was unfortunately charged with a PPP. Wrongly accused, wrongly placed in jail behind this PPP. I could go into depth, but I feel like just telling me how it is. You, I mean, this bill has, I mean, it just really changed my life around. You know, when I was charged with the bill, when I was charged with that charge, I lost a job, lost my home. My bond was such as I couldn't bond out. Luckily for the Justice Network, I was able to bond out, get my home back, and I'm still fighting the charge. It's just, I just feel like it just brings a whole lot of other things to the table when you get charged with a PPP. If you've never been a felon, you lose out on a lot. That's where I'm at. I'm currently retired, but that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:00:25
Thank you so much. We have Brian Sexton to speak against the bill. Madam Chairman, Mr. Hsu did a good job. Mr. Hsu, I suggest you get all those good compliments while you can. All right. We have next to speak for the bill, Micah Sullivan.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 228 2:01:02
Yes, you may begin. Okay, my name's Micah Sullivan, and I reside in Washington County, and I wrote a testimony out trying to, like, get my brain to, like, calm down right now, and so I don't, like, speed through it. All right, and 2019 was the hardest year of my life. I experienced one of the most devastating losses when my two-month-old daughter passed away from SIDS. In grief, I turned to drugs as a way to cope. It wasn't a healthy choice, but it was the reality of what I was going through at the time. When I say I turn to drugs, it wasn't just one substance, it was multiple. Reflecting back, my behavior was dangerously close to suicidal, given the combination of substances I was using and the reckless way I was living. I often carried drugs on me along with scales to ensure I was getting the right amount when purchasing. On one occasion, I even had baggies because my dealer was out and asked me to bring some. With all this said, the outcome of these arrests were felony-level charges for possession of drug paraphernalia. My personal circumstances were categorized under the Section B of the Drug Paraphernalia Law, which I understand this bill will not directly affect. However, I still believe HB 1947 is a step in the right direction and addresses the underlying issues which many individuals face, such as addiction, trauma, and mental health struggles. The current system I've experienced firsthand often focuses more on punishment rather than rehabilitation. The punishment doesn't always match the reasons behind the people's actions. I understand that regardless of my circumstances, what I did was still illegal, and in the process, I am paying my debt to society and in doing so in a positive way. However, when you look at my record, it appears much worse than what actually occurred, and I believe this is the case for many others. This bill not only offers the chance to reduce recidivism, but also helps ensure that people will feel safer reaching out for help without the fear of being punished for seeking support. It's a step forward in creating a system that encourages individuals to face their struggles and to get the help they need without the fear of criminal consequences. This is my perspective based on my experiences and the stories I've heard from others. While everyone's situation is different, I believe many people share the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:03:20
same view. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. Next, we
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 230 2:03:31
have Jimmy Rye. Jimmy Rye. Oh, I'm sorry. If
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:03:39
you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to speak.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 233 2:03:42
I apologize for... My name is Jimmy Donkirian Bale. Mr. Bale, you're recognized. When it comes to the drug paraphernalia, I think we're still looking at the warm drugs. The initial bill was written in 1987 during the warm drugs, and that's how we're still approaching it. When, in fact, it's a public health concern, safety, locking up addicts is not going to stop the flow of drugs. It's not going to stop the flow of drugs at all. And most of all, the people that's addicted to drugs need help. By sending them to jail, giving them a felony, you're cutting off the legs of them, the nonprofits, and the other people that's trying to help these people overcome their addiction, which is when they get a felony, it spirals. Their life goes down. They see no way of getting out. You know, in a lot of cases, people just keep getting felonies. And that makes their residual vision rate goes up. I think it should be more comprehensive laws that help people overcome their addiction. Quit looking at them as in criminality or doing crime. I mean, not yet, but quit looking at them as them doing crime, but more as them having an illness. Drug is an illness. Anybody that has a family member that's on drugs, y'all know it's an illness. It can make people do things that they rarely wouldn't do.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:05:20
But, yeah, that's all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Appreciate you being here today. We have one other individual who is signed up to speak for the bill. I'm
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 235 2:05:47
sorry. David Freeman. Thank you, Chair. Thank you,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 236 2:05:50
