Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (48)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1508
Act 419
· 5 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/17/25 @ 6:15 PM) Added HB1508 House Committee on Judiciary Tuesday, March 18, 2025 10:00…”
|
TO RECODIFY TITLE 19 OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING PUBLIC FINANCE; AND TO AMEND LAWS … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1508 is now Act 419 |
|
HB1479
Act 418
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1479 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS; AND TO ALLOW A LICENSED ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR … | Warren | Notification that HB1479 is now Act 418 |
|
SB314
Act 661
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…AL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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 |
|
SB320
Act 518
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989.”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989. | Irvin | Notification that SB320 is now Act 518 |
|
SB375
Act 662
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
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 |
|
HB1148
Act 597
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS C…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT … | Vaught | Notification that HB1148 is now Act 597 |
|
HB1504
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O THE ARKANSAS CODE. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING,…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1611
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON. HB1611 Gonzales TO CREATE THE GAME FOWL FARM REGISTRATION AND PRES…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1615
Act 677
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1615 is now Act 677 |
|
HB1630
Act 599
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…um TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. HB1630 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAPITAL MURDER; AND TO…”
|
TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1630 is now Act 599 |
|
HB1662
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER. HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. 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. |
|
HB1664
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY. 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 … |
|
HB1668
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1668 Bentley TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE A CIVIL ACTION FOR SOCIAL … | Bentley | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 … |
|
HB1729
Act 679
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROV…”
|
TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A … | R. Burkes | Notification that HB1729 is now Act 679 |
|
HB1749
Act 680
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1749 is now Act 680 |
|
HB1754
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY … | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1763
Act 682
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL … | Underwood | Notification that HB1763 is now Act 682 |
|
HB1764
Act 831
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. | Underwood | Notification that HB1764 is now Act 831 |
|
HB1765
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1777
Act 683
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1777 is now Act 683 |
|
HB1778
Act 832
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD. HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1778 is now Act 832 |
|
HB1779
Act 833
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1779 is now Act 833 |
|
HB1780
Act 684
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE RESIDENCE. HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1780 is now Act 684 |
|
HB1033
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ELONY INVESTIGATION. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIOUS Richardson MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT. HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
|
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ON OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ON WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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. |
|
HB1433
Act 828
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION. HB1433 K. Moore TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION … | K. Moore | Notification that HB1433 is now Act 828 |
|
HB1473
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE Page 2 of 3 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. |
|
HB1511
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1511 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | Beaty Jr. | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1518
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…D THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SUBPOENA POWER. HB1518 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CREATING, DISTRIBUTING, P…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CREATING, DISTRIBUTING, POSSESSING, OR VIEWING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-GENERATED MATTER DEPICTING SEXUALLY … | S. Meeks | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1529
Act 827
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TTER DEPICTING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT INVOLVING A CHILD. HB1529 S. Meeks AN ACT CONCERNING DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL OF A SE…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1529 is now Act 827 |
|
HB1535
· 1 mention in agenda
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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IOLENCE OR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM. 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. |
|
HB1648
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP. HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1655
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FENSE OF UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL. 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. |
|
HB1676
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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. |
|
HB1752
Act 681
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION O…”
|
TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. | Maddox | Notification that HB1752 is now Act 681 |
|
SB302
Act 659
· 1 mention in chapter
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 |
|
SB313
Act 733
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES. 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 |
|
SB321
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES. 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. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
House Bill 1479 representative Warren, you're recognized to come to the end of the table to present Senate amendments 1 and 2 members, those are already at your desk. So referencing war, if you'll identify
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
0:30
yourself, you'll be recognized to run your amendments. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Les Warren, District 84. I have two amendments. The first one is just to add Senator Penzo as a sponsor, co-sponsor for the bill. Do you want me to present both
together or you need to go ahead and present. OK. And then, uh, amendment number 2 is just giving some clarity to what can be corrected by the licensed engineer surveyor. Um, in the process for Scribner's affidavit. Members, you've heard the explanation
of these two amendments in regard to Amendment number 1, what's the will of the committee. We have a motion to concur in Senate Amendment number 1. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing
no discussion, all in favor of concurring in Senate Amendment number 1, please say aye. And he opposed? I have it in regard you've heard an exclamation of the Senate Amendment number 2. What's the will of the committee? We have a motion to concur on Senate Amendment number 2. Any discussion on that motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. We have concurred. Congratulations. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, committee. Members are next motion to
consider will be House Bill 1508
Speaker 10
1:55
represented Shepherd, you're recognized to come to the end of the table and
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:07
present. The amendment to House Bill 1508. Thank you, Madam Chair, Matthew Shepherd, District 97 members, uh, you'll recall House Bill 1508 was the recodification of Title 19. That was the uh I believe it was 850 pages, uh,
long, but there were, uh, 2, there were a couple of typos or 3 typos, and that's what
this amendment does is correct those typos. Members, you've heard the explanation of the concurrence with what Representative Doby, I mean representing representing Shepherd didn't tell you is that he's wanting to delete the word mayo, M A Y O. Anyway, which might make for interesting reading somewhere down the line, but you have heard, you've heard the explanation he has put a motion on the table to concur in the
amendments. Is there a discussion of motion. Seeing no discussion, all in favor of adopting Amendment number 1 to House Bill 1508, please
say aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Congratulations, we have concurred.
Members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 320. I'll ask my vice
chair to take the chair and we'll be presenting there are, there's an amendment. Never mind, we're going to skip that because they haven't brought the amendment.
Speaker 17
5:00
Is Senator Irvin in the room? Not seeing Sarah Irvin represented Duke. Members, let's turn to
Senate Bill 314. This is Senator Ervin's bill. This
one has This has an impact assessment we're going to pass out. I don't see Representative Duke, but I'll.
I'll run the bill for Representative Duke just so we
Members, I hate to do this. I'm gonna put us in recess for just a few minutes so I can find the house sponsor on this bill, so we'll be in recess.
All right, we're gonna come back to order. I apologize for
the delays that time of year when people are off. Uh, running other bills representing Dukes over in education. I'm gonna hold off running hers, so that's going to take us now to. Uh, 320, they do not have the amendment, so I'm just going to have those engrossed and we'll do 320 as I've told you, that's the big recodification of the juvenile code, none of which are substantive, so we'll be running that on Thursday.
Gonzalez is here but has asked for a little time this morning before he run 1611. So, that brings us to. I believe Representing more. We have Senate Bill 375. Are you ready to run Senate Bill 375? Or do you want to wait? OK, we'll wait on that one.
Not a problem, I understand. OK. And representing Beatty's not here, so we can't run that one. So, with that, we're going to turn to House Bill 1668, representing Bentley, you're up.
Members, let's, we're going to get the amendment out. I think all
the members of the committee are aware, uh, That there is an 11 page amendment. Um, represented Bentley at my request last night. Sent this amendment out to members of the committee. I think everybody received it. But even with that, since it is lengthy, I'm gonna give us a few moments to really take a second, take a little time to look at
it. As they pass that out, um, Represent cloudy, you're looking. Did you not get it last night? You did, OK, OK, I'll entertain your question.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
11:56
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just wondering, I know that we have people who have been following this bill since the day it was filed. Is there any way to
make copies available for people to look at that are in the audience who have come here to testify. Uh
I have just a few copies. I mean, I, I, we do have some extra copies and I have visited with our parliament. Hang on just a minute, Representing Crawford, um, and I visited with our parliamentarian as to that inquiry because Representative Bentley had also made that offer last night and until the committee adopts it, then, then we can do that, but it's kind of getting the cart before the horse, so we have to do that first. It's my understanding from visiting with our parliament.
All right, members. We now have the amendment before us with that City Bentley. I'll, if you'll identify yourself for the record, and you will be recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. State
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
14:51
Representative Mary Bentley, District 54, and I, I do apologize at the late hour of the amendment and the length of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that this statute perfectly lines up with the Safe Act that we had passed previously 4 years ago. I wanted to make sure that nothing we did
counteracts the safe act that we passed. So, um, I'm not a lawyer. I had looked at the draft and thought it did, then when I sent it through, um, some of the law firms, ADF and the AG's office, we saw some things that needed to be changed, so that's the impetus of the Then we'll make sure that perfectly aligns with the safe act. There's also another we need to make sure, um, on the bottom we add the word knowingly in there because it's very important other word know only is there when it comes to social transition, you want to make sure that was added and the rest of the amendment pretty much deals with making sure we have the civil cause of action in place, the way that we need to,
and again, I'm not a lawyer, but the things that need to be changed in here and and basis of the civil cause of action, that's really what the basis of the amendment is. So, um, I think it's really important to have this amendment to make sure it's again does not count. the fact that we already passed to make sure the civil cause of action is set up the way that it needs to be, and the word knowingly is in there. Again, I apologize for the late hour. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to let me send this out to the committee last night for you guys to look at the amendment. Um, it is an important bill. It's a very bold bill, and it's, I believe it's gonna do some great things in our state, so that's why we'd like to pursue it and I'd like
the opportunity for us to have this amendment passed and hear the bill today. So with that, I'll let discussion be with the committee
or answer questions. Representative McCulloch, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Representative Bentley, every bit of this
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
16:23
amendment is just making it agree with that. There's nothing else in here that's substantial or changes anything else that was in the original bill, to my knowledge, there's nothing in it. It just lines up with the safe and again make
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
16:36
sure that these civil cause of action is in place the way it needs to be, and that's
As far as I'm aware of, that's what I went over with the lawyers that I talked with on this on last Friday when we started the amendment, making sure I get the things from the AG's office they wanted there and some other concerns
from folks, so. As far as I'm aware of, yes, that's exactly right. Members, any other questions, uh, Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
17:03
Madam Chair. Isn't the Safe Act still enjoined? Yes, it is. Representing Clowney,
Speaker 53
17:09
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
17:13
Representative Bentley, doesn't this change the statute of limitations from 15 years to 20 years. Yes,
Speaker 52
17:18
it does. So that's pretty substantive, wouldn't you agree? I would say
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
17:32
that uh It's substantive but needed. Members, any other questions? Representative Hudson, you recognized for a question. I've had several questions from uh psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians who have some significant concerns about
liability stemming from their treatment of Their patients. For example, if a child presents for treatment and their name is Samantha, and they go by Sam and their gender is not clear at the time that they begin treatment. What liability do the medical professionals have there or In a situation in which maybe parents are getting divorced and one parent agrees and the other parent doesn't. What liability
do they have there? And the reason that I'm asking this question is because there are several articles that talk about the increase in medical malpractice liability insurance costs as a result of the uncertainty stemming from bills like this one, and as I recall, Earlier in the session, um, via representative Eubank's bill, we tried to do things to make those medical malpractice costs get reduced. So explain to me why
Speaker 57
18:46
the policy of the state is now going to lean towards
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
18:51
increasing those costs for medical professionals. I don't, I don't agree that it will. I think this amendment adds the word knowingly to make sure that they're knowingly engaging in social transition, so it's, I don't agree with
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
19:05
that statement. OK, any other questions in regards to the amendment? Seeing no further questions on the amendment, what's the will of the committee? We have a motion to adopt the
We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion to adopt. Seeing no discussion, all in favor of adopting the amendment, please say aye. Any pose, say no. The eyes have it. The motion has been approved. Your amendment has now been adopted. You are now recognized to present the bill as amended. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, uh, colleagues,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
19:37
I appreciate the opportunity to present this bill today. Um, I think most of the, of you know me that I really care about the children in our, in our state, and I'm um
devastated but I see what's happening what I would call social experiments really destroying the lives of our our constituents and young people across the state. Um I know that a lot of the testaments you hear today is health care and things that you guys aren't as comfortable with as we are in public health committee. So I, I apologize for that and we will be as basic as we can, but um it's important that we get this thing uh judicially that we get this law passed, so, um, imagine if you will for me, if we had a cure for childhood cancer that was 90% effective, and healthcare
providers decided that they would no longer use that treatment that was 90% effective. Instead they would now use a treatment that was 0% effective. That would lead to numerous other healthcare treatments, including off-label use of medication with known detrimental side effects and surgically removing the healthy parts of children. We would never allow this. Unfortunately, that's exactly what's happened to the youth in our nation that suffer from gender confusion. Decades of research have consistently shown that children with gender confusion are clinically referred children with gender variant behavior
come to terms with their net with their born sex by adulthood. Minors who are socially transitioned, however, are more likely to persist in their cross gender feelings and at times seek medical interventions in the form of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries. These interventions carry known and anticipated risk including lifelong sterility, sexual dysfunction. Mood disorders and increased risk for cancer and heart disease. In short, social transition is not a neutral act, but an active
intervention that poses serious risk to the children and adolescents of Arkansas. Because of this new treatment, we now have seen,
hang on just a minute, whoever's leaning up against the lights, if you'll move to the other side. Thank you. All right, I'm sorry for
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
21:37
the interruption. Represent Bentley. No problem, Chairman. Thank you. In short, social transition is not a neutral act, but an active intervention that poses serious risks to the children and adolescents of Arkansas because of this new treatment we have seen an increase in trans identifying youth nationwide of
over 340% in the last 8 years. Let me repeat that. Because of this new treatment now being used with social transitioning, we have seen an increase in trans identifying youth nationwide of over 340% in the last 8 years. This bill, in short, will simply return to to the mental health treatment. These children suffering from gender confusion, used to receive a treatment that I remind you is 90% effective. I'm now at Rebecca Smith, a licensed therapist from Texas, share more about this bill and more in depth. Thank you. Ms. Smith, if you'll identify
Rebecca Smith
Unverified
22:25
yourself for the record, then you may state your testimony. Yes, ma'am. My name is Rebecca Smith. I am a licensed professional counselor and supervisor. I have a private practice counseling center in Montgomery County, and I serve the population for DDBI in drug court. We have the contract and we have about 200 participants in that program alone and we also see just other regular cases, um, I also have a nonprofit Love Hills Youth, where we serve foster youth that are in orphanages.
I work with high conflict divorce cases and custody modifications, um, as my specialty, I've supervised over 250 licensed professional counselors, associates and have over 20 universities represented at my practice. I've worked with over 1500 families, personally, and over 7000 families through my practice and I've been licensed for 20 years. Thank you so much committee members and Madam Chairperson, uh, chairwoman for allowing me this opportunity to speak today.
I stand before you with a deep concern for the well-being of our children and the preservation of family rights. One of the fundamental pillars of our society. The vulnerable youth Protection Act serves as a crucial safeguard against practices that alienate children from their families and disrupt healthy development. This legislation seeks to deter the harmful effects of gender affirming interventions by providing victims. With a path for recourse, ensuring they have the time and opportunity to seek justice. Once they recognize the self hatred that has been instilled
in them and are ready to reclaim their true identity. At the heart of this issue is the social transitioning of children. Changes to names, pronouns, and appearance appearances that are often implemented without parental consent. Social transitioning is not a neutral or benign act. It is a psychosocial intervention that alienates children from their families, fosters distrust and alienates them emotionally by encouraging secrecy and framing parents as unsupportive, schools, mental health professionals, and activists
drive a wedge between children and the very people who love them the most. Additionally, social transition sets children. a pathway towards medical transition. Research consistently shows that children who experience alienation from a parent or family suffer significant psychological distress, including an increased risk of depression, suicidal ideation, and confusion about their identity. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Child and Family Studies found that children subjected to parental
alienation report greater feelings of hopelessness, a key risk factor for suicidal thoughts. Similarly, the adverse childhood experiences study demonstrates that children exposed to family conflict, rejection, or abandonment are far more likely to experience suicidal behaviors in adolescence or adulthood. Parental alienation has been linked to severe emotional trauma, low self-esteem, chronic stress, and identity confusion. These experiences compound the psychological burden on
children, making them more vulnerable to self-harm and suicidal tendencies. The evidence is clear. Alienation harms children. Lansing and Lindsay in the queering of the American child highlight the significant role of trauma bonding in this process. Trauma bonding occurs when children are exposed to age inappropriate content related to sex, gender, and sexuality. Leading to deep psychological distress, and their search for affirmation, healing, and love, these children often find discomfort.
Excuse me, find comfort in the very individuals or systems that initially caused their distress. This manipulation encourages them to adopt unstable gender identities as a means of escaping the guilt or discomfort associated with so-called repressive social norms. Alienating behavior is often resembling cult-like tactics within gender ideology, pressure children to distance themselves from supportive family members, statements such as if your parents don't accept your identity, then I will be your mom now.
reinforce this isolation. However, no one can replace the genuine and unconditional love of a child's mother and father. Even in cases for foster care and adoption where children are separated from biological families. Similar trends emerge. Research from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network shows that children in foster care often experience feelings of rejection and hopelessness, elevating their risk of depression and suicidal ideation. The loss of family connection is devastating.
However, family cohesion is one of the strongest protective factors against youth suicide. Studies highlight that children who maintain strong connection. with their families, both parents and extended relatives have significantly lower rates of suicidal ideation. A stable family environment is essential to a child's mental health and well-being. Social transitioning encourages secrecy and fosters distrust between children and their parents. It creates unnecessary emotional divides by framing families as obstacles to a
child's self-acceptance rather than allies. This not only alienates children but also denies them the stabilizing force of family connection, which is vital for their mental health. The idea that social transition is simply a harmless name change or pronoun adjustment is false. It is a psychosocial intervention that sets children on a direct path towards medical transitioning further isolating them from their families and themselves. Research shows that children who do not receive gender affirming care to
socially transition are far more likely to resolve their gender dysphoria naturally and come to accept their biological sex as they mature. While 27 states have implemented laws to safeguard minors from medical interventions related to gender affirming care. No state has enacted legislation addressing the protection of minors from social transitioning, notably the term gender dysphoria replaced gender identity disorder in 2013 with the introduction of the DSM-5. This shift prevented medical and mental health professionals from
assessing gender identity assertions as potential symptoms of an underlying condition such as disordered. self perception. The financial motivations behind these interventions are undeniable. A former Planned Parenthood reproductive health assistant acknowledged trans identifying youth are cash cows. They remain patients indefinitely requiring ongoing follow-ups, blood work, and appointments. Planned Parenthood now distributes hormones to both young adults and minors at over
450 locations nationwide. According to the Stop the harm database, Transgender medical interventions on children generated at least $120 million in revenue between 2019 and 2023. The vulnerable Youth Protection Act addresses the growing trend trend of social transitioning, a practice that alienates children from their families, amplifies self-hate and exacerbates mental health risks. This legislation ensures that parents remain central to their child's lives
and recognizes the critical role of family bonds and a child's mental health and well-being and prevents harmful interventions that drive children further down a path of isolation and distress. By holding accountable those who enable or encourage social transitioning without parental consent. The Act protects children from unnecessary harm. It also reinforces the fundamental rights of parents to guide their children's development and make decisions in their best interest. Members of the committee, this
is not about politics. It is about protecting children, preserving families, and ensuring that every child grows up supported and loved, not alienated or confused. The research is overwhelming. Family connection is a critical component of a child's mental health and a proven protective factor against suicidal ideation, alienating behaviors, whether intentional or not, deprived children of this essential support by passing the vulnerable Youth Act Protection Act, you will send a clear
message that Arkansas will not stand by while families are torn apart and children are subjected to unnecessary emotional harm. Let us stand firm in our commitment to protect the most vul. able among us. Let us defend parental rights, safeguard our children, and prioritize family connection as the foundation of their mental health and well-being. Thank you. Members,
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
31:03
are there any questions? Representing Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
31:08
you, Madam Chair. I was prepared for, um, a
lot today. I was, I am baffled by what we just
heard, so I have some questions. Um, the framing that we just received was that allowing children to be trans, uh, well, they will be trans whether we allow it or not, but allowing them to manifest that they are trans, um, will alienate them from their families. Um, And that this bill is to protect against that alienation because that alienation is deadly. I know that there is currently this
fear that the rate of um people identifying as trans is is skyrocketing, and I guess I would just kind of start. By saying that I challenged that. I don't know if y'all have seen, there's a cool graph that shows the rates of left-handedness from 1900 to the year 2000, and over the over those 100 years, the rates of left-handedness grew from 3% to 12%. Obviously it's not because there is a an epidemic of left-handedness. It's because people were allowed to be left handed out, right, outwardly, so
I would argue that we, we have the data that in fact shows what is dangerous to children's health is is not this potential alienation that you're talking about, but that it's not receiving the health care that they need. So my question to you is, you keep talking about parental alienation. Um, and you talked a lot about parental consent and what you just said. Um, I'm not sure if you're
aware, but in Arkansas, for instance, um, I know, I don't think you're from here, but we do, it is required that That was just
this it it we said whoa, whoa, whoa,
whoa, hang on just a minute, representing Clowney. There are members out in our audience who probably never been to this committee before. I've never seen me share chair a committee before. I will tell you and only tell you once the members of this committee are well aware of that. I have no problem whatsoever having people removed from this committee room because it matters not whether you are in agreement with what the testimony is, whether it's for or against or whether you're in
agreement with a question that's being asked or anything like that. Any outburst will get you out of this committee room faster than anything. Very first day when we come into our committee. They've heard this speech. Every time I've chaired this committee, and this is my 4th term to chair that we, we treat everyone on this committee with respect. I expect my members to treat each other with respect. I expect my members to treat the people who are at the end of the table with respect, and I expect
the people at the end of the table to treat the members with respect. And if you have a problem with that rule, then I would suggest you go ahead and leave now because I will ask you to leave. And we are all most of us are all our Kansans in this room, and when we leave this room today, we're still going to be Arkansans, and we're going to treat each other with respect and I think that's well known that that's how we operate in this committee. So no further
outburst or I will start asking the officers to ask you to leave. I apologize for the interruption representing Clay, but I wanted to get that out first and so we're saying lowney, if you've gotten to your question, Uh, let's, let's restate the question and then
we'll allow the people at the end of the table to answer the question. So
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
34:42
under Arkansas law, um, School staff members, for instance, have to have parental consent in order to refer to students by names or pronouns other than on their birth
certificate. It appears to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I may be missing or it may have been in the amendment. Is there anything in the bill that addresses the parental consent piece. In other words, even if a if a parent consents, if a parent says, please call my child by this pronoun or this name, um, it appears to me that anybody who follows the wishes of that parent, um, united with their child, not alienated from but united with that that they would be subject to the civil liability you propose here. Is
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
35:23
that correct? That is correct. I think that we were just stating that social transitioning is excessively harmful to children, and we want to change that in our state. We want to make sure that our children are no longer exposed to that danger they're able to receive the treatment that we did in the past, I mean 10 years ago we never saw any of this, right? Things have drastically changed the way we treat children and and the end result is that we have that are suffering, I,
Rebecca Smith
Unverified
35:47
I'll let uh Rebecca share that as well. Um, yes, ma'am, I, I believe that um anyone would be liable
to a lawsuit. This would be if a child is suffering harm, um, in their adult years and they recognize the harm and and are able to identify whoever knowingly assisted them with transitioning, whether it was socially or medically. Follow it. You're
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
36:10
recognized The child, what about a third party? Would they be able to bring a suit as well under this bill if it became law? Yes,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
36:22
they can't. They say no known devastational harm to the child. Thank you.
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
36:28
Repin McCullough, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Ms. Smith, uh, May I ask you if you're, are you licensed in Texas and Arkansas? Uh no, ma'am, just Texas. OK, thank you. I also wanted to ask you, you mentioned, um, it's hard, I mean, It's hard to be a kid, I think in the best of circumstances. Growing up is difficult. Um, you mentioned, um, children suffering from low self-esteem, depression, self-harm, suicidal thoughts. Um, I'm just wondering
how you balance your viewpoint. With the viewpoint of how it feels to be a kid that is going through these things and That what might alienate them or basically parents who aren't supportive, a medical system who can't treat them and teachers who can't be there for them. And then a state that sets laws with no remedies. Don't you think that there's also that other side of this story. Um, no, ma'am, the research
Rebecca Smith
Unverified
37:31
shows that when children are able to have exploratory treatment, um, to really understand who they are and address the trauma. A lot of the children that are experiencing this have gone through substantial trauma, um, and so if, if we're allowed to do exploratory treatment, then we're going to be able to help them work through their discomfort and come through puberty, uh, and oftentimes about 90% of the time they're going to accept. their biological sex after puberty.