committee. My name is Claire. My legal name is David Freeman. I'm an organizer with the Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition. I've spoken with folks who have been given these drug paraphernalia charges across the state in Washington County, Benton County, and Fort Smith in central Arkansas. What we're doing with this bill is we're reducing the severity of the charges. So some of the folks I've spoken with have gotten the felony level charges for drug paraphernalia. Others have gotten misdemeanor level charges. And what I think is most important to reiterate is that the vast majority of the people that I've spoken with who have experienced drug paraphernalia charges in Arkansas got those charges while they were in the midst of a substance abuse disorder. And the drug paraphernalia charges, felony level drug paraphernalia charges aren't designed to help people who are in the midst of that disorder. They're charging people with a felony level crime, charging them as criminals when, for people who are experiencing substance abuse disorder, what they need is interventions that are geared for public health, not interventions that are treating them as criminals. So I want to reiterate that this bill is just giving more time for people to get not felony level charges but instead misdemeanor level charges that are less disruptive to their lives and that don't give them that felony label that stick with them for so much longer than their time going through a substance abuse disorder, and I thank you for your time.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:07:33
Thank you. Thank you for being here today. Members, that's all the individuals we have signed up to speak for and against the bill. Representative Clowney, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair,
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 2:07:46
and thank you, Committee, for your time. I just want to, in response to Daniel Shue's two minutes, I just want to briefly point out, just remind you all that what this bill is talking about is not drugs. It is not talking about methamphetamine or fentanyl or heroin or cocaine. It is talking about tools. It's talking about paraphernalia. So any concerns about catching those folks in the criminal justice system for their drug use, uh, we, we still have plenty of laws on the books, um, to get it all of that. This is simply addressing paraphernalia. Um, that is because as we heard from our, from our witnesses today, um, a felony is life changing. It can impact negatively your ability to be employed, your ability to get housing, um, stability in your life in all sorts of ways. And so this bill aims to address that problem. And, um, with that I'm closed and I'll make a motion to pass. I'd appreciate a good vote.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:08:45
Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Representing Gasway, you're
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 2:08:51
recognized for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me begin by saying I appreciate all those witnesses who came and spoke today. Certainly, you know, to hear your stories. Addiction is a real thing and it's something that we have to focus on. It's an important public health issue. But there is an intersection with the criminal law. But I do appreciate those who came and spoke. Now, I want to make that clear. The problem that I have with the bill and what I take issue with is specifically the carve-outs for fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. Because if those were going to be carved out, those should be the ones that would be carved out to remain a felony, not be a misdemeanor for three more times. And the reason I say that is because those are deadly and highly addictive drugs. If you do fentanyl enough times, you will die. People who sell fentanyl, if they sell it enough times, will kill someone. Fentanyl is killing people all over the country in this state, and it's not something that we should treat lightly. What people who are taking fentanyl need is an immediate intervention, and they're not going to get that if they're sent to district court, not in the same way that they would, as prosecuting attorney Hsu noted, if they're sent to circuit court, where there's drug court available, where there's highly intensive probation available, where there's just more resources. And so, you know, same thing with methamphetamine. We've all seen people likely who have, in Arkansas certainly, who have struggled with methamphetamine addiction, and you see the pictures of them before and after and how it destroys their life. This is not the type of drug that we should be sending to district court, even though we're talking about paraphernalia. So if someone's caught with a pipe, baggies, a syringe, and it's related to fentanyl, methamphetamine, and I would say heroin, another deadly drug. If you do heroin enough times, there's a strong likelihood you're going to die. This is not the type of paraphernalia that we should be sending to district court. I have similar concerns about cocaine. And so that's the concern that I have with the bill was that carve-out. If that carve-out would have remained a felony, it might be a little different story, but that's my concern. So with that, I'm going to have
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:11:08
to vote no. Thank you. Members, any other discussion? Seeing no further discussion, we have a motion on the table of due pass. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The no's have it. The bill has failed. Thank you. Representative Unger, House Bill 1926, this is the first time your bill's been heard, correct? We have an impact, we have a physical impact statement that we need to get passed out on your bill, but go ahead and take your seat.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Unknown speaker 2:11:59