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
38:02
Follow up, please. You recognize. I don't, when, when you're talking about exploratory, can, can you explain exactly what you mean by
Rebecca Smith
Unverified
38:13
that, the exploratory things that are going on. Yes, ma'am. That's basically just helping children explore how they've come to the conclusion instead of just accepting their self diagnosis of transgender, they can come in and we can talk about why they believe this diagnosis to be true, um, and really understand their past, their family dynamics, their
interactions with their peers and other adults that are in their lives. So that they can gain the insight that they need in order to understand who they are and With the, with the uh outcome of. 90% plus of them are going to accept who they are, who they were born, uh, with their biological
Speaker 83
38:52
sex. One more, please, Rena, but But as children, they explore lots
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
38:57
of things. They explore career choices. They explore, you know, what they're interested in, what they like to
read, what they like to eat, vanilla or chocolate. And there's lots of things that they explore. Um, it seems like that we already have a process for kids to explore and we have had medical, um, we've got doctors and things to also help those kids explore what they're feeling and how they're thinking and everything, but it seems like that this Bill is going to have a real chilling effect on, on healthcare, on, uh, mental health care, uh, on all those other ways that we could do
Speaker 83
39:34
this. I mean, this just stops it in its tracks. It also doesn't allow that parent to go through this process with medical care. Can, can
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
39:41
y'all speak to that? I think it does just the opposite. I think it opens up our children to things they used to experience in the past again 10 years ago, our children received the mental health treatment they needed, and 90% of those kids after puberty were agreeing with the sex that they were born with, so I think we're opening up to the to the uh medical health treatment and the mental health treatment we used to get in the past. I just, um, I know we've, uh, it seems drastic to you, but to me, why
in the world are we going away from a treatment that's 90% effective. I'm just asking us to return to what we've done for decades to where kids were getting the mental health treatment. They needed with kids were set free from this, and at the end of the day, it's devastational for kids that go through uh medical treatment and get surgeries and all those things or cross sex hormones or any of those things are devastational. There's long lasting side effects and lifelong tragedy to these kids, and I just want them to be sure to get the mental health treatment they need, so 90% of them can be live a normal full life. Um, that's really what we're after. So I think
we're going to get mental health treatment with
kids of not receiving right now. Representing Moore,
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
40:41
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Representative Bentley, I Want to be stated on
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
40:47
the record that I agree with the intent of your bill. I don't think children should be doing any sort of social transitioning, but as a member of this committee, it's, it's very important to me that we pass good law, because we passed substantial matters and um it's open for discussion. So,
I've got a question regarding your defining of social transitioning. It says means any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor's biological sex. Moving on Including without limitation, changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name. And that's a very broad definition. My concern is if a parent takes their daughter to a barbershop and pays their $15 my barber
charges $15 and he gives that haircut per the child and the parent's wishes. And that haircut It's not quote unquote a girl's haircut. Um, this language seems to be holding him potentially liable for the next 20 years of his of his. Barber career. Um, could you explain that? Or could you answer that? Sure, I think you have to look at the amendment
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
42:01
that we added because it has to be they have to knowingly. Um, cause and be a part of
social transition that they're knowing again, they have to knowingly be a part of social training. Do you have anything
Rebecca Smith
Unverified
42:15
you want to add to that, Rebecca, so, um, also say, uh, knowingly is the key word here, um, but also if a child grows up and does not fall into that 80% of individuals that tend to desister detransition, then there's not going to be a lawsuit because they're going to be um aligned with their identity that they're maintaining. You're making for a follow up
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
42:40
regarding the 20 years of statute of limitations is, do we have any other laws in the book with the statute of limitations that it goes
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
42:45
that long. Um, this committee helped pass legislation out 2
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
42:49
years ago that went to 15 years. And so again, I'm open to amendments as we go through this bill, if we can make it tighter. I'm fine with that. I wanted to be her today, so um we can go through the committee process of things that we need to change to make it tighter for you. I'm happy to do that, not opposed at all, so bring some things that we want to make it to 15 years of the legislation that we have with the safe act and with the bill
that we passed two years ago. I'm happy to do that. But again, if we get the children the mental health care, they need 90% of them are going to be, uh, aligned with the sex that they were. with and there was not, there'll be no reason for a lawsuit, right? So again, we're wanting to give these kids better and so to me, we are, uh, and we're no one in there makes it safer as well. So I think those concerns are not legitimate at this point, but I'm happy to make it 15 years of the community feels better about that and I'm happy to address other amendments that the committee feels that's necessary as well. Reps C
Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
43:42
I had a couple of other questions, but I need to follow up on Representative Moore's question about social transitioning, um, we're in the bill does it say that if a child ultimately doesn't transition or de-transitions later in life that there's no cause of action, because I don't see that language. So if you could direct me to that language, that would be helpful. We just, I'm just looking at common sense that the
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
44:01
child goes back, the thing is they have to say that they've been hurt right if you look at the definition there. They said the greatly hurt if they're transition, if they stay with their normal gender,
there's been no hurt or harm that's been done, so
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
44:16
why would they, there'd be no lawsuit to file. Follow up. So, So that,
that would make sense, I suppose, but I'm looking at page 4. Um, where you go in to recovery. And this is essentially a strict liability standard. There is nothing in the language either in the original bill or the
amendment, um, that speaks to intent, um, or whether or not they ultimately transitioned, whether they detransitioned, whether there was actually any, any harm, whether they had any mental um issues, um whether they became suicidal, whether they were unhappy. None of that is in your recovery section. It just says that if you prevail, you can get statutory damages of not less than 10,000 punitive damages and an amount of not
less than 10 million, um, if a defendant gets irre irreversible sterilization or sexual dysfunction results, even without any sort of physical harm other than the actual outcome of the surgery, so where does it tell me in the bill that there has to be an actual. harm, um, other than somebody waking up one morning and saying I could use an extra 100, I think I'm going to sue the barber that gave me a haircut a few years ago. Well, I would say
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
45:41
Representative Hudson, there's not anything stopping anybody from filing a
lawsuit against anybody and try to get some harm, so it, it's gonna have to be proven in court just because you can file a lawsuit doesn't mean they're gonna get recovery, that they're gonna get prevail in the lawsuit. I can file a lawsuit against you for slander. It doesn't mean that I'm gonna get it, so I'm just trying to say. That it's gonna have to win in court. It's not going to win in court unless there's been a substantial harm to the person's body. They're not going to go to court and automatically get awarded those benefits, they're going to have to prove that there's been substantial harm to their body, and I would say that the medical surgery is devastating to a child's body, and they will never be able to be a parent, never be able to,
uh, uh, enjoy a normal sexual life, so I think there is irreparable harm that's been done, so if that, if they've gone to that point of having a medical transition, yes, but again, they're gonna have to prevail in courts. It's not automatically handed to you, um, and but it's been in court, even divorce court. That's certainly not the case.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
46:29
So and I, and I'm glad you mentioned slander. That's a great example. So in order for you to file a lawsuit and and certainly you can file a lawsuit for whatever you want. In order for you to prevail in a slander lawsuit, though, you have to be able to demonstrate that I knew that the statement that I made about you was false and I made it anyway. There is nothing in
here that has a similar standard of knowledge, um, or any sort of foresight that the thing that I am doing is causing any sort of damage or that it actually caused damage. Because the other part of a slander suit is that you have to prove not only that what I did was wrong, um, but what I said was wrong, but also that it caused you some sort of damage. Um, your opinion that, you know, whether or not the, the child's adult life has worth based on whether or not they can have children is, is certainly your opinion, but I think you'd agree
with me. Not everyone wants to have children or considers that part of a fulfilling life, nor does everyone necessarily want to, um, you know, engage in a, in a sex life as an adult. perhaps even in a sex life that, um, you or I might find, um, It's something that we wanted to engage in. So I, you know, I'm, I'm struggling with the fact that, that there is no, there is nothing other than the strict liability, but the other thing I wanted to ask you as part of that is the affirmative defenses section, um, which is also on
page 4 and and begins at line 16, only because, uh, you know, not only is are we using what is essentially a strict liability standard, um, for the cause of action, but for Bill that, that in the introduction, um, it was stated that this is not meant to be political. Um, I note that there's no affirmative defense for a medical professional who says that they were doing um a surgery or a treatment or whatever based on medical necessity, which is of course the standard that we use,
um, to determine whether or not a, a, a procedure is, is, is necessary or appropriate. Um, there's nothing that talks about medical necessity in the affirm. ative defenses, and then even further down, um, and the void dispenses section beginning at line 29, we say that somebody can't even rely upon statutes that are good law at the time that something took place. So we're saying that if, if something is repealed down the
line, um, that the person can't even rely on the statute that was good law at the time that the procedure or treatment was given. Because somehow they're supposed to have a crystal ball and know that that statute may may later be repealed in my mind, this is the same thing, um, as a situation where, say today somebody has an abortion that is not legal in the state of Arkansas right now, but then the law changes later, I would assume that you would still want them prosecuted under the law as
it is today, um, but using the uh precedent that you're going to set here, they could just say, well, it didn't matter because We've changed it since. So, you know, we, we've created strict liability. You've hamstrung affirmative defenses because doctors can't even use medical necessity, and then you, you hamstring even the ability to rely on good law at the time. So how does that get us to a place where this is not political, um, and it's something that is actually tenable for medical professionals to rely upon in
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
49:58
providing treatment to their patients. Representatives, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm gonna be able to tackle any lawyer questions that you brought before me today. Um, I would just say that the, if you'll listen to the stories of people that are detransitioning and been through this horrific surgeries, I think you could see what's happening now is really child abuse and medical malpractice to me. It's devastating these people's lives forever. They're forever patients, they are constantly having surgeries, they're constantly being infected because there's fecal matter getting into the surgery where it occurs. It's just a horrific
thing and to me it's just a horrible social experiment that's just devastating the of people. I think it was um 70% of the people in this nation agree that this is horrible and we we need to move away from this. Recent surveys have shown 70% of people across this nation believe this. What we're doing is horrible. We need to change course and get back to what we used to do, um, and take care of the patients the way that we did in the past to make sure they're 90% of them are treated the correct way and be able to resolve those issues. So I would just, uh, again, say that I think that 70% of the people in this nation agree with what we're trying to do today, and
we're, this is a bold statement, but I care enough about kids that
I'm willing to. put it for, so thank you. Representing
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
51:07
Shepherd, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, in Bentley, uh, I guess some of my questions relate to the possibility that there could be additional amendments you and I have talked about some of the concerns and I'm trying to read between the amendment and the bill and so some of these things may be addressed. Uh, one thing, um, with regard to Representative Hudson's question, I mean, the bill does refer to harm. That's over on page 3 that there has to be
liability for personal injuries or harm resulting from social transitioning or, or the other. Actions that might be taken. I guess I'd shared the concerns that represented more brought up on the social transitioning definition because that relates to it can include, uh, clothing. And um, I believe it was, let's see, clothing and hairstyle. And again it gives this is a strict liability, uh,
essentially strict liability if if harm can be shown. Um, and I guess I'm, I'm curious as to what those provisions on clothing and hairstyle, what that would relate to because I know representative Moore brought it up, and the thought, I mean clothing and hairstyle, neither of those are are permanent, uh, or generally not permanent. Um, so I guess I would have a concern related to that language. And then secondly, um, It provides for recovery by
parents, but is there any Does that, is that available in all circumstances. In other words, if a parent is actually Taking action to Um To assist then does that can they then turn around and file suit against others who they may have engaged to assist in that regard. I guess I have a question as to whether that there's any thought to that or what would, what would occur in
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
53:04
that circumstance. Thank you. And I appreciate your concerns of Representative Shepard, and I would say that I'm a judge would
certainly take that into into uh. Into consideration, correct? If they brought that forward and the, and the, the witness can say, well, I was doing exactly what you were doing, so I think that would kind of make it hard for them to push that case forward, but as far as hairstyles go, I could see hair styles, I'm happy again to work with you guys to make an amendment on this, but clothing, the concern is that we, I'm I'm not sure if you guys received all the emails from parents who've had, um, there are teachers that would have clothing set aside for students to come and to change clothes
and help them. So that's part of socially transitioning right to changing clothes. I haven't clothes there, and again, I would look at the amendment that we put in there to make sure it's knowingly so. Um, that we added in the amendment on page 2 to make sure they're knowingly causing so there's a difference between somebody casually doing it, somebody being a part of that child, coming to school and changing their identity when they get to school, so that's, that's the part that we're adding knowingly and I'm happy to work with you on making that definition tighter, um,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
54:01
for sure, so. just as a follow up, so it's my understanding that your intent with regard to clothing and, and
even the hairstyle is not that there would be liability for some salesperson at a department store who sold clothing, that's not what you're, that's not what you're attempting to uh. To address and I guess likewise if someone goes to a barbershop or a salon and The barber hairdresser what that they do what they're asked they, you know, give the hairstyle haircut that they're asked to give, you're saying that you don't intend for there to be any liability in that circumstance. That's correct.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
54:40
Repres Springer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning and welcome to Arkansas. Uh, counselor Smith, um, I guess I'm concerned about this bill and I'm, I reflect on comments from one of my mentors, Attorney Walker, who says that the solution is not always to enact a law to address a particular concern or a problem, so you know, I think about that.
So um my question is, and you're, you're here from Texas and this is Arkansas. So the data that you talked about earlier, is that based upon data in Texas or is that data that
Rebecca Smith
Unverified
55:24
you Gathered here in Arkansas. That's information, data that was nationally recognized, so you don't
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
55:29
have any specific statistics with respect to Arkansas. I'm sorry, fault with respect to Arkansas. No, ma'am, I don't. OK, so I, I guess that's my concern then, so you're talking about nationwide
and not any type of problems that that have been discovered specifically here in Arkansas that you're trying to address. Yes, ma'am. All
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
55:51
right, thank you. It's OK, I like to follow. On that in Spring, you know, the data showing that uh Children that receive good mental health treatment and are not socially transitioned that data doesn't matter what state you're in that's effective, so 90% of the kids will be, uh, Go back to the original gender they were born if they're given the correct mental health treatment that's been shown for decades nationwide, so it affects Arkansas just like it does every other state in the nation. Representative Clowney, you
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
56:14
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Representative Bentley, I appreciate your answers, Representative Shepherd's line of questioning, um, I think that's important and does need to be changed to match your intent, but I have a follow up on that same page. So I'm looking at page 3 line 27. A person shall not be held liable under the section for speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Can you just go into a little bit of detail about why you included
that, I guess where I'm going with this question is it seems like virtually all of the conduct that you are making, um, that you are addressing under this. is theoretically protected by the First Amendment. So can you just give me examples of things that would be protected by the First Amendment and things that wouldn't be, um,
Speaker 72
57:00
since that's in the bill. I'll, I'll give a shout
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
57:03
out Rebecca follow up, but I would say uh maybe another student in the classroom called the child by a different name. To me, you know, uh, I don't want minors. It's not trying to affect a minor another student in the classroom. So to me that's something that's protected by.
We all, um, kids call each other names, bullies call each other names all the time if you're giving some a derogatory name. So to me it's, you know, that's First Amendment speech and harmful, yes, and to hurt somebody with a word or even to give some, use some different names. So to me, I was trying to protect minors. That was my thoughts on that, uh, just calling another student name that be able to come back. years later or 15 years later and file a lawsuit of them calling a different names, so that that was one of my thoughts. Do you have anything Rebecca, you want
Rebecca Smith
Unverified
57:41
to share on that or I think just the main thing to really kind of keep at the forefront of our thoughts
here um with this bill is that it's to help children as they we know that about 80% of the kids are going to desist or detransition, um, as they get through puberty and so our idea is to be able to help kids that have been in this ideology. For several years that are now suffering from massive amounts of guilt and regret, um, and anything else psychologically that's going to be impacting them from functioning on a day to day basis, this bill would give them the recourse and the
the tools to be able to get their lives back on track and get the treatment that they need to also de-transition and desist. Unfortunately, the only thing that's taught that I have been able to find so far in the mental health field is gender-affirming care. There's nothing. in the textbooks that I've reviewed so far that goes in any other treatment modality other than gender affirming care, and we know that, um, well, there's there's no systemic or uh other studies that show that this is the best approach that these children are born in the wrong
bodies that we don't have those studies that prove that and so being able to offer other approaches to these children, so they're not suffering from the the long term effects, it, they would have to be able to prove that they have suffer the, the trauma from the gender-affirming care in order to be able to sue as they get older, but you recognize and I
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
59:09
appreciate that. I just, you know, we're looking at the language of the bill that's before us, and there is this distinction in the bill about conduct that violates the First Amendment versus not. So I don't
know if this is the appropriate time, but at some point I would love if we could hear from somebody, maybe from the AG's office just on the issue of the First Amendment, um, but if this isn't the right time, I just have one more other question. I
don't know when you'd like to do that. Go ahead and do. Question, I have one other
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
59:37
person in the queue after you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my, my, my final question to y'all, I keep hearing while I'm hearing 80% from you and then 90% from you, Representative Bentley, but can you all tell me where you're getting these stats about detransitioning and all of that, um, you keep saying 90% of
people that receive the correct medical care, you know, uh, can you just tell me a little bit about the basis of those
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
59:57
stats. There's multiple studies, and the one I'm looking at was 88%, so I rounded it off to 90. So I think there's just multiple says it's bath. I'm gonna say it's a huge amount. to me, 8 88%, I've looked at some at 88%, some at 90. It just depends on what report you look at, but they're a very high amount, OK, so it's well, well documented. It's a very high amount, about over 80% of the kids will, uh, desists as they call it and go, I mean, for persist in the in the gender that they were born with. So it depends on what study you're
looking at. I've looked at some that said some at 88, others at 80, but
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:00:27
it's a very high amount. So are those peer-reviewed medical journals that you're looking at? Yes. Do you have names?
I can, I can show it to you from here. Can you just read the names off you, you don't appear too often let
Speaker 83
1:00:39
in Bentley, but I don't usually have show and tell
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:00:42
things, so she'll just read them off and right, so it's a German and developed site 2008 volume, and I'll I'll be happy to give this to you, uh, Representative Clowney. Representing Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:00:52
you're recognized for a question. Uh, my question was actually the similar to Representative Klow so I wanted to see if we could get someone from the AG's office up to
address some of these constitutional questions. If you go to the end of the table, identify yourself. You'll be recognized Bentley, we make sure y'all's two microphones are turned off so we don't have
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:01:14
a feedback. Thank you. OK, if you'll identify yourself and then I think Representative Collins has a
Speaker 115
1:01:18
question. Great, Justin Brasher, senior assistant AG with the Arkansas AG's office. Thank you, committee.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:01:24
Mr. Representing Collins, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Brasher. Do you guys have any issue with the constitutionality of this bill. Uh, yes, we do. Uh,
Speaker 116
1:01:34
I want to be clear that while we're sympathetic to the cause here and actually agree with much of what has been said at the end of the table today. We have facial constitutional concerns with this bill, and ultimately we are not going to defend and can't defend a piece of legislation that we
believe to be facially constitutional and that we can't make a good argument in court for and uh we, the First Amendment concerns that have been expressed today by multiple members of this committee, Representative Moore, Representative Shepherd have expressed those as well. Uh, are part of the concerns that we have in our office, so we're incredibly sympathetic to this issue. We we're doing a lot right now on this issue. We're defending the SAFE Act in federal court right now in the
8th Circuit that was passed back in 21. We're also um we wanna, we had Title IX victory in federal court just yesterday, so we're doing a lot in this area. This is not an issue that we are turning a blind eye to by any stretch of the imagination, but if you go back uh one thing to think about is if people remember SB 71 from two years ago, which began as sort of the drag bill is what it was referred to, um, when we initially saw it, we had concerns about the
constitutionality of it similar to this, we felt we can't defend this with the straight face in federal court. We had meetings with the sponsors of that legislation. Tennessee passed a similar piece of legislation drag bill, and that is, I believe, where the Arkansas bill came from. Tennessee passed it without changing. Their bill was struck down in federal court, never went into effect, never saw the light of day. Our bill on the other hand, we made modifications so that we felt we could defend it in federal court, and it hasn't even been
challenged, so um that's kind of where our office. we want laws that are protecting kids into effect, we want to do it in a way that's going to comply with the Constitution and with
the oath that our office has. Thank you. Members, any other questions
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:03:47
for the AG's office? Representative Richardson, you recognize. Thank you, Madam Chair. So You, you express Concerns around constitutionality. Is there a particular element or is it just the bill as as a whole. Are we
talking about to clarify my question, sorry, are we talking about the elements associated with an individual's First Amendment right to express themselves with haircut or clothing or that kind of stuff, are we talking about their ability to Take these particular I mean what are we
Speaker 116
1:04:17
what are we talking about? Sure, thank you, Representative. The biggest concern is along the lines of what was expressed by Representatives Moore and Shepherd, which is the First Amendment free speech concerns,
particularly as it comes to the conduct that other individuals are allowed to have towards minors that can be deemed to be aiding in their social transitioning, things like a haircut, even clothing, or even the use of pronouns, right? Those are all, that's all speech and so our concern there is that the whe when you are uh criminalizing or in this case providing a civil cause of action for certain things that
certain forms of speech that has to pass a very, very high constitutional bar, and we have to be able to defend that in court, and we think of this bill as it currently
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:05:14
is, we can't do that. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the portions of the bill that deal with the castration sterilization, mutilization. I'm just having a reading stuff that's in the bill. Those portions have little or no concern. It's just the free
Speaker 116
1:05:28
speech portions, so I'll be honest, we have the, the 11 page amendment yesterday, so I
haven't had a chance to go through particularly with this unengrossed version and with a fine tooth comb, make sure that we are OK with the definitions as they currently sit. We had issues with the definition and the version. of the original bill and express those concerns. I haven't had an opportunity to make, to see if those concerns were completely addressed in the amended version of the bill. OK, thank you very much.
Members see any other questions? Shepherd, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:06:11
Uh, So I guess my question would be, in light of all this, would, would Representative Bentley be willing to pull it down and have some discussion with the AG's office and some of the members that have raised these concerns, I understand that there may be, um, you
know, other testimony needs to be 2 people who have signed up to speak against the
Speaker 128
1:06:28
bill and I have to step out to another commitment, but I guess that would be uh what I would ask and, and uh so that's,
Speaker 17
1:06:38
that's a question, I guess. Can I respond, Chairman, to that. So, um, and the, the, the bill referenced with the drag guitar from Tennessee. I was
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:06:44
a house sponsor of that, and so we did amend it to where you could defend it, so we're happy to go forward and bring amendments. I really want this bill to be heard today, folks here to testify on both sides, so we're happy to work with AG's office and other members here to do that, and I'm happy really to pull the, pull the bill down and make those amendments to have uh that are colleagues who feel good about it, but I would like those people that are here to be able to be heard. I don't think it's fair for us not to hear their
testimony here today, but, um, in response to Representative Shepherd, I'm happy to pull it and work with AG's offices like I did with the other bill that you guys approved and we'll get
to where we need it to be. So thank you. I'm just trying to think where that puts us procedurally because I can hold that. I'll hold that for now. Excuse me, I think we need to do that and then of course the committee uh always has the prerogative to object to it being pulled down, but, but I have, I, I see no one
else in the queue. Nobody's indicated that they have any other questions. Thank you, uh, for coming your, your excuse to, um. I have no one else in the queue for this part of, of the presentation, I do have 20 people signed up to speak against the bill. We have no one who has signed up to speak in favor of the bill. Now,
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:08:06
it's I just have a question of the chair. Certainly if it sounds
like the sponsors willing to make some changes and some may be somewhat significant to the bill. I, I don't know that everyone that has signed up to speak against the bill will still feel the same way after that they may, but I was just wondering
if I agree, and that was kind of my hesitation on exactly how to proceed at this point because we do have a number of people who have come to sign up. Um, and we want to be cognizant of of the time that folks have come, um, and that type of
thing, we're at 11:15. And anybody who's ever been in this committee or my committee members know, I typically let everybody who signed up speak and you get to speak. From here to the end of today, but we don't have to the end of the day. Um, what I would like to do is, um, because I don't want to cut anyone off, but at the same time, I'm gonna have to, I've got a number of bills we're running at the end of the session. We're not going to be
able to come back this afternoon after we get off the floor, we will not be coming back, um, but I don't want to inconvenience our cansans who have come and taken their day to be here, so. I, I'm going to take that into consideration, but here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to allow 15 minutes and we'll do 15 minutes at this point in time, uh, to hear people and we just start at the top of the first sheet. We don't take, we don't skip around or anything. I'm
going to take 15 minutes to hear those who have come and at the end of that 15 minutes, if we haven't gotten to you, then we will put you over to another day after Representative Bentley. ends her bill because it sounds like she's going to be amending. With that being said, if you're at the top of this 15 minutes. I encourage you not to take 15 minutes and not allow anybody else to talk. And if it appears, if it appears that Your testimony is going to be redundant.