Thank you.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:12:29
All right, Representative Unger-Wood, you're recognized to present House Bill 1926. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, there are many things that I could say about this bill, but I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Steve Unger Unverified 2:12:47
will not try to say many things. Basically, to amend the law concerning the suspension, revocation, or non-review of a person's driver's license. And so if you're looking at the bill, section 1, paragraph 5A, I, the law as it stands, if the defendant claims an inability to pay the bill, the court shall inquire into the defendant's ability to pay and make a determination of the defendant's financial ability to pay the fine. Now, that is the first time in Chapter 16 that this is mentioned, that there needs to be some determination of the ability to pay. The second time in Chapter 16 that's mentioned is 16-13-708, and I'm just going to read paragraph A, subparagraph 2. However, the court shall not make a request to the department, and that's DF&A, as described under subdivision A1 of this section, before the court has scheduled a hearing to address the person's non-payment of the court-ordered fine and the person has failed to appear. So I have shared with some of you in casual conversation that after I retired and moved back to my hometown of Springdale, I ended up volunteering at a halfway house for felons on parole. And it was a great experience, and I got to tell you, a lot of what I did there has informed me on this committee. It helped me a lot. And one of the things I figured out, if you really wanted to put a dent in recidivism, the best thing you could do is stop taking away people's driver's license for non-payment of fines and fees. So when I say non-payment of fines and fees, I'm not talking about alimony or child care. And with suspending a driver's license, I'm not talking about DUIs or being a dangerous driver. It is simply suspending a driver's license because of unpaid fines and fees. So I have met people who have actually said to the judge, please put me in jail for the weekend, Because they've got a job, and I'm from Springdale, working in a chicken processing plant or something. Please put me in jail for the weekend so I can start working this down. Well, the jails are full, so they can't put them in jail. And so actually up in northwest Arkansas, most judges are not suspending driver's license for unpaid fines and fees. Now, in putting this bill together, Representative Collins gave me good advice. There's also a judge up in northwest Arkansas who wants his name left out of this because he doesn't want other people mad at him. He has actually helped me a lot with this and he pointed out something to me out of 1613-708 that if a court has asked DFNA to suspend a driver's license and DFNA did it and they didn't get that hearing, they'd been harmed. And I was thinking about this, if I was the Jimmy McGill of Little Rock, Arkansas, I think I'd put a billboard out on the interstate and say, "Was your driver's license suspended without a hearing? You may be entitled to damages." So my real intent is, and I put some budget things in here just as a suggestion, so that a judge would see that and realize there are some people who, rubbing their nickels and dimes together, they just can't make ends meet. If you take away the ability of somebody to drive, you're not helping them. You're not helping them family. And I'm going to stop talking and be open for questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:16:41
one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. Colleagues, I'm closed, and I ask for a good vote.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Steve Unger Unverified 2:16:51
Thank you. Are you asking for a motion to pass? Oh, yes, Mason. I'm sorry. I'm out of practice.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:17:00
Well, and we've been here a long time, so we understand. Members, we have a motion. Do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You have passed your bill. Thank you, colleagues. Madam Chair. Members, we have a turn to House Bill 1984. Representative Hudson, you're recognized. Go to the end of the table and present House Bill 1984.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 2:17:30
identify yourself we're ready to roll thank you madam chair thank you committee ashley hudson district 75 colleagues stand bringing house bill 1984 this was a bill um or an idea for a bill that was brought to me by Speaker Evans. He had a constituent come to him with a pretty difficult and devastating situation, but asked if there was any way that we could include as a designation on state driver's licenses something that would indicate immediately to law enforcement that the holder of that driver's license is a registered sex offender, level three or four, so the highest levels of sex offenders. I looked around and it turns out that this is something that a few other states have done. Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma have all made it a requirement for an offender's ID to have some sort of designation on it that alerts law enforcement to the fact that the holder of that identification as a sex offender the way most of these states do it is that it is a designation just like you know the letter or number that's used to designate whether you wear contacts or whether you know whether you have certain restrictions on your driver's license so it's not it wouldn't be just a glaring scarlet letter that would that would necessarily keep somebody from being able to get employment but it would give law enforcement a heads up that the person that they're dealing with, perhaps during a traffic stop with a child in the back of their car, is a sex offender without having to go and call that in. Happy to answer any questions.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:19:29
Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 2:19:32
Thank you, Madam Chair. And, I mean, I guess I could see there being use for this in the situation where law enforcement needs to enforce a law we've created regarding where a sex offender should or shouldn't be. But this is going to go a lot broader because every time you present your ID, which is often, they're going to see that on there. So, I mean, even when someone has no business denying access to someone for being a registered sex offender, they're going to see that on there and they're going to think, well, I don't know if I want to let this person into my, you know, club or restaurant or whatever the case may be. It seems to me like we're going to have a lot more people being excluded from places where they don't have any legal basis to be excluded from just because people don't want to be around a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 2:20:21
sex offender. What do you say to that? Yeah, Robinson F. Collins, I shared that concern when I was looking around at how other states handled this, and there's actually an Alabama case on point. In that case, Alabama had decided to use a designation that said criminal sex offender on the license instead of using a single letter, which is what this bill proposes. In that case, the court determined that a state does have a rightful interest in being able to readily identify sex offenders, but the best way to do it is using the least restrictive of the methods to identify those sex offenders. So using a letter or a number or some other designation is considered to be a lesser discriminatory, I guess, or a lesser difficult way to do it because the reality is I don't know what the letter is that someone uses to wear contacts. I don't know what the letter is that is required for someone to have a restriction on the type of driving that they do, and I would venture to guess that most people other than law enforcement don't keep up
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified 2:21:22
with those designations. Follow-up, please. You're recognized. Well, unless you can tell me where in the bill it says it's just going to be a letter, it looks to me like it says it'll be a designation sufficient to enable them to identify the holder and that it'll be designed by the office, which I guess would be DF&A. So I don't think it's limited to that under this. That may be your intent, but I don't think it's in here.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 2:21:46
Representative Collins, I think that, you know, obviously we drafted the bill in a way to allow DF&A to create the driver's license, but my assumption would be that DF&A would abide by existing case law to use the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:22:00
least restrictive means to do so.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 2:22:02
Representative Gasway, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your work on this. You mentioned other states that do this. other states' laws that you looked at in creating
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 2:22:14
this bill? What states are those? Sure. I looked at, there are several states that do it. I looked at Tennessee, Alabama, West Virginia, and Florida, but there are a handful of
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 2:22:26
other states that also do this. Okay. And those states are already doing this? Correct. And then, follow up. And then, with regard to the sex offenders that this targets, we're just targeting level 3 and level 4. I know level 4 is defined as a sexually violent predator, which my understanding is they have either been found to or have admitted that if given the opportunity, they will offend again. And I'm not sure what level 3. Do you know what a level 3 is classified as? I knew
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified 2:23:05
you were going to do that to me. Sorry. I can pull it up real quick. High risk level three, these individuals usually have histories of repeat sexual offending and strong antisocial, violent, or predatory personality characteristics. Sexual compulsions are likely to be present but may be kept under control when relapse prevention plans are followed and treatment is continued. All right.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:23:30
Thank you very much. That's all. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am closed for the bill and make a motion do pass. Members, we have a motion do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Members, I want to get us out of here so we have a little break. But here is, we've got a couple of bills. Representative Richardson, I'm not skipping you on purpose. It's just that we've heard your bill before, way back when, and you've brought it. We have, according to mine, Representative Gasway has a bill that's not been heard, 1978, 1979, 1980. All three of those bills have not been heard before this committee. I'm at a loss as to whether to start them or not because I know of Representative Gassaway's propensity. Our Senator Gassaway or Judge Gassaway, we've been able to refer to him many ways. session. And I only tease him because he's my friend. You want to take one up now or do you want to wait until we come back? Because members, we are coming back. But we've got a ton of work to do. So
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 2:25:12
what do you want to do, Representative? So I think 1980 and 1979 would be quick presentations. I think 1978 could be a little longer.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:25:22