You know, it's OK to say you don't want to talk. And I also want you to be aware of that this committee with the exception of 123. 34 individuals and 1 who's not here. This committee over the years has stayed pretty much the same, and we have heard. A lot of, of people's personal interest in this matter. I'm not
trying to shortchange it, but if you can, let's try to keep this down to about 3 minutes a person, that'll get people through, I don't want to, do you want to give me a motion representing McCu or what? I'm just trying to be
Speaker 83
1:11:02
fair question please, so when you say 3 minutes, is that to get through the list of 20 people. Well, we know we're not going to get
through all 20 and 3 with 3 minutes at a time, but to give as many people as possible possible on the list to talk. I just worry that there are some folks that came in
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:11:17
from further away that may have gotten here
later than others that are local, and it just seems unfair at the bottom of the list to to exclude them. I mean, I'm not trying to exclude them and you know, you know I
don't, yes ma'am, but I also know I have other bills and we need to move forward. Um, Let me ask this question. Because I, I do try to run this fair committee as I possibly can. If you came from out of town and you're not local in
Little Rock or the central Arkansas. I'm not talking about Conway or Cersei, but I'm talking about if you came a couple of hours away or an hour away or something like that and you're on this list. You know, If you will, Raise your hand. And we'll start with those first and then we'll start back up at the top of the list, OK? We'll do that just because I do try to get as many, but I'm going to limit you to 3 minutes.
So, I have a hand over here if you will stand up and identify yourself. So that we can mark you off our list. If you'll come to the end of the table and identify yourself and identify where you're from. If there are no objections from the committee, this is the way we're going to operate. Do I see any objections from the committee? Seeing then this is what we're going to do. If you'll go at the end of the table, press the button, identify yourself, tell us where you're from, and you will have 3 minutes to make your statement.
Evelyn Rio
Unverified
1:12:55
You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you to the members of this committee. Uh my name is Evelyn Rio Stafford. I'm a justice of the peace in Washington County. Um, I want to thank you all for the hard work you're doing during this legislative session. Um, I also happen to be the only trans elected official in the state of Arkansas. Um, And that is not why I ran for office. I ran for office to improve our county services and
our planning and zoning and our criminal justice system, but because of My identity and who I am, uh, I often hear from folks in our community, um, on the issue of my identity because they may have someone in their family who identifies the same way at public events, I often am approached by parents, um, sometimes they are accepting of
their kids who have come to identify as trans. Sometimes there's still Questioning things and have concerns, and what they often tell me is that seeing me in a position as an elected official and a successful business owner and someone who is trying to help our community, gives them hope that that the young person in their life, ah, can be a success, can live a normal life,
can serve their community one day, and often they come. Sometimes, you know, I get approached by parents who have their kids are in college, sometimes in high school, and they'll introduce me uh to their kid and say, Justice Stafford, uh, it's really great to meet you. I'd like to introduce you to my trans son John Doe, and I say, John Doe, it's great to meet you, ma'am.
I hope you're very proud. It seems like you're very proud of your son. Under this bill, that would put me under a civil cause of action for the next 20 years for having that interaction. For having that positive interaction with it with an accepting parent of 17-year-old. I've heard from hairdressers in our community who are concerned about this bill who are concerned that if a parent comes in with a 17-year-old and says,
um, you know, I'd like my child to get a boy's haircut or get a pixie cut or anything like that that the hairdresser, uh, needs to be worried for the next 15 or 20 years, uh, About potentially being sued maybe by the other parent who wasn't there at that time, who might be, who might have a different opinion. It might be two parents who are estranged from each other and you know, want to use this in a divorce proceeding or some some case
like that, so we've heard a lot of problems about this. This to me this bill creates compelled speech, which is something I thought that the majority of the legislature was trying to away from, you know, it opens the door to frivolous lawsuits, and it creates confusion, I think, among the public about what is protected by the First Amendment and what isn't, OK, I'm going to have to stop you right there,
Justice. My time is up. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here.
I have next someone who's indicated that they're from Washington County, Caitlin, Oxford. If you'll come to the table, identify yourself. And then
you'll be recognized to speak for 3 minutes. You recognized. Thank
Speaker 137
1:16:52
you very much. I'm Caitlin Tannehill, Oxford, and I'm from Elkins, Arkansas. I'm also the chair of the Washington County Democrats. I'm here today to speak against
HB 1668. The bill violates the rights of youth as described in the US Constitution. Amendments 9 and 14. These amendments guarantee citizenship to all born or naturalized US citizens, prohibiting states from depriving individuals of life, liberty. or property without due process and ensuring equal protection under the law. The Ninth Amendment guarantees the right to make important decisions about one's own health care or body. This bill is not bold, as we've heard in this committee meeting. It is very damaging to the youth.
Who are trans. It tells them they do not have control over their own bodies as guaranteed to them in the US Constitution. It is so broad. I've heard personally from hairdressers who are worried about being sued for giving haircuts. Also as written, this would give cause to sue a cashier at Walgreens, Walmart, etc. If they sold makeup to a minor. I also want to bring up the fact that this bill would technically make circumcisions illegal. So since my son is 15 and I made that decision for him at birth. Does that make me vulnerable to, to legal action.
If my son and I agree that he can get a piercing, that could also be defined as mutilation, and I could be held liable. My daughter does not dress girly. She loves jeans, not dresses. Would that hold me liable to legal action for allowing her to wear what she likes. By the way, my children are not trans. However, I have many friends and family who are, and I'm here today to support them. There have been gay and trans people as long as humans have been in existence. This is not a new thing. As a parent, I know my child better than anyone else, especially the government.
Speaker 53
1:18:42
I ask that this committee vote no on this bill. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate you being here.
Uh, uh, uh. Once again, no, you're fine. Um, I believe you raised your hand if you'll come to the end of the table. I see you back there. You'll be next after this person. If you'll identify yourself. And then you're recognized to For your testament. My name is Taylor McKinney. I'm
Taylor Mckinney
Unverified
1:19:12
from Fayetteville, Arkansas. I'm a member of the Northwest Arkansas Young Democrats, as well as the Young Democrats of Arkansas. This bill is bad. This bill defines social transitioning as including changes in clothing, hairstyle, pronouns and names, and it will open the door to civil action taken against those who contribute to the social transitioning of minors. Being able to choose a hairstyle, clothing style, pronouns, and preferred name sends minors the message that they have some control over what happens to their bodies, recognizing and respecting
bodily autonomy helps protect kids against sexual violence. Autonomy means that people can make their own decisions and have those decisions respected by others. When we respect kids' choices about hairstyle, clothing, names, and pronouns. We're telling them we respect their bodily autonomy and those kids then learned that this is the standard they should expect to be treated with. Research shows that children who recognize and respect their own bodily autonomy, which is something that they've been taught by the actions of the adults around them. These kids are less susceptible to sexual violence.
Adults who fear civil action for respecting a kid's preferred name, pronouns, hairstyle, or clothing choice like this bill proposes are severely limited to contribute to this protective factor against sexual assault, and in fact they're doing the opposite. This bill sends the message to minors that they're not entitled to bodily autonomy that they do not have control over what happens to their body, and this bill immobilizes adults who would otherwise be able to offer respect of bodily autonomy as a protective factor against sexual assault.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:20:47
Please vote no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I think our next person right back here in the back if you'll
come to the table. Oh, I'm sorry, you're on the camera,
yeah, you. You're fine, thank you. You'll identify yourself, you'll be recognized
Jordan Barnett
Unverified
1:21:10
to give your testimony. Good morning. My name is Jordan Barnett, and I oppose HB's 1668. I am a biomedicine major and a
psychology minor, and I am on track to hopefully attend med school one day. Um, I'm also a Dean's List student of Arkansas Tech University. So far all of my undergraduate research has focused on transgender individuals, specifically the mental health aspects. I had a lot to say and a lot of statistics, but my time is short, so I will point out the obvious. Permanent hormones in surgery are seldom given to minors. The primary concern of puberty blockers is the effects on bone density. These are offset with calcium and vitamin D supplements. The risks are made transparent
like it is for any medical procedure and any medical treatment. From the National Library of Medicine, 1% of people regret their gender affirming care. Compare this to tattoos, which 12% of people regret or knee replacements, which 20% of people regret or spinal surgery, which 21% of people regret. Gender from care falls below the general surgery regret rate, which is 14%. Gendering care drastically improves quality of life for transgender individuals. And while medical restrictions for minors do make sense, an outright ban is
obscene. Even if we prohibit transitioning, it will not stop it. It is incredibly easy to obtain the hormones used for medical transition just online. I urge you to allow these who are going to transition anyway to do so in a safe manner with access to professionals who can guide them in dosage, monitor hormone levels, and regular blood work to ensure that they are healthy rather than some sketchy website provide the materials. Medical and social transitioning does not alienate children from their families. Hatred and bigotry alienates children from their families. Hatred and bigotry and legislation like
this encourages. With these concerns, I oppose HB 1668. I hope you do the same. Thank you for
your time. Thank you for your testimony. I believe that uh got everyone who raised their hands, so we'll start at the top of the list. Simon. carpet or garlic. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry if I pronounce your name, if you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to speak. I I
Speaker 144
1:23:18
am hello, I am Simon Garbett and I
am an 18 year old trans man that lives here in
Speaker 146
1:23:25
Little Rock. I am not a social experiment like Mary Bentley referred to trans people as um HP 1668 disguises itself as a bill that protects vulnerable youth from social transition, castration, sterilization, and mutilization. The spill spreads blatant misinformation about the medical care that trans youth and adults receive. My transit did not alienate me from my family. It made me so much closer to them. I have socially transitioned, which included
changing my name, changing my clothes, and changing my pronouns. That is exactly how it is, it is, um, Sorry, that is exactly how it is defined in the bill. I've been on hormones for almost 4 years, and none of the care that I have received included me being castrated, me being sterilized, or me being mutilated, that is a complete lie. Trans kids are not given surgeries. They are not mutilated and they are not sterilized to call puberty blockers sterilizing and utilization for a trans kid to
use them, but not for another child who needs it to stop precocious puberty. It's very hypocritical to say that I should be held legally accountable. for simply supporting a child through social transition by your own definition in the bill is completely insane to call a child by the name that makes them most comfortable is not abuse. I work with children and I've worked with trans kids to ignore. To ignore what a child is telling you and dismissing their feelings is more harmful than calling them a different name. Look at all these people today
who have come out to tell you how much this bill will will hurt them. There is nobody here to go for this bill. We are all speaking against it. These people are scared. How can you not have compassion for others while being a representative of the people. How could you, how could you in good conscience pass a bill that has people so distraught that they came here today to plead with you to not vote yes. If you vote this, you are voting for an unconstitutional bill. You are hurting the people you are supposed to be helping. I beg you to do.
you know is right. Please have empathy for people that are different than you. We are not hurting you, so please stop
hurting us. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today. Next we have Joe. Arlene's Arlans.
Joe Estella
Unverified
1:25:56
Hi, my name is. Well, it kind of doesn't matter what my name is. I changed my name legally years ago, and still this state and the county and the place that I grew up deny my name, my legal name. Hang on, hang on just a minute, even though I was
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:26:13
give us your name, but, but for our record, we have to have a name. So if you'll give us a
Joe Estella
Unverified
1:26:19
name, please. My name is Joe Estella Arellanes. Sorry, it's hard to pronounce because it's written a little
differently. No one has ever been able to pronounce my name correctly. It took my high school 4 tries to spell my name correctly. So I tried to find a different one, an easier one. I was 16 when I started going by the name Joe and still today there are people who refuse to call me by my name. That is the alienation you are creating, hey, hey,
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:26:50
hey, hang on. you're talking to the committee, ma'am, let's direct our comments
there. I understand it's your first time to be here, but let's, let's direct the comments because right
Speaker 150
1:27:03
now it's the committee, so it is the committee's responsibility to Do the responsible thing to truly care for the vulnerable children that already exist in Arkansas who have already existed. We are already here, we are already queer. We've already been talking about this. We have already been stating that we are alive, we have been alive. You cannot change the fact that we live here amongst you already
Joe Estella
Unverified
1:27:28
for generation after generation. This body that this committee would define as female, as feminine, as a woman. This body cannot produce. a child. I have never wanted to be a mother. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the women in here that identify as a mother. It is a beautiful process, but it's something this body has never desired this brain and this mind and this person has never desired to be the thing that the government wants to define me as. That is the problem I have always found is fighting
Speaker 150
1:27:55
with society and the culture I was
raised in because I have always been
a constituent here. I have always only ever voted here. Hang on, hang on. Let's. And this we understand your passion, but we can't hear you when you're yelling
Speaker 150
1:28:11
into the microtantly ignores the outcry of the children. They're crying hypocrisy for laws just like this. So this is a warning that if you continue to construct laws like this, you will continue to alienate your children, and they will leave.
They will either leave because they will die due to laws like this, or you will force them out by opening the door and kicking them through. So please, with all of the compassion in your heart, grow a little bit more in empathy and see beyond the one book that you hold as ideal to this government. See beyond it into other ways of life, other ways of fulfillment that people find that they have been doing for generations. And constructing beautiful lives
and community and helping you in your laws, your, your time is up, it's just run. Thank you for your testimony. We're going to
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:29:16
take a few more. We have uh That's. Victoria thinerendra. So fender. If you'll identify
yourself, you'll recognize to speak. Remember we're speaking on the bill. Thank you. My name is Victoria
Victoria Fender
Unverified
1:29:34
Fender. I did prepare a statement today, but I know that um we're going to see some changes in this bill, so I want to come back and share that statement with you later, um, but committee members, I just want to share some research that we were able to do and reflect on here in the audience as all of this was happening, um, the research that was requested earlier, um, I want to just point out that that research was from 2008, um, which was produced on a
an old DSM, so it is not current research. There actually has been peer review, um, research produced on this that has criticized it and considered it not correct research, and I also just want to point out that the research sample size that they mentioned is also a home only 139 participants. And they're using that to refer to our entire state. Um, and actually the entire nation. So, um, and another thing, my job
actually is I work for an online university. I work in student affairs and I handle a lot of academic integrity and honesty issues. We have a lot of um clinical psychology programs. And one thing that I've learned through this job is that um the American Psychological Association APA, which is required for citation when you do your dissertation or when you do official research, it requires that that research has been produced within the last 5 years. Um, this research, the research they are citing is not within the last 5 years. It's
not pro it has been peer reviewed, but it is not peer reviewed in their favor, um, and I also just want to point out that the sponsors particularly claimed that the The goal of this is to Provide mental health care to trans kids that they need, that they allegedly were receiving prior to 10 years ago or these changes they're claiming, but if you read the bill, there is no information in this bill that has the goal of producing
financial means or the ability for these kids to actually access that care once they pass this bill. If that's truly what they are trying to do, then I would hope that the bill would Include language that actually accomplished accomplishes what their goal, their intended goal is. Um, so that's just what we were able to research from the audience today, um, I yield back that time, but I will be back
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:31:59
if this bill is. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today. Members, we're going to take up just a few more, um.
Marie O'Connell
Unverified
1:32:10
Reverend Marie O'Connell. O'Connell Thank you, Representatives. Uh, my name is Marie O'Connell, and I am a minister in the Presbyterian Church here in Arkansas, and it is my pleasure to be the founder of an organization, a community that is specifically for LGBTQ families. And so we have a number of families with trans
children, including my own. I have a trans teen, and I'm incredibly proud of them. My concerns with this bill are namely that it supposes parents are not supportive. And in point of fact, I work with a community and dozens of families for whom this bill will make their work as supportive families, harder. What we've discovered is that laws like the Given Name Act give parents the control and consent to be able to give our children the names and the pronouns that they
desire in schools, but this will have a chilling effect, encouraging teachers to not go with our parenting decisions and provide our children the space that they need in order to explore who they are. I don't deny that some children do begin to explore their gender and sexuality and Covington decisions in the future that may or may not align with who they were when they were younger, but creating those safe spaces, creating an atmosphere of either exploration
or experimentation is not only important, it's psychologically and Developmentally appropriate. Our teens need to be able to get ear piercings and change their hair and decide that they hate that. And then later to say I really like the way that I look. I'm also really concerned in the chilling effect, and I mean this as a pastor and as a Christian about how this bill works against good laws like the Good Samaritan law. The Good Samaritan law protects people
who knowingly seek to save the lives of others in moments of crisis. I have worked with youth in crisis and protecting them means using my First Amendment rights to affirm their name and their pronoun and who they are as a person. This chilling effect would tell people who would be good Samaritans, that they should be cautious about being liable in the future. My concern about the overbroadness of this bill in its entirety, is that there's no amendment that can be made that
will make it a good law. Point of fact, I think I have to tell you as a pastor, I don't think this is a Christian law. Christ stood alongside the oppressed, the poor, and those that society didn't like. Christ never stood on the side of the state and suggested that we make a law. If we want to be good people and create kindness if we want to do justice, love, kindness, and walk humbly with our God. I ask you to vote no or merely
present, but let us not see this bill
come to fruition. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony today. Members, we have time for one more and then we've got to move on and then we will um Put this bill back on when I put the bill back on the agenda, it'll be on special orders, so it'll make sure that everybody knows that it's going to be heard on a particular day, uh, Sara Everett. Sir, you're going to pass. All right, thank you, Ms. Everett. Ed Sargent.
Speaker 163
1:35:47
Right, that's a wrong bill. Sorry. Dolores win. This person Good morning. My name is Dolores Wilk, and I am an LGBTQIA advocate here in the state, um, I am the executive director for Central Arkansas Pride. I have experience in this community working with all types of
people. This bill is bad on many instances that were already brought up by this committee. Um, social transitioning. What does that mean? Hairstyles Jesus had long hair. Women can wear buzz cuts or be bald. Let's talk about gender roles. Are you gonna outlaw the girls from going to the rodeos and the guys' clothes. How about farming?
Speaker 139
1:36:48
Gender roles, Who, who do dictates whose that is. Have you
Speaker 163
1:36:54
seen the kids in high school lately? Teasing jeans. Who's gonna be the label police. Who? Who's going to go after the kids and say you can't wear that shirt. That's a guy's shirt. Oh, that's a female shirt. This bill is horribly written and should not be passed. I beg the committee to understand that on several aspects, the AG office
said they could not defend it today. We here as a community, I know most of these uh Arkansans here have came to Here today to be against this bill. We're here pleading with you. To not move this bill forward. Thank you. Thank
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:37:40
you, members, we are at the point
that we're going to have to cut off any further testimony. For today on this bill.
We were able to get a good number of folks through, but we still have a good number who have come, and I apologize for any inconvenience. I truly do because it was any other day we'd be coming back, but we don't have that option to come back this afternoon. Um, Bentley, I'm gonna recognize you at the end of the table. It's my understanding before we went to the testimony that it was your desire to pull this bill down? Is that still what
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:38:21
you're requesting this committee to do? Yes, Chairman, I would like to pull this bill down and work on some more of the definitions to make it clear, and I appreciate the committee's time today and your indulgence
with getting the amendment through a really do appreciate you today. Members, you've heard the request. Without You
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:38:37
have, uh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just given, given the interest in the bill and the fact that you're putting it on special order. Is there any way to ensure that any, any amendment, if it's going to be substantive, is is made available to us and to the
public before the night before. We're going to, yes, Representative
Bentley, uh, I, I don't think it was really an intentional matter, things just kind of got to rolling and what happened, so, uh, representative Bentley, the He's going to request that you have your amendments engrossed so that they'll be out there and not bring them to the committee. Now we don't typically just, you know, do that, but I think under this circumstance, let's do that if you've got amendments, let's get them filed so they'll be engrossed so people can see the
whole bill because I think that's one of the, the issues that we're having. I agree. I'm being able to read it and people to understand it, so before I'll put it on special order, I'll ask you to get your amendments engrossed. Now, obviously, if you have An amendment where a word was misspelled or something like that, we would take that up at the end of the table, but any other amendments, let's get them engrossed. I think that will help help considering all of that. member as you've heard the request of uh Representative Bentley to pull this bill down
without objection. We allow the bill to be pulled down and we appreciate the time that everyone has given to this bill, members of the of the audience, we will put this. On a special order so you'll know and um Representative Bentley and uh she has never, never lied to me before and won't lie to me again. I know when she says she'll get them engrossed, she'll get them engrossed, and we'll have a clean bill the next time, so with that, we're going to, we're going to try to move to another
bill or two representing Galaway had a bill, so it looks like he's not here representing Gonzalez, are you ready? Well, let's move to Representing Gonzalez's bill, House Bill 1611. This one has an and an OK, this bill has an amendment and an impact assessment statement on it. So let's get those passed out and representing Gonzalez go ahead and go on down to the table, the
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:40:48
room's clearing and we'll pass out these things and let the committee take a look at it.
Speaker 169
1:40:58
I wasn't aware I had an impact assessment statement, but Is that not something we have to request that we that
we just get those first time in the committee, sorry, well, there are two things we love in this committee. We love uh impact assessments and we love um uh it's from the Arkansas Senencing Commission and they review all of our bills and we
call them impact statements, and they are, they're from the Arkansas Sentencing Commission, and we get those in all our bills.
All right, Representing Galway, we now have before us the sentencing impact statement, and we have an amendment. Representative Gazaway, you're really
Speaker 169
1:42:05
good at presenting bills in this committee. You've done a lot of them if you're, if you're wanting to come down
Dolores Wilk
Unverified
1:42:13
here and help me. And you're, and you look so much alike. It's the hair, isn't it? Hey, hey, look, you
started with the Gazaway Gonzalez, you ought to be at my house by the time I get through two dogs and, you know, to finally get to a
child's name, um, sorry about that, but
hey, I don't know who would be most offended you or representing Gazaway, so we'll just leave it at that. Uh, representative Gonzalez, we have an amendment on House Bill 1611. Would you like to id ent ify yourself and explain your
Speaker 169
1:42:44
amendment. Representative Justin Gonzalezstrict 89, um. Committee this chicken bill has been through the sausage making process and we came out with something like a chicken McNugget, I think, that doesn't make everybody happy but
somewhat satisfying. That's what the amendment is. Members you've heard an explanation amendment. Is there any questions on the amendment seeing no questions representing Gonzalez, you're recognized for a motion. Motion to adopt members, we have a motion to adopt the amendment on House Bill 1611. Any discussion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? I have it. Your amendment has been adopted. You're now recognized to present House Bill 1611 as amended. Um Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you committee.