Okay. Let's go to 1979. I tell you what we're going to do. So anybody that's watching, anybody that's preparing, here's what we're going to do. We'll take up 1979 and 1980. Then we're going to break for lunch because an unhappy committee is unhappy in the afternoon. We will come back. We're not doing this 15 minutes after we end, it is, get your little bodies down here the minute that gavel's struck, and we're going to get rolling, and we will take up at that point, after lunch, 1978, because that's a new bill on our agenda, then we'll pop up to 1178, 1057, and then it's all Senate bills. Okay? Well, I'll wait. Gramlich, I mean, Brown, whoever you are over there. I forgot, yes. You have a bill that's new to our committee. Okay, I'm going to take you up right now. Let's go to Representative Brown. I apologize, Matt. House Bill 1959. Let's take it up. Because I can't think that we've got a ton of people interested in scurry faces. We have an amendment. Have you signed your amendment? Yes, ma'am. Okay, we're going to pass your amendment out. You go ahead and tell
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 254 2:26:44
us what your amendment does. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Matt Brown, District 55. My amendment, Representative Collins actually caught a potential issue in the bill, and so this amendment takes care of that by clarifying that
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 255 2:26:54
we are not abolishing the writ of, we've always called it sire facie, but I think it's actually scar-ee facie is how you're supposed to pronounce it. We're not abolishing it completely. We're just abolishing it for the purpose of renewing a civil
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:27:07
judgment. Members, you've heard an explanation of the amendment. Representative Brown, are you making a motion to adopt your amendment? Make a motion to adopt, Madam Chair. We have a motion to adopt the amendment on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of adoption of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. You now recognize to present your bill. Thank you, Madam
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 254 2:27:28
Chair. Matt Brown, District 55. Colleagues, 1959 is a simple bill. It
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 255 2:27:30
does exactly what the title says. Under current law, when you get a judgment in a civil case, So if somebody owes you some money, you sue them successfully, you get a judgment. That judgment has a 10-year shelf life. And at the end of the 10 years, you have to take a process to renew it and extend it for another 10 years or else it expires. And you just have to keep doing that every 10 years. Under current law, this is done by the writ of scari or sire or facie, however you pronounce it. I lasted about two weeks in Latin in college, and I had to drop it. That is a writ that comes from little old England. It's pretty much been abolished. Sorry. It's been abolished in England, essentially, like I think in the 40s. I think it was an old, old way of essentially registering a foreign judgment, which is essentially, hey, here's a judgment. You are summoned to court to say whether or not this is good or not. That is the process we use in our civil law to renew them. It's a convoluted process. You have to file a petition with the court. You have to get an order issued. You have to get the order served on your judgment debtor. You then have to schedule a hearing if there's an objection, which there never is. If you can't find them, you have to post it on the courthouse door. You just have to jump through a lot of hoops. This simply simplifies it to where if you've not been paid and you're getting up to that 10-year deadline, instead of jumping through all those hoops, you essentially file a notice that says, hey, judgment's still not paid. This is how much is owing. You serve a copy of that on your judgment debtor, and you're now renewed. It's similar to how we would renew a mortgage under existing law. You just file a notice for renewing the mortgage, and
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:28:49
you're good to go. Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Is there any questions? Are there any questions? Excuse my language. Representative Clowney, are you going to
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified 2:28:56
give us the Latin version? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, my question's pretty simple. I'm just curious. Would this presentation have been easier for you if you had taken Latin and stuck
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 254 2:29:04
with it? I could probably say it correctly, but if you're in my court, my town, and you probably pronounced it correctly, you'd probably be laughed at, so we keep it the hick way of
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 112 2:29:13
doing things. Scary, fuck yes. Thank you. Members, any other questions? I'd be in contempt if I said that in my court. The lawyers are really appreciating that joke for sure. Representative Brown, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill. Members, on a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:29:33
serious note, are there any other questions? Seeing no further questions, you're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed, Madam Chair. I
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Speaker 257 2:29:38
make a motion to do pass. I appreciate a good
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:29:41