Speaker 169
1:43:31
Committee, I'll try to make this real simple. The uh Impact assessment still kind of says what this bill does, what it is, the intent was to Make sure that owning these game foul was not a felony offense that that uh It was legal to own them in the state of Arkansas without, uh, worrying about being convicted of a felony offense for for just owning them, uh, like I said, we've been through several different processes, uh, several different versions of this bill
and what we've ended up with is this amendment. This amended version that pretty much um just leaves in section 5 of the bill, um. And defines what it is, what, what the felony offense is for. Actually fighting these birds, not owning them, that it is not a felony offense to them. Members, are there any questions
representing college you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:44:30
Well, it looks like it also leads in
section 4. In Section 4 is when I did have a question about. That's the concern of the definition of animal fighting. Because it changes animal fighting to number one. Make it only organized fighting is restricted, not other fighting, and it also takes out roosters and other birds. And I guess makes that into the separate section 5. So
Help me understand why this is not going to uh allow some forms of
Speaker 169
1:45:16
cockfighting. So I, I think you said, you know, it, it, it's organized fighting. So if it is an organized cockfight, then it is still an illegal. felony offense to organize to have organized cockfighting. Um. You know, these roosters, they naturally fight if they get loose, I mean they have to be
tied up and separated to keep them from fighting. So what we didn't want is, you know, a couple of roosters getting loose in the yard and start to fight and then somebody, you know, out there trying to separate them, get, you know, have potentially getting
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:45:54
charged with a felony. Uh, follow up please. OK. Um, all right. Well, and that, that makes sense, um, as far as you know, accomplishing what you want, but um, If if roosters are fighting against each other, and it's
just natural animal behavior. I don't That doesn't sound to me like a person doing any animal fighting, but this would seem to allow a person to do animal fighting as in like putting them together in a way that's going to logically lead them to fighting, but it may not be an organized, you know, event where you invite people and all this. So it seems like it is going to allow Unorganized cockfighting, right?
No Well then, why do we have the word
organized being added in there in both the well because
Speaker 169
1:46:48
if you go down to section 5, it, it defines what a unlawful rooster fighting is, and it goes into the commits an offense of unlawful rooster fighting in the first degree if he or she knowingly organizes, promotes profits from rooster fighting. Follow up You're right.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:47:10
But all of these uh Words in here are they're, they go beyond. Cock firing. So I mean, Basically it's only cockfighting if it's organized, promoted, profited, uh, or there's money exchanged or someone pays to attend or they participate in watching, but just plain old cockfighting would be allowed under this, it is not allowed in current law, right?
Without those qualifications that there's payment, participation organization and all that, it allows some form of unorganized cockfighting. I just, I mean, that's just how it reads to me, but I, if you're telling me I'm wrong, tell me how I'm wrong,
but it does seem that way to me. I guess
Speaker 169
1:47:59
I don't understand your question of what uh plain old cockfight is versus an organized cockfight. I mean if they're, if there's chickens out in the yard fighting, then yes, they're they're out there fighting. I don't.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:48:13
Help me understand what you're, it's your language. I mean, help me understand that, I don't know, it's, you've, you've clearly put organized fighting in here is the qualification that makes it animal fighting, which is a felony. So why? put that in there and I'm not talking about when the animals fight amongst themselves because this is a human being's felony offense, so a human being. Putting animals together. You've you've put in organized for a reason as a qualification. What is the reason to put that in there?
Speaker 9
1:48:47
Madam Chair, if you don't mind, can I call Blake, would
you? Yeah, come on up. I, if I'm understanding the line of questioning, and I think I do. The line of questioning is currently we have a law that you, you can't have cockfights. OK. And the question is, by inserting the word organized. Did, are we changing the definition in the law that we currently
have. Isn't that correct Representative Collins,
Blake Pierce
Unverified
1:49:18
OK, now if you can identify yourself and speak to that question. Uh, my name is Blake Pierce. Oh, sorry, my name is Blake Pierce. I'm a game file breeder from Arkansas and Oklahoma as well. To answer your question, if two human beings are putting them together at all, that's classified as organized, and that's what he's meaning by that in the definition. Two birds get loose on the yard. That's unorganized, so anytime there's human intervention or, you know, making fire or whatever, that's the organized part.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:49:45
That makes sense. So you're saying that cockfighting would
still be illegal in terms of a human putting them together. 100%. That's a good intent, I guess, but I don't, it's not defined in here like that. And so it that that's what raised my concern is that it looked to me like you were allowing cockfighting because that definition of organizing isn't what I assumed. I assumed it would be some sort of tournament publicized and all that, but you're saying that that is organizing absolutely in other
Speaker 184
1:50:13
states that there's this type of definition, if two people are intervening with it and doing something
Blake Pierce
Unverified
1:50:19
intentionally, that's what they classify as organized. Is that defined anywhere
Speaker 169
1:50:23
in our statute? Not that I'm aware of. OK. In terms of call I apologize because that's what I understood organized to be, so that's, I think that's where the confusion was. I didn't understand your line of questioning, thank you. Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions. You were signed up to speak for it while you're down at the end of the table. Is there anything else you want to add other than answering that question? The
Blake Pierce
Unverified
1:50:50
main thing I just wanted to say because I'm the one who orchestrated this legislation. We have a farm in Arkansas. There's about 2000 farms in Arkansas. It's a huge, huge industry here. I know a lot of y'all may not be familiar with this, especially and, you know, urban areas. But the main thing we're trying to do, two things we're trying to do is separate the game fowl breeding and the chicken side of this from dog fighting. We don't want to be associated with that whatsoever. But the number 1 in tent of this bill, it's a felony right now with 1 to 6 years in prison per rooster you own in
the state of Arkansas. Based on if somebody thinks you have an intent to do something. If my farm's in Louisiana, I'm perfectly legal. I don't have to worry about this. My farm's in Mississippi. I'm perfectly legal. I don't have to worry about this. Tennessee, I'm perfectly legal. Missouri, I'm perfectly legal. I just don't want my farm in Arkansas to get raided. Based on somebody's intentions of my birds, not that I actually did anything with them, but intentions. And I don't believe we should be getting a felony per bird
because that's how this would be charged on you as a per bird basis. So that's the main purpose of our of our bill here and thank you guys.
Speaker 71
1:52:02
I'm sorry, representing Collins recognized for a question. I'm sorry.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:52:04
You may have to explain that to me again. Could you tell me the purpose of this bill again. I know you just said it, but I didn't understand what you were talking about there, and that's just me because he's a city boy, that's assume, assume that it's just on me, but so what are you doing here? What
are you, you're saying per urb per bird what per rooster. So what we do,
Blake Pierce
Unverified
1:52:25
we raise, sell and export these fowl over to sea. We're, we, we're going to about 20 different countries right now. And uh right now if a sheriff saw these birds and said they could possibly be using them for a bad purpose, not that they have any proof or anything along those lines. They can come and raid my farm. I want to talk about what happens when they raid a farm. When a farm gets raided, They will kill all the birds right on the spot.
Then they'll charge us for each rooster we have hens, we don't get charged on, but the roosters, we could be charged a man in Oklahoma. Got 59 felony counts because he had 59 roosters, and the way it works in Arkansas is the exact same way. We ran a bill to get that out in Oklahoma, we passed off the House floor, passed in the Senate committee. We're waiting for further action on that. But That's the main intention of this bill is to not get a felony for our legal operation. Follow up. You're right. So it's currently illegal to own
gamecocks. If somebody believes you have the intent to do something. With them. Not that you actually did anything illegal with them, but that you have the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:53:36
intent. I don't. I, it's hard for me to imagine that we have a criminal law that criminalizes intent without
action. I, I, I'm unaware of all that. I just know about this language, the current statute, follow up with one more. Every criminal
law in this state or any other
requires intent like a mental state and an action. I've never heard of a criminal law requiring only a mental state, some sort of thought police, so I, you gotta help me understand why you're, what you're fixing here is actually a intent only crime. Great question. So there are a
few other states where this happens, say that I export. I'm going to give an example
Blake Pierce
Unverified
1:54:15
here. Say that I export a dozen roosters and 24 hymns to the Philippines, which we do all the time. Say that they compete with those
foul over there, even though I sold them as brood fowl. And say that they won. This is, this actually happened in the state of Indiana. Police could come to my yard and say, hey, they showed that they got these birds from you, even though I sold them with full legal intention for them to be used as brood fowl. They can come in and rate us, even though we didn't have anything to do with that. Because they say all the birds there. They believe will have the intent to compete with them. It's a real case too. They came in, raided his farm, killed all
the chickens and eventually threw it out. And that's the main problem we have here too. I have bloodlines on my farm that my grandpa had 65 years ago. I have a family of chickens called the Cow and Roundheads. They're 110 years old. They came and raided my farm and killed them. There's, those are bloodlines. I can't get back. I can't just go get chickens off the streets. And make these Representative Tosh, do you have a
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:55:23
question? I do. I'm just curious. You said law enforcement come in with the
intent to raid your farm and kill your chickens. How many times do you know of here in the state of Arkansas that law enforcement actually raided a chicken farm or someplace thinking somebody had some type of intent to use these in uh for fighting or whatever. Do you know of any incidents where law enforcements ever just used that to come in and say, hey, we're here and we're going to shut you down and actually nothing was going on. you know of any of those rates in Arkansas, no. In other states with I wanted to know because
you, you alluded that Arkansas was doing that in law enforcement, and I don't know of any incidents where that's occurring, and so I was just wondering if you'd had experience with that, and if that actually happened to you
Blake Pierce
Unverified
1:56:11
since you stated that with with similar code in other states, it has happened. This is kind of preventive measures
for Arkansas. Members, any other questions? Representative Clowney,
was that a question? OK. Any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have someone who's signed up to speak against the bill.
Speaker 196
1:56:30
Desiree Binder, I'm sorry. I can sit down, OK. Ms. Bender, if you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you for letting me speak, chairwoman. Um, my name's Desiree Binder. I'm the state director for Animal Welness action previously, I was the state director for the Humane side of the United States. I have worked on behalf of
protecting animals in Arkansas. Since probably the late 90s. I was, uh, played a pivotal role in the drafting, the language of Act 33 of 2009. I also worked to help see that successful passage. Later, um, I helped train with a 1500 law enforcement officers through criminal justice Institute on the new law. I've also worked with law enforcement, prosecutors throughout the state on animal cruelty and animal fighting cases.
Speaker 198
1:57:34
There has not first, if there are so many game valve breeders in this state that are terrified
Speaker 196
1:57:40
of our loss. Where are they today? There's one person here and he's from Oklahoma. And has a farm in Oklahoma. There are have been no cases. And I think everybody here is aware that a judge doesn't just sign a warrant to go in and seize property based on a hint. We have, you have to have thorough investigation and
thorough evidence for probable cause to get a warrant. That's on everything, and that includes our animal fighting law. So it's not just a whim. someone calls up and said, Oh, I saw two roosters fighting in someone's yard, and they'll all of a sudden they're having their property taken. It doesn't, it doesn't work that way. I think we all know that. So the process is you gather the evidence. You serve the warrant. Then you see what you have there, and you go from there, and prosecutors make a case after that or they don't.
The intent of this bill right now, anybody that is breeding, selling, and training roosters for the purpose of animal fighting. is against state and federal law. When they send them overseas for the purpose of fighting. They're breaking in say commerce is a federal law that they're breaking and state. There is no need to change our animal fighting law. We had tons of stakeholders come to the come to the table in 2009 to pass
that law. There have been no issues with that law. They want to pass a law in Oklahoma. They want to use Arkansas. As an example, we got it passed in Arkansas. Let's passed in Oklahoma. Problem is in Oklahoma, it used to be illegal at one time. It's not been legal in Arkansas. It was part of our animal cruelty code prior to the passage of 2009. So, I hope everybody will see the vagueness, this is a cover for cockfighting operations. This is something that they can
say. We're a lawful operation and you see lawful in this bill over and over again, and I hope everybody, um, will oppose this bill and but no, it's the language is so terrible. Everything's terrible about this bill. The only thing that might be good is a is a registration through the Department of AC. But that cannot mean they're a lawful operation. The waffle if they don't break the law, just as everybody here.
You don't need to be defined as lawful human being because you're not breaking the law. It's as simple
as that. So I, I'd love to answer
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
2:00:23
anybody's questions. Representative Crawford, you recognized for a
question? Thank you Madam Chair. Um, thank you for your testimony. Excuse my voice. You just mentioned, um, That if they sold. Foul And they sent them to another country.
Then the farms here in Arkansas would be responsible. Because they had sent the chickens to the Philippines and the people in the Philippines are fighting then use them to fight if they There's a farm in
Speaker 196
2:00:57
Arkansas, and it's actually owned by the person that's on register with Secretary of State as being a client for a lobbyist for this bill. His name's John Slavin. There's a video I can send it to all of you where he is being
interviewed by Philippine people, and he talks about his game birds that they, they go hard and they slash deep. There is no mistaking what his birds are used for. Now, making the case of probable cause and evidence and going all the way through that. It takes a lot of work. Our law enforcement are underfunded and they're understaffed. We haven't had any coding cases here in Arkansas in many years. Last one was a federal case of Queen. Follow up.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
2:01:46
Uh, Do you not see the need. To protect our
Speaker 198
2:01:56
farmers. Yes, with the registration and the protection from disease, but
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
2:02:00
if they were. If they were accused even of doing something. My understanding is, is that this law would protect. Even if they were not being
nefarious, you know, but they were charged as being, I'm a little um skeptical of what happened after. We had a man murdered in Little Rock. Uh, in his home or having guns, so. I also would be skeptical. Uh birds of something happening with birds and you know you can. You can laugh, you can, you know, whatever, but if there's a
way to protect the people in Arkansas. I think we need to protect the people in
Speaker 196
2:02:58
Arkansas, but there's been no reason to show that people are having their birds taken, and they're not. The law says. If you breed, sell, and train for the purpose of animal fighting. These breeders that are selling to the Philippines? It's a full-time living. You can, I can send you another link this to ease the ball where
they televised live cockfights. And there's tons of online betting going on on these cockfights, and those birds are coming from Gainesvill Farms in the United States. Some states don't have a law about breeding, selling, and training them. We do. Represent Tosh, you have a question? Animal fighting has been against the
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
2:03:46
law in the state of Arkansas for as long as I can remember.
And I understand you must have been kind of uh instrumental in the uh new draft of the law that we passed in 2009. And my question then with that background is this, is there anything in this bill today? Oh, let me word it this way. Was there anything in the 2009 law that uh we, there's a loophole that this bill here would fix, uh, of something that we made a mistake with and didn't cover all of our bases in 2009. Is
there something here that would take care of something we missed in 2009, or is that law sufficient? That law is sufficient. And lots of times there are
Speaker 196
2:04:30
mistakes when we're drafting legislation and we find out about it 10 years later because of some case like you talked about. There is not that case in the state of Arkansas. There's just not. It would take, even though I know and I can say that there are farms in Arkansas that are breeding, selling, and training roosters for fighting. There's nothing I can do about it because
There's not any evidence there that currently Recommends a warrant or anything else. I Our judicial system doesn't go off just a whim. We have to have Investigations by law enforcement and probable cause and wants and hearings and judicial proceedings. So, Like I said, if we had 5 farmers here that raise show birds, testifying environment this bill because they had had
something happen to them and they felt the need for this bill. I'd be a little bit more understandable, but we don't. It, it hasn't happened. This What they call Oklahoma Gown Gamal Commission, which Mr. Pierce represents. They want to legalize cockfighting back in Oklahoma again. They had a meeting here in October across the street, and they even said, We're going to use Arkansas as an example. We can get it passed in Arkansas, then we'll go on to Oklahoma and they'll pass it
once Arkansas does. This is a bill for cockfighters to protect them from the law that we've had in place since 2009. They want cover, and that's what this law is about. They want to be lawful. They want everybody to call them a lawful operation. They are lawful. If they're not breeding, selling, and training animals for use in animal fighting. Simple as that. I see no further questions. Thank
you, Ms. Binder, for your testimony today. We have no one
else who has signed up to speak for or against representing Gonzalez. She recognized to go to the end of the table
Speaker 169
2:06:40
and close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee cockfighting is illegal in all 50 states. This will not change that. still illegal in Arkansas. These game file breeders just want a little assurance that That somebody doesn't come in and say, oh well, you're raising these birds with the intent to fight them, then therefore
confiscate their and and Representative Tosha, your point that it is not happened in Arkansas. It is not happening in Arkansas. They just want the reassreassurance that that does not happen in Arkansas and that if there If they are accused of fighting birds before conviction that their birds aren't taken from them and and eliminated, exterminated that those birds are taken care of and if they are not convicted, if they're not found guilty, those birds are are returned to them healthy. So that is, that is the intent
of this bill. It is not to legalize cockfighting. And with that, I'm closed and make a
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
2:07:41
motion to pass as amended, correct? as amended. Members, we have a motion to do pass as amended on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor,
please say aye. All opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Members, we have one more bill we're going to take up real quick because Gassway has
someone who's here today and can't be here. Again, there's an amendment on the bill representing Gassaway. This is Remind me your bill number. 3 1630 members House Bill 1630. You're recognized to present your amendment. So if you'll identify yourself and present your amendment. Oh, have we? Let's get it passed out first. I apologize.
All right, Repent Gasway, you're recognized to present your amendment to House Bill 1630.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:09:07
Thank you, Madam Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. This amendment is, is based on a bill that we heard the other day, and the comments made by Mr. Rosensweig. I believe he suggested these amendments, and while I'm not sure that this makes him, uh, In support of the bill, nevertheless, these were amendments that he had requested
and so this simply adds the NOA defenses of Delivery Then it also Ads those offenses to first degree murder and to manslaughter. In other words, if someone is involved in a drug deal. And someone dies in the course of that drug deal in addition to being a predicate offense for capital murder. It can also be a predicate offense for first degree murder and for manslaughter. And I may have misspoke about the uh
About the incoA defenses, but nevertheless, I'm I am positive that it adds to first degree murder and manslaughter. So with that, I'm happy to answer
any questions members, are there any questions on the amendment, seeing no questions. Representative Gassway, you're recognized for a motion. I'd move adoption of the amendment. Members, we have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any posts say no, the ice have it. You're now re it passes, you are now recognized to present your bill as amended.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:10:36
Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, as we discuss the other day. I don't know that there's a need to go into great detail about what the bill does other than It adds to the predicate offenses for what can constitute capital murder and now first degree murder and manslaughter, essentially being involved in a drug deal and someone being killed in the course of that drug deal that currently requires a felony drug deal, this would be any drug deal, and I think the big A point there is is that the underlying conduct is the same
whether you're dealing marijuana, whether you're illicit marijuana, whether you're dealing pills, whether you're dealing or whether you're dealing substances that are felonies such as methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, fentanyl. Regardless of what you're dealing, if you're involved in illicit illegal drug deal and someone dies, that can be a predicate offense for capital murder. It already and felony instances and so this just makes, makes it since that conduct to
All drugs and With Mr. Jones, I'm sure can add. Traditional context, Mr. Jones, if you'll identify yourself, you can. Thank you,
Speaker 211
2:11:47
Madam Chair and members of the committee. Um, I, I don't know what else we need to discuss as far as last week, but we, we, we just have a problem and in Pulaski County in particular with misdemeanor drug transactions that are that are no less violent than felony drug transactions, and this, this kind of closes that loophole and allows us to be able to charge and bring people to justice for killing someone in a in a
violent drug deal, and I'll be glad
to answer any questions. Representative McCulloch, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
2:12:17
Madam Chair. Do, do you guys have any statistics on whether this will likely affect, um, uh, more, More younger folks that may be doing this, especially I know a lot of our uh problems in Little Rock have been, you know, kids anywhere from 15 to 19. Um, I'm just wondering if this will affect them in more of a way
Speaker 211
2:12:40
than it will maybe older people. Uh, that's a good question. I don't know that I, we, we don't have any way right now to track. I mean, we have a new record keeping system we can track on the back end statistics, but we've only been on that system for a year, so I don't know that we would have any statistics to be able to tell you, but as you know, we, we do have a lot of young people that that have been involved. We had a really bad January. We had had a lot of, well, we had a few. juveniles who committed those offenses and some that actually killed other juvenile. So we, I would say that most of the
people that are that are involved in these crimes are tend to be younger, I would say in their twenties and, you know, even in their teens, but that's kind of true for a lot of our violent crime anyway. That, that particular group is is what's driving that. That's why we're doing a lot of intervention
Speaker 213
2:13:25
stuff and trying to get ahead of those problems in the
in the juvenile realm. members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, Mister Rosensweig, you've signed up to speak against the against the bill and the amendment that you offered.
Speaker 215
2:13:51
Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I appreciate them accepting my amendment. They did not accept the other portion of my amendment, which was to strike it out of the capital murder statute. The problem here is this felony murder or now misdemeanor murder, requires no intent to kill. Just the only intent is to be
involved in a in a drug deal, and I don't think when we're talking about a misdemeanor, I don't think this needs to be within the capital murder statutes. Now, Mr. Jones, uh, if I recall him correctly, and I hope I'm not misstating what he said that he wasn't going to seek the death penalty on this, but some other people might. And uh by making it a lesser first degree, that gives you up to life anyway. first degree is 10 to 40 or
life, so I, I, although it's better because it now recognizes lessers, it still has the problem that it's in the capital murder statute at all. Members, are there
any questions? Thank you, Mr. Rosensweig, as always for your testimony. Members, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for against the bill representing Galway, you recognized to close for your
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:15:13
bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Basically what the bill does and after having adopted Mr. Rosensweig's amendment is it
gives the prosecutor some options to charge as the case may be appropriate. There may be circumstances where capital murder would be appropriate. There may be circumstances where a first degree murder or manslaughter is appropriate. That's why we adopted Mr. Rosensweig's amendment with prosecutors have a wide degree of discretion, and I believe they'll use that appropriately and that's what the bill does. I think it's a good piece of legislation, and I'm closed for the bill and make a motion to pass. As amended as amended members,
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
2:15:52
we 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. And he post, say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. All right, members, before y'all bolt and run on me, here's our list. And this is certainly I'll send it out, Senate Bill 304, Senate Bill 314, Senate Bill 320, Senate Bill 342, House Bill
1615, House Bill 1662, House Bill 1148. House Bill 1752, House Bill 1749, House Bill 1729. That's a lot. But we're going to do our best. We've got to start powering through. So with that, thank you so much for your attention, your time and your questions today. With that, we are adjourned.
Agenda
HB1479 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS; AND TO ALLOW A LICENSED ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR NOTARY PUBLIC TO EXECUTE AND RECORD A SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVIT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1508 M. Shepherd TO RECODIFY TITLE 19 OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING PUBLIC FINANCE; AND TO AMEND LAWS RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACTS 2000, NO. 1; AND TO MAKE CONFORMING CHANGES TO THE ARKANSAS CODE.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR AN UNCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON.
HB1611 Gonzales TO CREATE THE GAME FOWL FARM REGISTRATION AND PRESERVATION ACT; TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING; TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.
HB1630 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAPITAL MURDER; AND TO INCLUDE A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER.
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
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.
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.
HB1668 Bentley TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE A CIVIL ACTION FOR SOCIAL TRANSITIONING AND CASTRATION, STERILIZATION, OR MUTILATION OF A MINOR.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989.
HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.
HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.
HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT.
HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL USE OF A COMMUNICATION DEVICE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE.
HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.
HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ENHANCEMENT BASED ON PRIOR ACTS.
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.
HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE BRIBING OR ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD.
HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON IN FEAR OF SEXUAL ACTS; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING.
HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE THEFT OF A POSTAL PACKAGE DELIVERED TO A PERSON'S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE RESIDENCE.
HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Mar 18, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
Speaker 10
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 17
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 52
Speaker 57
Rebecca Smith
Unverified
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 83
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Speaker 72
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 115
Speaker 116
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 128
Evelyn Rio
Unverified
Speaker 137
Taylor Mckinney
Unverified
Jordan Barnett
Unverified
Speaker 144
Speaker 146
Joe Estella
Unverified
Speaker 150
Victoria Fender
Unverified
Marie O'Connell
Unverified
Speaker 163
Speaker 139
Speaker 169
Dolores Wilk
Unverified
Speaker 9
Blake Pierce
Unverified
Speaker 184
Speaker 71
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 196
Speaker 198
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 211
Speaker 213
Speaker 214
Speaker 215