vote. Members, we have a motion to do pass. On the table, is there any discussion as amended? We have a motion to do pass as amended, correct? Yes, ma'am. Any discussion of the motion to do pass as amended? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, we have 1979. Let's take up House Bill 1979. When was that last session on a bill? If you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to present House
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 2:30:25
Bill 1979. Thank you, Madam Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazzleway, District 31. House Bill 1979 was an issue that was brought to me by a circuit judge. And he made a really good point with regard to warrantless searches. The statute currently only authorized warrantless searches of parolees, probationers, those placed on, I'm sorry, probation, parole. But it does not authorize a warrantless search for suspended imposition of sentence. In the common practice, when a person comes through circuit court on a felony, suspended imposition of sentence is essentially unsupervised probation. They get terms and conditions, just like someone on supervised probation would get, but they don't have to report to a probation officer. And the issue is that the person who's on what essentially is unsupervised probation, Unlike people who are on supervised probation or in other instances, the statute does not authorize them to be subject to search, even though the terms and conditions that they sign and that are entered in court typically say that the person is subject to search at any time by a law enforcement officer while they're on a suspended imposition of sentence. So this just really kind of clarifies what's already in practice, what's already occurring, but what there has not actually been statutory authority for. And so I appreciated the circuit judge bringing this to my attention, and so that's why I filed the
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:31:59
bill. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. Thank
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 2:32:05
you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for the bill. I'll make a
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:32:08
motion to do pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. Members, let's turn to House Bill 1980. You're recognized to present House Bill 1980. Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 2:32:24
State Representative Jimmy Gassaway, District 31. As many of you or some of you may recall, I sponsored a couple of pieces of legislation a few legislative sessions ago about critical infrastructure, defining critical infrastructure in the criminal code, and then creating offenses, criminal mischief type offenses for the damage or destruction of critical infrastructure. And we defined a number of different types of property that would be classified as critical infrastructure, everything from power plants, electric lines, pipelines, just a number of things that are classified as critical infrastructure. This bill simply adds an electric vehicle charging station to the definition of critical infrastructure. We've seen reports all around the country where people are, unfortunately, damaging or destroying electric vehicle charging stations. And why that's a big deal is if you had an electric vehicle and you were trying to drive across the country, you have to stop at these chargers every 300 miles or so to charge your vehicle. And if that's not available because someone's destroyed it, you can't get to where you need to go. So I do think it fits the definition of critical infrastructure like many of the other items that are included there. So that's all the bill does. It simply adds electric vehicle charging station to the definition of critical infrastructure, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:33:47
Members, any questions? Seeing no question. Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Justin Gonzales Unverified 2:33:53
Chair. So I see what you're trying to do here and reading through quickly the list of other things that are protected. Like simple gas stations don't seem to be, or gas pumps that are just as critical for transportation purposes, don't seem to be elicited.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 2:34:06
Do you think that's something that we should add as well? Well, if you look on page two, you'll see a gas processing plant. It goes on processing treatment, fractionation of natural gas. Then it goes on a crude oil, a refined product storage and distribution facility, including without limitation, a valve site, a pipeline, a pump station, metering station. I just wonder if at some point, you know, above ground well, there's a number of things there that relate to, you know, you see on page three, a portion of an oil, gas, hazardous liquid or chemical pipeline tank or other storage facility. And I think if someone were to bomb a gas station, it might actually apply. It might be under a kind of a more liberal reading of those terms, but I think it could qualify. Okay, thank you. It's not a bad idea. We want to be more explicit. Members, any other questions? Seeing no
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:35:06
further questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized. Close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified 2:35:13
I'm closed for the bill. Make a motion due pass.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error
Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified 2:35:15
Members, we have a motion due pass on the table. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You have passed your bill. With that, members, we will stand and recess until immediately after session.
▶ Play Suggest a correction Report an error

Agenda

REGULAR AGENDA

Number Sponsor Subtitle

HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.

5:07
▶ Play chapter

HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.

SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION.

SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936.

SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES.

SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

SB446 Gilmore TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS BY PRIVATE LANDOWNERS, PRIVATE LEASEHOLDER, AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.

1:39:28
▶ Play chapter

SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS.

SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING OF A NEW UNIFORM PETITION TO SEAL A MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.

SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS WHO COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN.

HB1178 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SUMS COLLECTED BY DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES.

HB1057 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON.

HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEER SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP.

HB1916 Bentley TO AMEND THE PROTECTING MINORS FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACT OF 2023; AND TO INCLUDE GENDER-AFFIRMING INTERVENTIONS AS A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.

19:36
▶ Play chapter

HB1926 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR NONRENEWAL OF A PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY A COURT-ORDERED FINE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A DEFENDANT'S INABILITY TO PAY A COURT-ORDERED FINE.

2:12:01
▶ Play chapter

SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY.

SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY GUIDELINES FOR A JUDGMENT MADE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CHILD; AND TO AMEND PROCEDURES AROUND REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT.

SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT.

HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.

1:43:51
▶ Play chapter

HB1959 M. Brown TO ABOLISH THE WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS AND SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS TO REVIVE AN OUTSTANDING JUDGMENT; TO ALLOW A JUDGMENT TO BE REVIVED BY NOTICE; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE FEES TO BE CHARGED BY CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS.

2:27:04
▶ Play chapter

HB1967 K. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL IMAGES OR RECORDINGS.

5:31
▶ Play chapter

SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.

SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS.

SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER.

HB1975 Gramlich TO CREATE THE CHILD CONTENT CREATION PROTECTION ACT.

1:27:39
▶ Play chapter

HB1978 Gazaway TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM.

HB1979 Gazaway AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW WARRANTLESS SEARCHES BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF A PERSON PLACED ON SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

2:30:18
▶ Play chapter

HB1980 Gazaway TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE LOGISTICS ACT (TESLA); AND TO ADD ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF "CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE".

2:32:31
▶ Play chapter

SB426 Hester TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO COMMIT SERIOUS FELONIES INVOLVING VIOLENCE.

SB427 J. Bryant TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHANCE THE PENALTIES FOR PROMOTING PROSTITUTION IN THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD DEGREE; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION AT A BUSINESS.

SB428 J. Bryant CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO PROVIDE A STATUTE OF LIMITATION PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FOR A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

SB429 J. Bryant TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE THAT VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY NO-CONTACT ORDER IN A HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE.

SB430 J. Bryant AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWARDED TO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS ACT.

SB431 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES; TO CREATE SAFE HARBORS FOR VICTIMS; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PRODUCTS THAT RESEMBLE A CHILD.

SB442 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED TO CONDUCT HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING AN ENDANGERED RUNAWAY CHILD.

SB449 Dees TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS, VAPOR PRODUCTS, E-LIQUID PRODUCTS, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND CIGARETTE PAPERS FROM A MINOR AT A SCHOOL.

SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT.

SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.

SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THEFT OR UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF A MAIL RECEPTACLE KEY OR LOCK.

SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES FOR THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS.

SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT PROGRAM FOR A PERSON ON PROBATION, PAROLE, OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION TO EARN TIME CREDITS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION AND THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO CLARIFY REFERENCES TO COMMUNITY CORRECTION CENTERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF SECURITY NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH INMATE COMMUNICATIONS.

HB1984 Hudson TO CREATE A DESIGNATION FOR A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER ON A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD.

2:18:41
▶ Play chapter

SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; AND TO MAKE AN ORDER OF PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.

HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.

HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE OF FORCE INCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY.

HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO REPEAL THE ABILITY OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OR DEFENDANT TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL.

SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION.

SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT.

SB575 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLLECTED IN CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DRIVER'S LICENSE REINSTATEMENT FEES; AND TO CREATE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TASK FORCE.

SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE.

DEFERRED BILLS

Number Sponsor Subtitle

HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT.

HB1141 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT FROM GRANTING A UNIFORM PETITION WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST.

HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991.

HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION ENJOINING A PARTY FROM ENGAGING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE.

HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.

HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER; TO PERMIT THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO ADMINISTER MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION.

HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS.

HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS.

HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; AND TO ALLOW FOR INCOME TAX REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS.

SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND.

HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO CLARIFY THE RIGHTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED BY NONCONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTIMATE DIGITAL FORGERIES.

HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ENHANCEMENT BASED ON PRIOR ACTS.

HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.

HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

Speakers

Representative Carol Dalby Chair Unverified
157 segments
Rodney Eugene Unverified
3 segments
Representative Matt Brown Unverified
18 segments
Catherine Mcclanahan Unverified
11 segments
Representative Andrew Collins Unverified
29 segments
Speaker 26
6 segments
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Unverified
7 segments
Speaker 45
1 segment
Speaker 54
1 segment
Speaker 57
2 segments
Speaker 59
1 segment
Representative Mary Bentley Unverified
55 segments
Representative Ashley Hudson Unverified
34 segments
Representative Kendra Moore Unverified
6 segments
Representative Nicole Clowney Unverified
25 segments
Speaker 112
7 segments
Representative Joy Springer Unverified
1 segment
Speaker 129
5 segments
Speaker 133
4 segments
Speaker 9
1 segment
Tia Estelle Unverified
4 segments
Braylon Smith Unverified
5 segments
Speaker 7
1 segment
Speaker 143
1 segment
Speaker 46
1 segment
Charlotte Jones Unverified
4 segments
Speaker 153
3 segments
Speaker 156
4 segments
Anna Strong Unverified
6 segments
Speaker 100
1 segment
Speaker 161
5 segments
Speaker 168
6 segments
Josh Garrett Unverified
1 segment
Speaker 170
3 segments
Kristen Stewart Unverified
4 segments
Speaker 178
3 segments
Speaker 182
1 segment
Speaker 32
1 segment
Speaker 185
24 segments
Speaker 196
3 segments
Representative Jimmy Gazaway Unverified
35 segments
Representative Dwight Tosh Unverified
3 segments
Sarah Moore Unverified
11 segments
Representative Justin Gonzales Unverified
3 segments
Daniel Shue Unverified
5 segments
Speaker 106
1 segment
Speaker 218
1 segment
Speaker 219
2 segments
Speaker 224
4 segments
Speaker 228
5 segments
Speaker 230
1 segment
Speaker 233
3 segments
Speaker 235
1 segment
Speaker 236
4 segments
Representative Steve Unger Unverified
9 segments
Speaker 254
3 segments
Speaker 255
5 segments
Speaker 257
1 segment